difference between research papers and review

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?

Researchers often have to write different types of articles, from review papers to review papers and more, each with its own purpose and structure. This makes it critical for students and researchers to understand the nuances of good writing and develop the skills required to write various kinds of academic text. With so many different types of academic writing to pursue – scholarly articles, commentaries, book reviews, case reports, clinical study reports – it is common for students and early career researchers to get confused. So in this article, we will explain what is a review paper and what is a research paper, while summarizing the similarities and difference between review papers and research papers.

Table of Contents

What is a Review Paper ?

A review paper offers an overview of previously published work and does not contain any new research findings. It evaluates and summarizes information or knowledge that is already available in various published formats like journals, books, or other publications, all of which is referred to as secondary literature. Well-written review papers play a crucial role in helping students and researchers understand existing knowledge in a specific field or a research topic they are interested in. By providing a comprehensive overview of previous studies, methodologies, findings, and trends, they help researchers identify gaps in a specific field of study opening up new avenues for future research.

What is a Research Paper ?

A research paper is based on original research and primary sources of data. Unlike review papers, researchers writing research papers need to report new findings derived from empirical research or experimentation. It requires the author to draw inferences or make assumptions based on experiments, surveys, interviews, or questionnaires employed to collect and analyze data. Research papers also typically follow the recommended IMRAD format, which includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Through research papers, authors address a specific research question or hypothesis with the aim of contributing novel insights to the field.

Similarities between research papers and review papers

Research papers and review papers share several similarities, which makes it understandable that it is this pair of academic documents that are often most confused.

• Research papers and review papers are written by scholars and intended for an academic audience; they’re written with the aim of contributing to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field and can be published in peer reviewed journals.
• Both research papers and review papers require a comprehensive understanding of all the latest, relevant literature on a specific topic. This means authors must conduct a thorough review of existing studies, theories, and methodologies in their own subject and related areas to inform their own research or analysis.
• Research papers and review papers both adhere to specific formatting and citation styles dictated by the target journal. This ensures consistency and allows readers to easily locate and reference the sources cited in the papers.

These similarities highlight the rigorous, scholarly nature of both research papers and review papers, which requires both research integrity and a commitment to further knowledge in a field. However, these two types of academic writing are more different than one would think.

Differences between research papers and review papers

Though often used interchangeably to refer to academic content, research papers and review papers are quite different. They have different purposes, specific structure and writing styles, and citation formats given that they aim to communicate different kinds of information. Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers:

• Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken by the author, who is required to contribute new knowledge to the research field.
• Structure: Research papers typically follow a structured format, including key sections like the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Meanwhile, review papers may have a more flexible structure, allowing authors to organize the content based on thematic or chronological approaches. However, they generally include an introduction, main body discussing various aspects of the topic, and a conclusion.
• Methodology: Research papers involve the collection of data, experimentation, or analysis of existing data to answer specific research questions. However, review papers do not involve original data collection; instead, they extensively analyze and summarize existing studies, often using systematic literature review methods.
• Citation style: Research papers rely on primary sources to support and justify their own findings, emphasizing recent and relevant research. Review papers incorporate a wide range of primary and secondary sources to present a comprehensive overview of the topic and support the evaluation and synthesis of existing literature.

In summary, it’s important to understand the key differences between research papers and review papers. By mastering the art of writing both research papers and review papers, students and researchers can make more meaningful contributions to their chosen disciplines. All the best!

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is Research Impact: Types and Tips for Academics

Research in Shorts: R Discovery’s New Feature Helps Academics Assess Relevant Papers in 2mins 

• Study resources
• Calendar - Graduate
• Calendar - Undergraduate
• Class schedules
• Class cancellations
• Course registration
• Important academic dates
• More academic resources
• Campus services
• IT services
• Job opportunities
• Safety & prevention
• Mental health support
• Student Service Centre (Birks)
• All campus services
• Calendar of events
• Latest news
• Media Relations
• Faculties, Schools & Colleges
• Arts and Science
• Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
• John Molson School of Business
• School of Graduate Studies
• All Schools, Colleges & Departments.
• Directories
• My Library account Renew books and more
• Book a study room or scanner Reserve a space for your group online
• Interlibrary loans (Colombo) Request books from external libraries
• Zotero (formerly RefWorks) Manage your citations and create bibliographies
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
• Contactless Book Pickup Request books, DVDs and more from our physical collection while the Library is closed
• WebPrint Upload documents to print on campus
• Course reserves Online course readings
• Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
• Sofia Discovery tool
• Databases by subject
• Course Reserves
• E-journals via Browzine
• E-journals via Sofia
• Article/chapter scan
• Intercampus delivery of bound periodicals/microforms
• Interlibrary loans
• Spectrum Research Repository
• Special Collections & Archives
• Additional resources & services
• Subject & course guides
• Borrowing & renewing
• Open Educational Resources Guide
• Instructional Services
• General guides for users
• Ask a librarian
• Research Skills Tutorial
• Quick Things for Digital Knowledge
• Critical Toolkit for Navigating Information
• Bibliometrics & research impact guide
• Concordia University Press
• Copyright guide
• Copyright guide for thesis preparation
• Digital scholarship
• Digital preservation
• Open Access
• ORCiD at Concordia
• Research data management guide
• Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
• Systematic Reviews
• Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
• Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
• Desktop computers, software & availability maps
• Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
• Printers, copiers & scanners
• Technology Sandbox
• Visualization Studio
• Webster Library
• Vanier Library
• Grey Nuns Reading Room
• Study spaces
• Floor plans
• Book a group study room/scanner
• Room booking for academic events
• Exhibitions
• Librarians & staff
• Work with us
• Memberships & collaborations
• Indigenous Student Librarian program
• Wikipedian in residence
• Researcher in residence
• Feedback & improvement
• Annual reports & fast facts
• Strategic Plan 2016/21
• Library Services Fund
• Giving to the Library
• Policies & Code of Conduct
• My Library account
• Book a study room or scanner
• Interlibrary loans (Colombo)
• Zotero (formerly RefWorks)
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
• Contactless Book Pickup
• Course reserves

Review vs. Research Articles

How can you tell if you are looking at a research paper, review paper or a systematic review  examples and article characteristics are provided below to help you figure it out., research papers.

A research article describes a study that was performed by the article’s author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment.

To determine if a paper is a research article, examine its wording. Research articles describe actions taken by the researcher(s) during the experimental process. Look for statements like “we tested,” “I measured,” or “we investigated.” Research articles also describe the outcomes of studies. Check for phrases like “the study found” or “the results indicate.” Next, look closely at the formatting of the article. Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.

Let's take a closer look at this research paper by Bacon et al. published in the International Journal of Hypertension :

Review Papers

Review articles do not describe original research conducted by the author(s). Instead, they give an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. The author searches for and selects studies on the subject and then tries to make sense of their findings. In particular, review articles look at whether the outcomes of the chosen studies are similar, and if they are not, attempt to explain the conflicting results. By interpreting the findings of previous studies, review articles are able to present the current knowledge and understanding of a specific topic.

Since review articles summarize the research on a particular topic, students should read them for background information before consulting detailed, technical research articles. Furthermore, review articles are a useful starting point for a research project because their reference lists can be used to find additional articles on the subject.

Let's take a closer look at this review paper by Bacon et al. published in Sports Medicine :

Systematic Review Papers

A systematic review is a type of review article that tries to limit the occurrence of bias. Traditional, non-systematic reviews can be biased because they do not include all of the available papers on the review’s topic; only certain studies are discussed by the author. No formal process is used to decide which articles to include in the review. Consequently, unpublished articles, older papers, works in foreign languages, manuscripts published in small journals, and studies that conflict with the author’s beliefs can be overlooked or excluded. Since traditional reviews do not have to explain the techniques used to select the studies, it can be difficult to determine if the author’s bias affected the review’s findings.

Systematic reviews were developed to address the problem of bias. Unlike traditional reviews, which cover a broad topic, systematic reviews focus on a single question, such as if a particular intervention successfully treats a medical condition. Systematic reviews then track down all of the available studies that address the question, choose some to include in the review, and critique them using predetermined criteria. The studies are found, selected, and evaluated using a formal, scientific methodology in order to minimize the effect of the author’s bias. The methodology is clearly explained in the systematic review so that readers can form opinions about the quality of the review.

Let's take a closer look this systematic review paper by Vigano et al. published in Lancet Oncology :

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These “limiters” can be useful when searching for research or review articles. PubMed has a limiter for article type, which is located on the left sidebar of the search results page. This limiter can filter the search results to show only review articles.

© Concordia University

Review Paper vs. Research Paper: Main Differences

Doing a paper is difficult, so learn the difference between a review paper vs. research paper, to determine which one is ideal for you.

A research paper and a review paper are two very specific types of papers. They have different motives, goals, and prerequisites. The elements found in research papers and review papers differ. The research paper is based on originality, therefore the paper takes into consideration the author’s original research, whereas the review paper is founded on an existing collection of knowledge. 

This article will walk you through the main differences between a review paper vs. research paper, allowing you to correctly determine which one is ideal for your work.

What is a review paper?

A review paper project tries to provide readers with an overview of an existing collection of knowledge by reviewing a book or an article and examining its content, structure, style, and statements. Reviews, such as peer reviews, can be used to examine and assess the work of other authors, rating the work by comparing it to the work of others. A review article is frequently written for a large readership, which is why it is usually brief. 

Review papers can be classified into three types:

• Narrative: a collection of and attempt to communicate all known information about a certain topic. It is based on research that has previously been completed and published. 
• Meta-analysis: a method of comparing and combining the findings of past research studies. It is done routinely to evaluate the efficacy of a particular initiative or method of treatment.
• Systematic: a search of all known scientific information on a topic to find a solution to a specific issue or problem. 

What is a research paper?

A research paper entails writing on research that has been performed by themselves, usually something new and done mostly from scratch since it has to be original research. It incorporates the research parameters, as well as the assessment, interpretation and important findings of the research. 

Writing a research paper involves several phases and different aspects, such as: selecting a topic, developing a hypothesis, conducting research, testing the hypothesis, drawing conclusions, and publishing a paper supporting or denying the hypothesis. 

Review paper vs. Research paper

Now that you have a basic understanding of both sorts of papers, it is time to compare and contrast the main differences between review paper vs. research paper.

These are the main differences, however, there may be others:

• A research paper is usually more detailed and thorough than a review paper.
• A research paper is usually peer-reviewed, but a review paper is not always.
• In general, a research paper is more formal than a review paper.
• A research paper’s tone is normally objective, but a review paper’s tone can be more subjective.
• A research paper is normally written in APA style, however, a review paper may be written in a different format.

Add visual impact to your posters with scientific illustrations and graphics

Using infographics and illustrations may assist to make dense information more accessible and understood, they can bring interest and engagement to a research study or presentation. Use Mind The Graph to turn your work into remarkable work.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

• Trending Categories

• Selected Reading
• UPSC IAS Exams Notes
• Developer's Best Practices
• Questions and Answers
• Effective Resume Writing
• HR Interview Questions
• Computer Glossary

Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

A research paper is written by students in which they have to conduct research on a given topic and then write the content. A review paper consists of reviews related to different articles that are already published. In this article, we will discuss the difference between a research paper and a review paper.

Research Paper

A research paper is an academic writing in which students have to collect information related to a given topic. They have to make an organized report regarding the subject which can include the research they have conducted or the research already done by other students. A peer review has to be conducted before publishing.

Steps to Write a Research Paper

Students have to follow the steps below to write a perfect research paper. These steps are discussed here.

The given assignment should be perfectly understood

Choose a topic, look for the sources of information.

• The thesis statement should be developed
• An outline of the research paper should be created

Write the first draft

Write the paragraphs properly, write the introduction, body text should be compelling, conclude the research paper, revise the research paper.

Before writing a research paper you have to understand the given assignment and then decide the specific tasks that you have to do to complete it. Here are the things that you need to do −

• Read the assignment and look for the topics that can create confusion
• Decide the length of the paper along with the options of formatting
• Make a bulleted list of all headings that you will add and then write about them
• Consider the deadline and decide the length of the research paper

Choose a topic about which you can get a large amount of content. The topic should be of your interest. You can do your own research or take help from research done by other people.

The next thing that you have to do is look for the sources from where you can get the information about the topic. Some of these sources can be discussions, books, journals, and websites. Look for the following −

• Heated debates
• Unique ideas
• Recent developments
• Overlooked but important topics

All these things will help you in devising questions related to your research topic.

Thesis statement should be developed

The next step is to develop a thesis statement which is an answer to the research question. Your answer should be supported by reasoning and pieces of evidence. The length of the thesis statement should be short and summarized.

Outline of the research paper should be created

Create an outline for the research which should include key topics, evidence, and arguments. They should be further divided into headings. This division will be helpful in writing the paper efficiently.

Write the first draft of the research paper with proper order and formatting. Your ideas should be clearly described and paragraphs should be ordered logically. You can start with the easiest or the most difficult topic. There can be situations where you have written a large amount of content for a topic. Rather than deleting it, take some part of it and paste it into another document which can be used later.

The paragraphs should be properly organized and it is better if you write each idea in a small and single paragraph. Each paragraph should not be more than three to four lines.

Now the time has come to write the introduction which should answer three questions related to your topics and these questions are what, why, and how.

This is the major part of your research paper and you may face difficulties in writing it. If you have created an outline, writing will be easy. The body text should be compelling so that the reader gets engaged in reading.

Write the conclusion of your research paper which should give a final touch to the content. Readers should understand the ways that you have used to write the paper. You can also include questions which your readers can try to answer.

Read the whole research paper and find if there is any spelling, grammatical, or factual mistakes. Check the structure of the paragraph and sentences. If there is a very long sentence, try to break it as it may become confusing for the readers.

Length of the Research Paper

The length of the research paper can be between 4,000 to 8,000 words. The minimum word count can be 2,000 and the maximum can go beyond 10,000 depending on the topic.

Review Papers

A review paper is an article which consists of surveys of the articles that are already published. No new experimental results are included in these articles. Other names of the review paper are literature review or review of literature. New conclusions can be drawn from the existing article. Review articles can explore new areas of research from the existing studies.

Steps to Write a Review Paper

Here are the steps that you have to follow to write a review paper.

Look for the aim of the article for which the review is to be written

Scope should be defined, look for the sources, choose title and keywords, topic should be introduced, critical discussion should be included, conclude the review paper.

Read the article and know about the aim and scope. All the articles do not accept reviews so you need to be very careful while choosing the article for which the review is to be written.

Find the research question and answer it with the aim of adding something new to the topic. The review should neither be too small nor too large. It should be managed easily.

You can look for the sources through search engines, books, and others. The search engines will provide a lot of sources which you can use to write the review.

Choose a proper title for your review article along with the keywords. The title will help to improve the number of views online. It will get more views if the correct readers view your article. The title should be concise, clear, and accurate and provide good information.

Write the introduction about the topic giving the reason for providing the review. The introduction should reach a large number of people which should also include non-specialists.

A critical discussion should also be included in the review paper. If the research topic is contradictory, a debate can also be included which should consist of arguments from both sides. The review paper should have the ability of resolving the conflict between contradictory studies.

A conclusion should be included at the end of the review paper. This should include the things that you have understood after studying the topic for which the review has been written.

Difference between Research paper and Review Paper

There are many differences between a research paper and a review paper and the table below includes them −

• Related Articles
• Difference between Descriptive Research and Experimental Research
• Differences between E-paper and LCD
• Difference Between Correlational and Experimental Research
• Difference between Case Study and Action Research
• Make a list of various uses of papers. Observe currency notes carefully. Do you find any difference between currency paper and the paper in your notebook? Find out where currency paper is made.
• What do you mean by Blue litmus paper and Red litmus paper?
• Recycling of Paper
• Paper Chromatography - Principle, Procedure, and Applications
• If we tear the paper and then recycle it, it turns into paper again. So, is the tearing of paper a reversible change?
• Difference between Research Papers and Technical Articles for Journal Publication
• Which of the following will produce the maximum friction?(a) rubbing of sand paper on glazed paper(b) rubbing of sand paper on glass table top(c) rubbing of sand paper on aluminium frame(d) rubbing of sand paper on sand paper
• What is Litmus Paper?
• What is filter paper?
• The Value of Paper
• Rock Paper and Scissor Game Using Tkinter

Kickstart Your Career

Get certified by completing the course

Differences Between Review Paper and Research Paper

A research paper includes original work while a review paper includes the summary of existing work which explains or solves a specific problem. 

An integral part of a PhD dissertation or thesis is writing a research and review article, besides writing a thesis, proposal and synopsis. In addition, one also has to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal which is indeed a tougher task, right!

Writing is an indispensable part of the doctorate degree and has significant value in honoring the same degree. A student when becoming a PhD candidate has to write a thesis statement, research proposal, synopsis of the doctorate, thesis, research article and review article, in chronological order.

If one fails to do so, they can’t get a degree. And that’s why writing is important. Nonetheless, students face problems while writing either research or review articles. 

Supportive evidence suggests that students actually don’t know the basic and major differences between either so fail to publish both article types. 

In the present piece of content, I will explain the importance of a review and research article as well as the differences between both. I am hoping that this article will add value to your knowledge and help you in your PhD. 

Stay tuned. 

What is a Review Paper? 

What is a research paper, review vs research paper: differences, research article vs review article- similarities:, wrapping up: .

A review chapter or review articles add value to the thesis as well as existing knowledge. Universities are usually recommended to write and publish it. From students’ perspectives, review writing frightens them. 

However, from a supervisors’ perspective, it should be precise, concise and nearly perfect. 

Review writing is a tedious, frustrating and time-consuming process that needs special attention. The reason why it should be nearly perfect is that it supports researchers’ original work. 

Technically, the review article comprises a summary of the existing research in a structured manner. Normally, it addresses the original research work and solves the existing problem by literature. 

However, it can’t solve any existing problem, it doesn’t need wet-lab experimentation. It only shows the existing state of understanding of a topic. Notedly, an expert of the subject, experienced person, professor and professional scientist can usually write a review. 

A research paper/article contributes original research or work of a researcher on the present topic, usually includes web lab work. Much like the review, a research article should be published in a peer-reviewed journal too. 

Research article writing takes too much time as it includes research work additionally. Comprehensive writing is required to explain the materials & methods section and results & outcomes while the elaborative explanation is sufficient to introduce a topic. 

Structurally a typical research article or paper has an introduction or background, Materials & Methods, Results & discussion and conclusion. 

Depending upon the requirement of the journal and the depth or concentration of the research, the length of the article may vary, however, ordinarily is between 2 to 8 pages. 

Much like the review article, an abstract and a list of references must be included in the article. 

In summary, the research paper provides new knowledge in the relevant field and solves an existing problem by it. 

Now quickly move to the important part of this article, what are the differences between the review and research paper? 

A review article is certainly a comprehensive, in-depth and extensively well-written piece of information covering summaries of already present knowledge. While the research article constitutes an elaborative introduction of the topic and an in-depth explanation of how the research was conducted. It contributes new knowledge.

A review is written based on the already existing information and so considered as a secondary source of information, while the research paper has original research work supported by already existing sources. 

In terms of length, a review article has an in-depth explanation and so are longer, normally, 10 to 20 pages whilst the research article has an elaborative explanation and to the point information on the problem, usually ranging from 2 to 8 pages.

The review article addresses the problem whilst the research article solves the problem, certainly. 

The conclusion of the review article supports the already present findings while the result of the research article is supported by the existing research work. 

The purpose of writing a research paper is to critically analyze already existing or previous work in the form of short summaries. And restricted to a specific topic. 

On the other side, the research article includes the author’s own work in detail

Structurally, the review article has a single heading or sometimes a conclusion at the end of the article whilst the research article has sections like an introduction to the topic, materials & methods, results, discussion and final interpretation. 

Steps in review article writing are,

• Topic finding 
• Searching relevant sources
• Summarising each source 
• Correlating them with the topic or problem
• Concluding the research.

Steps in research article writing are,

• Choosing a problem or gap in present findings
• Sample collection, experimentation and wet lab work
• Finding, collecting and organizing the data
• Correlating it with the present knowledge
• Stating results 
• Final interpretation.

Normally, a subject expert or experienced person can write a review article while any student, or person having the original research work can write a research article.

The review article defines or clarifies a problem, explains it by compiling previous investigations and suggests problem-solving strategies or options. On the other hand, the research article has an original problem-solving statement supported by various chapters and previous research. 

So the review article suggests possible outcomes to fill the knowledge gap while the research article provides evidence and new knowledge on how to fill the gap. 

Summary: 

Either document has been written for a different purpose which solves almost the same objective. Fortunately, there are several similarities in writing a research or review article. Hera re some,

Both have in-text citations, a references page, an abstract and contributors. Both also need a final conclusion too in order to address or solve a problem. 

Research or review articles can be submitted or published in peer-reviewed journals. 

Both require educational, professional, informal and research writing skills. 

Importantly, both articles must be plagiarism-free, copying isn’t recommended. 

Every PhD student must have written at least a single review and research article during their research or doctoral tenure to get an award. Achieving a successful publication needs critical writing skills and original research or findings. 

The major difference between either is that the review article has summed information that directs one towards solving a problem and so does not include original work. 

Whilst the research article actually proposes a way to solve a problem and so has original work.  

Dr. Tushar Chauhan is a Scientist, Blogger and Scientific-writer. He has completed PhD in Genetics. Dr. Chauhan is a PhD coach and tutor.

Share this:

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via Email

About The Author

Dr Tushar Chauhan

Related posts.

Difference between M.D vs PhD

Doctorate vs PhD- differences and similarities

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What is the difference between a review paper and a research paper?

I have been working on a review paper. After publication, how will it add on my academic research profile? When I will apply for MS or PHD admission, will it count as publication?

• publications
• review-articles

5 Answers 5

A review paper is likely also known as a "survey paper", where you read (i.e. survey) related works in the field and then comment on them. Usually, a review paper should be able to contribute a small amount of knowledge in its own right to the field by providing a taxonomy of work.

Another type of paper that reviews extensively related work but isn't actually a review paper is a "systematic review paper" in which you usually ask a meta-question about the field.

If it appears in a refereed, peer-reviewed journal, then yes, it is a publication. In fact, if done well, these works can often have pretty high impact and can be cited very frequently. However, as already noted, since they don't usually involve substantial original research they need to be augmented with traditional research papers. If a graduate student has only survey papers or systematic review papers, I'd wonder as a search committee reviewer if this student did nothing but read related work rather than working on research.

With respect to MS or PhD applications, I'd think that the fact that you have a publication at all is already a bonus point for you. Most students who apply to these programs don't have publications.

One important distinction should be made between papers in the humanities and the sciences. In the sciences, it would be much more important to have "original research" papers where new ground is broken. In the humanities, by contrast, the act of studying the existing literature and critically evaluating it may, in and of itself, be considered an act of research. (Similarly, in medicine, "meta-studies" in which the reports of various experiments are synthesized to produce overall results and recommendations may also be considered very important, although they augment direct clinical research, rather than substitute for it.)

I have limited experience regarding since I am still a graduate student but from what I understand, a review paper is also a research paper. However, unlike a piece of research, where you study the existing literature, develop research questions and hypotheses, collect data, run experiments/analysis and make inferences which accept or reject your hypotheses, a review article is a summarization and collation of existing articles in a given, specific research topic.

There has been some semi-formal writings on this already namely, this and this . The consensus, so far, seems to be that review articles make fine additions to your publication record but not as fine as articles where you actually did your own research.

I have little experience, because I am still an undergraduate student but from what I understand:

• Research paper: A paper in which results and discussion are derived from an experiment.
• Review paper: A paper in which results and discussion are not described.

• 4 Welcome to Academia SE. I have to disagree with your definitions. A research paper does not need to be based on an experiment (e.g., many mathematical papers). Also, a paper which does not describe (or derive) its results and discussions is just a very bad paper – this has nothing to do with the paper being a research or review paper. –  Wrzlprmft ♦ Commented Nov 26, 2014 at 15:19

I would describe a review paper as different from a research paper. A research paper is one's original work that may be researched scientifically or otherwise, but a review paper is where someone goes through work already done/researched and gives suggestions as per that field of research. The suggestions would be if the objective, goal, problem were met by the researcher. Whether the research is of value now or in future, solutions to the problem, what is interesting, etc.

• Welcome to Academia SE. You seem to be confusing a review paper with a peer review. The downvotes you are receiving are likely due to this, i.e., to indicate that your answer is wrong. Do not take them personally. –  Wrzlprmft ♦ Commented Oct 21, 2015 at 11:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications review-articles ..

• Featured on Meta
• Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...

Hot Network Questions

• Custom PCB with Esp32-S3 isn't recognised by Device Manager for every board ordered
• History of the migration of ERA from AMS to AIMS in 2007
• What’s the name of this horror movie where a girl dies and comes back to life evil?
• Longtable goes beyond the right margin and footnote does not fit under the table
• Why would the absence of Chalmers' 'consciousness' make p-zombie world 'inconceivable'?
• Convert base-10 to base-0.1
• Is "my death" a/the telos of human life?
• Сhanging borders of shared polygon shapefile features in QGIS
• Stuck as a solo dev
• Function with memories of its past life
• What would be an appropriate translation of Solitude?
• The consequence of a good letter of recommendation when things do not work out
• Doesn't nonlocality follow from nonrealism in the EPR thought experiment and Bell tests?
• Could Prop be the top universe?
• Is it safe to use the dnd 3.5 skill system in pathfinder 1e?
• How should I email HR after an unpleasant / annoying interview?
• Negating a multiply quantified statement
• Whom did Jesus' followers accompany -- a soldier or a layman?
• Is it true that before European modernity, there were no "nations"?
• Offset+Length vs 2 Offsets
• mmrm R package : No optimizer led to a successful model fit
• Is it a correct rendering of Acts 1,24 when the New World Translation puts in „Jehovah“ instead of Lord?
• How can I switch from MAG to TRU heading in a 737?
• security concerns of executing mariadb-dump with password over ssh

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Literature Review vs Research Paper: What’s the Difference?

by  Antony W

June 26, 2024

This is a complete student’s guide to understanding literature review vs research paper.

We’ll teach you what they’re, explain why they’re important, state the difference between the two, and link you to our comprehensive guide on how to write them.

Literature Review Writing Help

Writing a literature review for a thesis, a research paper, or as a standalone assignment takes time. Much of your time will go into research, not to mention you have other assignments to complete. 

If you find writing in college or university overwhelming, get in touch with our literature review writers for hire at 25% discounts and enjoy the flexibility and convenience that comes with professional writing help. We’ll help you do everything, from research and outlining to custom writing and proofreading.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review document is a secondary source of information that provides an overview of existing knowledge, which you can use to identify gaps or flaws in existing research. In literature review writing, students have to find and read existing publications such as journal articles, analyze the information, and then state their findings.

Credit: Pubrica

You’ll write a literature review to demonstrate your understanding on the topic, show gaps in existing research, and develop an effective methodology and a theoretical framework for your research project.

Your instructor may ask you to write a literature review as a standalone assignment. Even if that’s the case, the rules for writing a review paper don’t change.

In other words, you’ll still focus on evaluating the current research and find gaps around the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are three types of review papers and they’re a follows:

 1. Meta-analysis

In meta-analysis review paper, you combine and compare answers from already published studies on a given subject.

2. Narrative Review

A narrative review paper looks into existing information or research already conducted on a given topic.

3. Systematic Review

You need to do three things if asked to write a systematic review paper.

First, read and understand the question asked. Second, look into research already conducted on the topic. Third, search for the answer to the question from the established research you just read.

What’s a Research Paper?

A research paper is an assignment in which you present your own argument, evaluation, or interpretation of an issue based on independent research.

In a research paper project, you’ll draw some conclusions from what experts have already done, find gaps in their studies, and then draw your own conclusions.

While a research paper is like an academic essay, it tends to be longer and more detailed.

Since they require extended research and attention to details, research papers can take a lot of time to write.

If well researched, your research paper can demonstrate your knowledge about a topic, your ability to engage with multiple sources, and your willingness to contribute original thoughts to an ongoing debate.

Types of Research Papers

 There are two types of research papers and they’re as follows:

 1. Analytical Research Papers

 Similar to analytical essay , and usually in the form of a question, an analytical research paper looks at an issue from a neutral point and gives a clear analysis of the issue.

Your goal is to make the reader understand both sides of the issue in question and leave it to them to decide what side of the analysis to accept.

Unlike an argumentative research paper, an analytical research paper doesn’t include counterarguments. And you can only draw your conclusion based on the information stretched out all through the analysis.

2. Argumentative Research Papers

In an argumentative research paper, you state the subject under study, look into both sides of an issue, pick a stance, and then use solid evidence and objective reasons to defend your position.

In   argumentative writing, your goal isn’t to persuade your audience to take an action. 

Rather, it’s to convince them that your position on the research question is more accurate than the opposing point of views.

Regardless of the type of research paper that you write, you’ll have to follow the standard outline for the assignment to be acceptable for review and marking.

Also, all research paper, regardless of the research question under investigation must include a literature review.

Literature Review vs Research Paper

The table below shows the differences between a literature review (review paper) and a research paper. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. is there a literature review in a research paper.

A research paper assignment must include a literature review immediately after the introduction chapter.

The chapter is significant because your research work would otherwise be incomplete without knowledge of existing literature. 

2. How Many Literature Review Should Be in Research Paper?

Your research paper  should have only one literature review. Make sure you write the review based on the instructions from your teacher.

Before you start, check the required length, number of sources to summarize, and the format to use. Doing so will help you score top grades for the assignment. 

3. What is the Difference Between Research and Literature?

Whereas literature focuses on gathering, reading, and summarizing information on already established studies, original research involves coming up with new concepts, theories, and ideas that might fill existing gaps in the available literature.

4. How Long is a Literature Review?

How long a literature review should be will depend on several factors, including the level of education, the length of the assignment, the target audience, and the purpose of the review.

For example, a 150-page dissertation can have a literature review of 40 pages on average.

Make sure you talk to your instructor to determine the required length of the assignment.

5. How Does a Literature Review Look Like?

Your literature review shouldn’t be a focus on original research or new information. Rather, it should give a clear overview of the already existing work on the selected topic.

The information to review can come from various sources, including scholarly journal articles , government reports, credible websites, and academic-based books. 

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• ScientificWorldJournal
• v.2024; 2024
• PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Difference Between | Descriptive Analysis and Comparisons

Search form, difference between research paper and review paper.

Key Difference: The primary difference between a research paper and a review paper is that a research paper is based on the author’s original research and their analysis and interpretation of their research finishing, whereas a review paper collects and collates information on a particular topic from various different written publications.

A research paper involves writing about research that one has conducted themselves. It includes the parameters involved in the research as well as their analysis and interpretation of the research.

Writing a research paper involves many different steps such as selecting a topic, creating a hypothesis, doing research, testing the hypothesis, making conclusions, and writing a paper supporting or disproving the hypothesis.

A review paper, on the other hand, involves collection information from a variety of different sources. These sources can be primary or secondary. Primary sources can be people who have conducted research and have first hand information, whereas secondary sources are papers and documents that have covered the topic on hand.

A review paper collects and combines information from these various sources and presents in all in one place. The benefit of this that it makes information regarding a particular topic easier to find and reference. A student may be asked to support an argument or a hypothesis in a review paper by citing various works and sources of information.

Review papers can be categorized into three different types: -

• Narrative – which collects and attempts to explain any and all existing knowledge on a particular topic. It is based on research that is already conducted and published by someone else.
• Systematic – in which one searches all existing scientific literature on a topic and tries to find an answer to a particular question or problem.
• Meta-analysis – which compares and combines the findings of previously published studies. It is usually done in order to assess the effectiveness of an intervention or mode of treatment.

The job of a research paper is for one to be able to present new ideas and new information which can hep move science ahead, whereas a review paper allows one to combine ideas by collecting information from various sources, which makes information easier to find and refer to.

Comparison between Research Paper and Review Paper:

Add new comment

Copyright © 2024, Difference Between | Descriptive Analysis and Comparisons

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours: 

• Maxwell Library
• Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
• Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

• Where Do I Start?
• How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
• How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
• Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece:  An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short. 

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

• Journal Title and Author
• Abstract 
• Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
• Literature Review
• Methods/Methodology
• Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions.  Common sections of these articles include:

• an Introduction
• Discussion/Conclusion
• works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
• INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
• Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
• UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
• << Previous: Where Do I Start?
• Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

• SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
• Resource Guides

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

• Research Starters
• Citing Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Peer Review
• How to Read a Scientific Article
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

• Penfield Library
• Research Guides
• A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

• Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
• Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
• Typically organized into sections that include:  Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

• Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
• Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.  
• Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

• << Previous: Plagiarism
• Next: Peer Review >>

• Interesting
• Scholarships
• UGC-CARE Journals

Research Paper Vs Review Paper | 50 Differences

50 Differences Between Research Article and a Review Article

A research paper is a piece of writing that reports facts, data, and other information on a specific topic. It is usually longer than a review paper and includes a detailed evaluation of the research. Whereas, a review paper is a shorter piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates the research on a specific topic. It is usually shorter than a research paper and does not include a detailed evaluation of the research. In this article, we have listed the 50 important differences between a review paper vs research article.

• A research paper is typically much longer than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more detailed and comprehensive than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more focused on a specific topic than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more analytical and critical than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more objective than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically written by one or more authors, while a review paper may be written by a single author.
• A research paper is typically peer-reviewed, while a review paper may not be.
• A research paper is typically published in a scholarly journal, while a review paper may be published in a variety of different publications.
• The audience for a research paper is typically other scholars, while the audience for a review paper may be the general public.
• The purpose of a research paper is typically to contribute to the scholarly literature, while the purpose of a review paper may be to provide an overview of the literature or to evaluate a particular research study.
• The structure of a research paper is typically more complex than the structure of a review paper.
• A research paper typically includes an abstract, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes a literature review, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes a methodology section, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes results and discussion sections, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes a conclusion, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper is typically organized around a central research question , while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
• A research paper typically uses primary sources, while a review paper may use both primary and secondary sources.
• A research paper is typically based on empirical research, while a review paper may be based on either empirical or non-empirical research.
• A research paper is typically more formal than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically written in the third person, while a review paper may be written in the first person.
• A research paper typically uses formal language, while a review paper may use more informal language.
• A research paper is typically objective in tone, while a review paper may be more subjective in tone.
• A research paper typically uses APA style, while a review paper may use a different style.
• A research paper typically includes a title page, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes an abstract on the title page, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes keywords on the title page, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes an author note, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper is typically organized around a central research question, while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
• A research paper is typically longer than a review paper.

I hope, this article would help you to know the differences between Research Paper and a Review Paper.

Also Read: What is a Research Design? Importance and Types

• Difference between
• evaluation review paper
• Research Paper

24 Best Online Plagiarism Checker Free – 2024

Top 488 scopus indexed journals in computer science – open access, scopus indexed journals list 2024, most popular, top 10 online plagiarism checker tools 2024, anna’s archive – download research papers for free, indo-sri lanka joint research programme 2024, 480 ugc care list of journals – science – 2024, 100 cutting-edge research ideas in civil engineering, what is a phd a comprehensive guide for indian scientists and aspiring researchers, the nippon foundation fellowship programme 2025, best for you, popular posts, popular category.

• POSTDOC 317
• Interesting 257
• Journals 236
• Fellowship 134
• Research Methodology 102
• All Scopus Indexed Journals 94

Mail Subscription

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

Contact us: [email protected]

Google News

Copyright © 2024 iLovePhD. All rights reserved

• Artificial intelligence

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

• JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

• 35 about the library
• 29 articles & journals
• 1 Borrowing
• 8 citing sources
• 17 company & industry
• 11 computers
• 1 copyright compliance
• 5 countries & travel
• 2 course registration
• 50 databases
• 3 education
• 2 Interlibrary loan
• 5 job search
• 6 libguides
• 9 market research
• 25 my library account
• 12 requests
• 26 research basics
• 21 research topics
• 2 study rooms
• 16 technology
• 7 textbooks
• 42 university
• 3 video tutorial
• 1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018     Views: 216501

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical  or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews  or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

• How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

Related topics.

• about the library
• articles & journals
• citing sources
• company & industry
• copyright compliance
• countries & travel
• course registration
• Interlibrary loan
• market research
• my library account
• research basics
• research topics
• study rooms
• video tutorial
• writing_help

Downcity Library:

111 Dorrance Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903

401-598-1121

Harborside Library:

321 Harborside Boulevard Providence, RI 02905

401-598-1466

• Location and Directions
• Off-Campus Access
• Staff Directory
• Student Employment
• Pay Bills and Fines
• Chat with a Librarian
• Course Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Study Rooms
• Research Appointment
• Culinary Museum

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Trending Now
• Foundational Courses
• Data Science
• Practice Problem
• Machine Learning
• System Design
• DevOps Tutorial

Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

Scholarly literature can be of different types. Many of them require researchers to perform an original study, whereas others are based on previously published research. Amateur researchers have quite a confusion understanding each type of scholarly literature and the difference between them.

Research Paper

When researchers partake in an original study or investigation of a unique topic, for example, a study of the prevalence of substance abuse in a specific community or geographical area, the findings of that study are presented as a research paper. The most essential component of a research paper is the analysis of the topic, evidence to support the study and the conclusion of the study. It can comprise of the answer to the reach question and may include a hypothesis, the resource requirement for the study and the method followed to reach the conclusion. The formatting of a research paper is fairly similar across all subjects and institutions, though it can vary from one region to another depending upon the pattern laid down by the publishing and educational bodies. This scholarly work is unique and bears no similarity to any other published work. Analysis of the data can vary from the use of software to authentic experiments.

Review Paper

Review papers are universal and can be focused upon a wide range of mediums, including articles in journals, books, magazines, and software. A review paper refers to the study and survey of a recently published Research paper on a specific topic or subject. For instance, climate change due to industrial waste has many scholarly Research paper. these papers can be reviewed by any other number of scholars for its merits. In order to write a review paper successfully, one needs to have knowledge of what other scholars have written on the subject and their thoughts on the subject, particularly in recent times. the reach papers act as a reference and source material for these review papers. These can be stimulating and extremely exhaustive with the intent for undertaking research by introducing challenging materials and facts. It should act as a summary of the original research paper with all its relevant literature on the topic.

Key differences between the Research paper and Review paper are given in the table below:

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Difference Between
• Write From Home
• OpenAI o1 AI Model Launched: Explore o1-Preview, o1-Mini, Pricing & Comparison
• How to Merge Cells in Google Sheets: Step by Step Guide
• How to Lock Cells in Google Sheets : Step by Step Guide
• PS5 Pro Launched: Controller, Price, Specs & Features, How to Pre-Order, and More
• #geekstreak2024 – 21 Days POTD Challenge Powered By Deutsche Bank

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

How to Write a Literature Review

• What is a literature review

How is a literature review different from a research paper?

• What should I do before starting my literature review?
• What type of literature review should I write and how should I organize it?
• What should I be aware of while writing the literature review?
• For more information on Literature Reviews
• More Research Help

The purpose of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument. The literature review is one part of a research paper. In a research paper, you use the literature review as a foundation and as support for the new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and analyze the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

• << Previous: What is a literature review
• Next: What should I do before starting my literature review? >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2021 11:35 AM
• URL: https://midway.libguides.com/LiteratureReview

RESEARCH HELP

• Research Guides
• Databases A-Z
• Journal Search
• Citation Help

LIBRARY SERVICES

• Accessibility
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms

INSTRUCTION SUPPORT

• Course Reserves
• Library Instruction
• Little Memorial Library
• 512 East Stephens Street
• 859.846.5316
• [email protected]

• DOI: 10.17212/1994-6309-2024-26.1-129-154
• Corpus ID: 268603193

Relationship between microstructure and impact toughness of weld metals in pipe high-strength low-alloy steels (research review)

• Yulia Karlina , Roman Kononenko , +3 authors Vladislav Byankin
• Published in Metal Working and Material… 15 March 2024
• Materials Science, Engineering

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Open access
• Published: 14 September 2024

"No Papers, No Treatment": a scoping review of challenges faced by undocumented immigrants in accessing emergency healthcare

• Sezer Kisa 1   na1 &
• Adnan Kisa 2 , 3   na1  

International Journal for Equity in Health volume  23 , Article number:  184 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Undocumented immigrants face many obstacles in accessing emergency healthcare. Legal uncertainties, economic constraints, language differences, and cultural disparities lead to delayed medical care and thereby exacerbate health inequities. Addressing the healthcare needs of this vulnerable group is crucial for both humanitarian and public health reasons. Comprehensive strategies are needed to ensure equitable health outcomes.

This study aimed to identify and analyze the barriers undocumented immigrants face in accessing emergency healthcare services and the consequences on health outcomes.

We used a scoping review methodology that adhered to established frameworks. Utilizing MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychoInfo, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), we identified 153 studies of which 12 focused on the specific challenges that undocumented immigrants encounter when accessing emergency healthcare services based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The results show that undocumented immigrants encounter significant barriers to emergency healthcare, including legal, financial, linguistic, and cultural challenges. Key findings were the extensive use of emergency departments as primary care due to lack of insurance and knowledge of alternatives, challenges faced by health professionals in providing care to undocumented migrants, increased hospitalizations due to severe symptoms and lack of healthcare access among undocumented patients, and differences in emergency department utilization between irregular migrants and citizens. The findings also serve as a call for enhanced healthcare accessibility and the dismantling of existing barriers to mitigate the adverse effects on undocumented immigrants' health outcomes.

Conclusions

Undocumented immigrants' barriers to emergency healthcare services are complex and multifaceted and therefore require multifaceted solutions. Policy reforms, increased healthcare provider awareness, and community-based interventions are crucial for improving access and outcomes for this vulnerable population. Further research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions and exploring the broader implications of healthcare access disparities.

Introduction

People who live without legal authorization in a foreign country form a significant global demographic [ 1 ]. The terms "immigrant" and "migrant" are often used interchangeably in this context; however, "immigrant" typically refers to individuals who move to another country with the intention of permanent settlement, whereas "migrant" can refer to those who move temporarily, often for work, and may not intend to stay permanently [ 2 ]. Estimates suggest there are approximately 281 million international migrants worldwide, a substantial portion of whom lack legal status in their host countries [ 3 ]. For instance, in the United States alone, it is estimated that there are around 10.5 million undocumented immigrants, representing about 3.2% of the total U.S. population [ 4 ]. Similarly, in the European Union, there are an estimated 3.9 to 4.8 million undocumented migrants [ 5 ].These individuals face many obstacles in accessing healthcare. Such obstacles include lack of health insurance, fear of deportation, ineligibility for government programs, and language and cultural differences [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Addressing their healthcare needs is crucial not only from a humanitarian perspective but also for public health, as their exclusion from healthcare systems has serious consequences [ 15 , 16 ].

Studies found that financial barriers to healthcare included high out-of-pocket payments, high service prices, fragmented financial support, limited funding capacity, fear of deportation, and delayed referral [ 12 , 17 ]. Geographic challenges also play a role, with many migrants living in areas where healthcare facilities are either overwhelmed or scarce. These barriers hinder not only access to routine care but also emergency services, contributing to wider public health concerns [ 7 , 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

In emergency care situations, undocumented immigrants face even greater challenges. They often avoid essential treatment due to financial problems and fear of legal actions [ 1 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 17 , 18 ]. Even when they do seek emergency care, they often encounter language and cultural differences that can lead to misunderstandings and inappropriate treatment [ 7 , 12 ]. This avoidance of essential care not only endangers their health but also affects the health of the community [ 10 , 11 , 13 ].

Although extensive searches were conducted, no systematic reviews were found that specifically addressed the difficulties undocumented immigrants have in accessing emergency care. The phrase "No Papers, No Treatment," used in the title of this study, reflects the harsh reality that undocumented immigrants often face when seeking healthcare. This phrase, which has been echoed in various advocacy platforms and public discussions, encapsulates the severe barriers to care that this population experiences. This scoping review aims to bridge this gap by examining those very challenges. The objectives of this review are threefold: 1) to identify the specific barriers encountered; 2) to understand the reported consequences of these barriers on undocumented immigrants; and 3) to examine the solutions that have been proposed to improve their access to emergency care. By undertaking this study, we aim to provide a foundational understanding of the complexities involved in access to emergency healthcare for undocumented immigrants, thereby contributing to the body of knowledge and suggesting pathways for future research and policy development. This is the first study to address this neglected issue in healthcare research and policy.

Methodology

This scoping review was designed by integrating the methodologies described by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [ 20 ] and further refined by Levac et al. (2010) [ 21 ]. The research team consisted of two reviewers, who are also the authors of this work. These reviewers formulated the main research objectives and outlined the review by defining the search terms, identifying the databases for the literature search, and establishing the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We selected the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychoInfo, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases due to their extensive coverage of medical, psychological, and health literature. The search terms were chosen to cover a wide array of relevant components ("emergency" OR "emergency care") AND ("undocumented immigrants" OR "illegal immigrants" OR "unauthorized immigrants" OR "undocumented migrants" OR "irregular migrants"). This ensured the inclusion of literature that specifically addressed barriers faced by undocumented immigrants in accessing emergency care.

The search and selection processes were conducted by both reviewers. Duplicates were removed, followed by two parallel and separate screenings of titles and abstracts by each reviewer. The full-text review and data extraction were also performed independently by each reviewer, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. Our scoping review did not include a formal quality assessment of the included studies, in line with Arksey & O'Malley's (2005) [ 20 ] recommendations for scoping reviews. We limited our review to peer-reviewed research articles that examined undocumented immigrants' barriers to emergency care and were published in English up to February 29, 2024. Studies were excluded if they did not focus on undocumented immigrants in accessing emergency care, were not related to undocumented immigrants, were not based on empirical research, or were published in languages other than English. This extensive selection process resulted in a total of 12 studies for the final review (Fig.  1 ).

All findings were entered in EndNote (version 21). The data from the included studies, which related to characteristics such as author, publication year, study design and participants, sample size, study purpose, and key findings were extracted and charted by the first author in Excel to address the research objectives.

This review uncovered 12 studies on emergency care use by undocumented individuals in the United States [ 13 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], Switzerland [ 25 ], Denmark [ 9 ], French Guiana [ 10 ], Israel [ 19 ], Norway [ 15 , 26 ], and Spain [ 16 ]. The methodologies of the studies varied. They encompassed six cross-sectional surveys [ 10 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 24 ], one prospective cohort design [ 25 ], one historical cohort study [ 15 ], one case-control study [ 23 ], one observational cross-sectional study [ 26 ], and two qualitative studies [ 9 , 16 ]. Notably, the study by Jiménez-Lasserrotte et al. (2023) included valuable insights from nurses who were directly involved in the care of child migrants, highlighting their critical role in health and social triage, as well as in addressing the immediate health needs of this vulnerable population. Sample sizes varied significantly across these studies, ranging from small-scale qualitative interviews with 12 participants [ 9 ] to large-scale analyses involving over half a million individuals [ 19 ]. The studies were published between 1996 and 2023.

Key findings were the excessive use of emergency departments for primary care due to lack of insurance and knowledge of alternatives [ 22 ], challenges faced by health professionals in providing care to undocumented migrants [ 9 ], increased hospitalizations due to severe symptoms, and lack of healthcare access [ 10 , 23 ], and differences in emergency department utilization between irregular migrants and citizens [ 19 ] (Table  1 ).

Barriers to accessing emergency healthcare

Barriers to accessing emergency care were broadly categorized under six themes: linguistic, financial, legal, cultural, health literacy, and other (Table  2 ).

Lack of health insurance [ 9 , 10 , 13 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], restricted medical benefits [ 22 ], high costs associated with healthcare [ 10 , 25 ], financial constraints due to unemployment or underemployment [ 19 ]; and exclusion from general practitioner and reimbursement schemes [ 15 ] were reported as the financial barriers to emergency care.

Most of the legal barriers were related to one's undocumented status and lack of entitlements, such as a health insurance card or identity number [ 9 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 ]. Fear of being reported to authorities [ 13 , 22 , 24 ] was mentioned in three studies. Administrative hurdles and systemic healthcare challenges, which include complications due to lack of proper documentation or previous medical records and the inefficiencies within the healthcare system itself, were also reported [ 9 , 15 , 26 ].

Transportation issues and lack of childcare were among the other barriers that prevented timely access to emergency healthcare [ 18 ]. Geographical remoteness and the complexity of health insurance systems [ 10 ], the patchwork system of safety net care (which is especially relevant to emergency renal disease care and the inconsistency in healthcare policies) [ 23 ], and structural vulnerabilities such as poor working and living conditions [ 15 , 26 ], were other assorted factors affecting the migrants’ accessibility and utilization of healthcare services.

Consequences of barriers

The costs of these identified barriers were increased reliance on emergency departments as primary care sources, higher rates of unfunded visits, and delays in treatment [ 22 ]; unintended pregnancies, delayed prenatal care, increased exposure to violence during pregnancy [ 25 ]; and limited access resulting in neglect of preventive care and excessive emergency service use [ 13 , 18 ]. The researchers also identified disparities such as: unequal access to primary care, delayed treatment, and administrative burdens [ 9 ]; fears leading to delayed healthcare access and higher emergency severity [ 24 ]; extended emergency department stays and lower hospitalization rates for non-severe conditions [ 19 ]; substandard antenatal care and related risks [ 15 , 26 ]; more severe conditions upon hospital arrival and higher hospitalization rates [ 10 ]; and specific issues such as increased emergent dialysis usage and associated costs [ 23 ] (Table  3 ).

Suggested solutions

The studies advocate for systemic changes to improve healthcare accessibility and quality for undocumented immigrants. Free or low-cost services and culturally appropriate education [ 25 ], increased social and economic resources [ 13 ], information dissemination through trusted sources [ 18 ], legal clarification and language support [ 9 ], patient education about confidentiality and health rights [ 24 ], initiatives to better healthcare access for undocumented migrants and affordable insurance options [ 10 ], and inclusive Medicaid policies [ 23 ] were all recommended. Furthermore, comprehensive care that addresses health, social, and emotional aspects, with culturally adapted and coordinated approaches, were also suggested [ 16 , 19 ] (Table  3 ).

Research gaps and future directions

The studies identified several significant gaps and future research needs in healthcare access for undocumented immigrants. These include understanding the impacts of legislative measures [ 22 ], access to care without documentation [ 13 , 25 ], improving prenatal care, variations in emergency room use, effects of information sources, and structural impacts on healthcare-seeking behaviors [ 18 ]. Other urgent areas for research are the impact of fear on healthcare access, ensuring understanding of a patient's rights and confidentiality, exploring health needs in regions with significant migrant populations, understanding intersections of immigration status with ethnicity in care disparities, and focusing on healthcare access and community care strategies for migrants [ 9 , 19 , 23 ]. Finally, investigating comprehensive care pathways, uncovering structural vulnerabilities that affect health coverage, and developing enhanced protocols for vulnerable migrant populations are imperative for future healthcare improvement and policy development [ 10 , 24 ] (Table  3 ). Additionally, there is a notable lack of qualitative insight from undocumented immigrants/migrants themselves regarding their experiences and perspectives on accessing emergency healthcare. Future research should prioritize capturing these first-hand accounts to better understand the nuanced challenges faced by this population and to inform more effective and empathetic policy interventions.

This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesize research on the challenges faced by undocumented immigrants in accessing emergency healthcare. The objectives were to identify specific barriers to care, understand the consequences of those barriers, and explore proposed solutions to improve access. Despite differences in methodologies, participants, and regional focus, the studies highlighted the urgent need for systemic reform to improve healthcare accessibility for undocumented populations.

Barriers to accessing emergency care

Ensuring equitable access to safe, well-organized, and high-quality emergency care services for all individuals in need can help mitigate health disparities [ 27 ]. However, several barriers were found that prevent undocumented immigrants from accessing emergency care. Most significantly, the fear of deportation led immigrants to avoid healthcare facilities [ 23 , 24 ]. Asch et al. found that individuals who feared seeing a doctor lest they get reported to the immigration authorities were nearly four times more prone to delaying care for over two months, increasing the risk of disease transmission [ 28 ]. Brenner et al. noted that deportation fears forced undocumented immigrants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) to seek emergency care only when their condition became life-threatening [ 29 ].

Cultural and linguistic barriers further complicate these challenges. Many immigrants rely on social media or friends for health information due to a lack of trust in healthcare systems [ 24 ]. Granero-Molina et al. [ 30 ] note that health providers struggle to provide care due to language barriers and cultural misunderstandings [ 30 ]. Additionally, transportation issues, childcare responsibilities, and systemic inefficiencies hinder timely access to care, particularly in emergencies [ 15 , 18 , 26 ].

Structural vulnerabilities also play a role, as immigrants often live and work in environments that limit their access to healthcare [ 15 , 26 ]. DuBard and Massing emphasize that healthcare access for undocumented immigrants is further impeded by the complexity of health insurance systems [ 31 ]. These systemic barriers result in a system where undocumented immigrants rely on emergency departments, leading to overcrowding and increased costs [ 22 , 23 ]. Hsia and Gil-González note that legal ambiguities and administrative barriers exacerbate challenges in providing consistent healthcare access to undocumented immigrants [ 32 ].

Barriers to emergency care have many consequences for undocumented immigrants. Relying on emergency departments for primary care leads to delays in treatment, worsening conditions, and higher hospitalization rates [ 10 , 22 ]. Pregnant and undocumented women risk delayed prenatal care and exposure to violence [ 15 , 25 , 26 ]. Limited access to primary care results in untreated conditions becoming acute emergencies [ 19 ]. For patients with chronic conditions such as ESRD, limited access to regular hemodialysis forces them to rely on emergency departments for emergency-only hemodialysis EOHD, resulting in higher morbidity, mortality, and costs [ 23 , 33 ]. Patients receiving EOHD often experience severe symptoms such as hyperkalemia and uremia before seeking emergency care [ 34 ]. Clinicians providing EOHD also report significant morale distress due to the substandard care they have to provide [ 33 , 35 ]. In addition, cultural barriers during emergency triage contribute to inadequate care for undocumented immigrants, particularly those arriving by small boats in Europe [ 30 ]. Although our study did not specifically examine mental health conditions, it is well-documented that undocumented immigrants frequently experience significant mental health challenges due to the stress of living in uncertain conditions. This is particularly concerning in emergency department settings, where overcrowding and limited resources often result in inadequate mental health care for this vulnerable population.

Proposed solutions

Addressing these challenges requires systemic improvements to healthcare access and quality for undocumented immigrants. Cervantes et al. [ 34 ] argue that enhancing access to primary and preventive care through free or low-cost services and culturally appropriate education can help reduce the reliance on emergency departments for non-emergency conditions [ 34 ]. Nandi et al. (2008) [ 13 ]emphasized the need for increased social and economic resources.

Legal clarification and policy changes that explicitly include undocumented immigrants in healthcare systems are essential. Improved access to primary care, coupled with patient education about their rights and the confidentiality of healthcare services, can alleviate fears related to immigration status [ 9 , 24 ]. Affordable health insurance options and inclusive Medicaid (a joint federal and state program in the United States that provides health coverage to eligible low-income individuals and families) policies would significantly improve access to care and reduce the financial burden on safety-net programs [ 10 , 23 ]. Brenner et al. (2021) [ 29 ] argue that systemic efforts to improve public health, reduce the effects of injury and illness, and secure access to emergency and basic health care for all must involve policies that prioritize care over immigration enforcement.

Programs that enhance access to primary care and consider broader inclusion policies can improve outcomes for undocumented immigrants [ 19 ]. The inclusion of diverse healthcare provider perspectives, such as those of nurses, as seen in Jiménez-Lasserrotte et al. (2023), is crucial for developing comprehensive care strategies that address the unique needs of undocumented populations. Addressing structural vulnerabilities, including working and living conditions, is essential for improving healthcare access and quality. Accessible antenatal care and comprehensive healthcare that addresses physical, social, and emotional needs are crucial for vulnerable populations [ 16 ]. Addressing legislative barriers and reducing administrative burdens, as highlighted by the challenges faced in Spain, is also essential for ensuring equitable healthcare access [ 32 ]. By focusing on these systemic changes, healthcare systems can better accommodate the needs of undocumented immigrants, ensuring they receive the necessary care without unnecessary legal and administrative obstacles. Cultural mediation can help to bridge gaps in understanding between healthcare providers and undocumented immigrants [ 30 ].

Significant research gaps remain in understanding the full extent of healthcare challenges faced by undocumented immigrants. Further research is needed to understand the impact of legislative measures on healthcare access [ 22 ]. Additionally, studies should explore the influence of one's undocumented status on healthcare access and outcomes, especially in prenatal care [ 13 , 25 ]. Comprehensive studies on emergency room use, information sources, and structural barriers to healthcare are needed [ 18 ].

More comprehensive studies on healthcare access and quality for undocumented immigrants are required to inform effective policies [ 9 ]. Addressing the impact of fear on healthcare access, along with strategies to ensure that immigrants understand their rights, is critical [ 24 ]. Research should focus on developing effective community care strategies to overcome healthcare barriers for migrant populations [ 19 ]. Understanding the structural vulnerabilities affecting health coverage is imperative for future care improvement and policy development [ 15 , 26 ]. Further research should also explore the impact of administrative barriers and the challenges of policy implementation, as seen in Spain, to develop more effective solutions [ 32 ]. Additionally, research should prioritize examining the mental health challenges faced by undocumented immigrants, particularly in emergency settings. Given the limited resources in emergency departments, there is a critical need for targeted interventions that address these mental health needs to improve care and outcomes for this population.

Limitations

This review has several limitations. First, a restriction to English-language publications may have excluded important studies published in other languages and limited the global representativeness of our findings. Second, the exclusion of gray literature sources, such as reports and conference abstracts, may have overlooked valuable insights, restricting the breadth and depth of our review. Third, the heterogeneous methodologies employed across included studies introduced variability and could have complicated direct comparison and synthesis of findings. These limitations emphasize the need for careful interpretation and draw attention to areas where methodological improvements are needed in future research.

In conclusion, this comprehensive review found a diverse range of barriers faced by undocumented immigrants in accessing emergency healthcare services. Legal, financial, linguistic, cultural, and systemic factors collectively contribute to adverse health outcomes and strain emergency healthcare systems. Proposed solutions encompass policy initiatives such as enacting inclusive healthcare policies, together with community-based interventions like culturally tailored education and improved information dissemination. Further research is needed to understand the intersectionality of barriers, evaluate the effectiveness of proposed interventions, and assess the impact of legislative measures on healthcare access. By dismantling structural barriers, fostering cultural competency, and prioritizing the healthcare needs of undocumented immigrants, policymakers and practitioners can advance health equity agendas and foster a more inclusive healthcare landscape. Overall, addressing the diverse barriers to emergency healthcare access for undocumented immigrants is crucial for promoting health equity and improving public health outcomes. We will only achieve a truly healthy society when all its members, documented and otherwise, receive the care they need and deserve.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Martinez O, Wu E, Sandfort T, Dodge B, Carballo-Dieguez A, Pinto R, et al. Evaluating the impact of immigration policies on health status among undocumented immigrants: a systematic review. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015;17(3):947–70.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

(IOM). IOfM. Glossary on Migration. 2019. Available from: https://publications.iom.int/books/international-migration-law-ndeg34-glossary-migration .

Affairs. UNDoEaS. International migration 2020 highlights. United Nations. 2020. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/news/international-migration-2020 .

Center PR. Facts on U.S. immigrants. 2020. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/ .

Migration. IOf. World migration report 2020; 2020.

Clifford N, Blanco N, Bang SH, Heitkemper E, Garcia AA. Barriers and facilitators to healthcare for people without documentation status: a systematic integrative literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2023;79(11):4164–95.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hacker K, Anies M, Folb BL, Zallman L. Barriers to health care for undocumented immigrants: a literature review. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2015;8:175–83.

Jacquez F, Vaughn L, Zhen-Duan J, Graham C. Health care use and barriers to care among latino immigrants in a new migration area. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2016;27(4):1761–78.

Jensen NK, Norredam M, Draebel T, Bogic M, Priebe S, Krasnik A. Providing medical care for undocumented migrants in Denmark: what are the challenges for health professionals? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:154.

Jolivet A, Cadot E, Angénieux O, Florence S, Lesieur S, Lebas J, Chauvin P. Use of an emergency department in Saint-Laurent du Maroni, French guiana: does being undocumented make a difference? J Immigr Minor Health. 2014;16(4):586–94.

Metcalf M, Comey D, Hines D, Chavez-Reyes G, Moyce S. "Because We Are Afraid": voices of the undocumented in a new immigrant destination in the United States. J Public Health Policy. 2024.;45(2):367–77.

Molina RL, Beecroft A, Pazos Herencia Y, Bazan M, Wade C, DiMeo A, et al. Pregnancy care utilization, experiences, and outcomes among undocumented immigrants in the united states: a scoping review. Womens Health Issues. 2024:34(4):370–80.

Nandi A, Galea S, Lopez G, Nandi V, Strongarone S, Ompad DC. Access to and use of health services among undocumented Mexican immigrants in a US urban area. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(11):2011–20.

Vargas Bustamante A, Fang H, Garza J, Carter-Pokras O, Wallace SP, Rizzo JA, Ortega AN. Variations in healthcare access and utilization among Mexican immigrants: the role of documentation status. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012;14(1):146–55.

Eick F, Vallersnes OM, Fjeld HE, Sørbye IK, Storkås G, Ekrem M, et al. Use of non-governmental maternity services and pregnancy outcomes among undocumented women: a cohort study from Norway. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):789.

Jiménez-Lasserrotte MDM, Artés-Navarro R, Granero-Molina J, Fernández-Medina IM, Ruiz-Fernández MD, Ventura-Miranda MI. Experiences of healthcare providers who provide emergency care to migrant children who arriving in Spain by small boats (Patera): a qualitative study. Children (Basel). 2023;10(6):1079.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cabral J, Cuevas AG. Health inequities among latinos/hispanics: documentation status as a determinant of health. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2020;7(5):874–9.

Akincigil A, Mayers RS, Fulghum FH. Emergency room use by undocumented Mexican immigrants. J Sociol Soc Welf. 2011;38(4):33–50.

Google Scholar  

Shachaf S, Davidovitch N, Halpern P, Mor Z. Utilization profile of emergency department by irregular migrants and hospitalization rates: lessons from a large urban medical center in Tel Aviv, Israel. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):56.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.

Chan TC, Krishel SJ, Bramwell KJ, Clark RF. Survey of illegal immigrants seen in an emergency department. West J Med. 1996;164(3):212–6.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Madden EF, Qeadan F. Dialysis hospitalization inequities by hispanic ethnicity and immigration status. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2017;28(4):1509–21.

Maldonado CZ, Rodriguez RM, Torres JR, Flores YS, Lovato LM. Fear of discovery among Latino immigrants presenting to the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(2):155–61.

Wolff H, Epiney M, Lourenco AP, Costanza MC, Delieutraz-Marchand J, Andreoli N, et al. Undocumented migrants lack access to pregnancy care and prevention. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:93.

Eick F, Vallersnes OM, Fjeld HE, Sørbye IK, Ruud SE, Dahl C. Use of emergency primary care among pregnant undocumented migrants over ten years: an observational study from Oslo, Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2023;41(3):317–25.

Organization WH. Emergency care systems for universal health coverage: ensuring timely care for the acutely ill and injured. Draft resolution proposed by Argentina, Ecuador, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Israel, the European Union and its Member States and the United States of America. 2019.

Asch S, Frayne S, Waitzkin H. To discharge or not to discharge: ethics of care for an undocumented immigrant. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1995;6(1):3–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brenner JM, Blutinger E, Ricke B, Vearrier L, Kluesner NH, Moskop JC. Ethical issues in the access to emergency care for undocumented immigrants. J Am Coll Emerg Phys Open. 2021;2(3):e12461.

Granero-Molina J, Jiménez-Lasserrrotte MDM, Fernández-Sola C, Hernández-Padilla JM, Sánchez Hernández F, López DE. Cultural issues in the provision of emergency care to irregular migrants who arrive in spain by small boats. J Transcult Nurs. 2019;30(4):371–9.

DuBard CA, Massing MW. Trends in emergency Medicaid expenditures for recent and undocumented immigrants. JAMA. 2007;297(10):1085–92.

Hsia RY, Gil-González D. Perspectives on Spain’s legislative experience providing access to healthcare to irregular migrants: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e050204.

Cervantes L, Richardson S, Raghavan R, Hou N, Hasnain-Wynia R, Wynia MK, et al. Clinicians’ perspectives on providing emergency-only hemodialysis to undocumented immigrants: a qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(2):78–86.

Cervantes L, Tuot D, Raghavan R, Linas S, Zoucha J, Sweeney L, et al. Association of emergency-only vs standard hemodialysis with mortality and health care use among undocumented immigrants with end-stage renal disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):188–95.

Welles CC, Cervantes L. Barriers to providing optimal dialysis care for undocumented immigrants: policy challenges and solutions. Semin Dial. 2020;33(1):52–7.

Download references

Open access funding provided by OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University

Author information

Sezer Kisa and Adnan Kisa contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway

Department of International Health and Sustainable Development, Tulane University, New Orleans, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AK, SK: Conceptualization, Methodology, acquisition of data, interpretation of data;  AK: Writing- Original draft preparation, SK: reviewing and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sezer Kisa .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kisa, S., Kisa, A. "No Papers, No Treatment": a scoping review of challenges faced by undocumented immigrants in accessing emergency healthcare. Int J Equity Health 23 , 184 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02270-9

Download citation

Received : 12 June 2024

Accepted : 06 September 2024

Published : 14 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02270-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Emergency healthcare
• Health equity
• Public health
• Undocumented immigrants

International Journal for Equity in Health

ISSN: 1475-9276

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2024

Unfolding the empathic insights and tendencies among medical students of two gulf institutions using interpersonal reactivity index

• Haniya Habib 1 ,
• Sara Anjum Niinuma 1 ,
• Khadeja Alrefaie 1 ,
• Heba Awad Al Khalaf 2 ,
• Mohammad Jasem Hani 2 ,
• Zeinab Yaareb Mosleh Al-Rawi 2 ,
• Zarish Hussain 1 ,
• Prianna Menezes 1 ,
• Sornali Rani Roy 3 ,
• Bincy Mathew 1 ,
• Salman Yousuf Guraya 2 ,
• Alfred Nicholson 1 &
• Shaista Salman Guraya 4  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  976 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

72 Accesses

Metrics details

Empathy is an essential core competency for future doctors. Unfortunately, the medical curriculum is infamously known to burn out aspiring doctors, which may potentially lead to a decline in empathy among medical students. This research was planned to understand the evolution of empathic approaches among students across the curriculum using the Interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) as a benchmark at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of Bahrain (RCSI-MUB) and University of Sharjah (UoS).

We adopted a cross-sectional design and administered an online survey to the medical students of RCSI-MUB and UoS using a modified version of the IRI along with its three subscales of empathic concern (EC), perspective taking (PT), and personal distress (PD). To identify intra- and inter-institutional variations in empathy scores, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed separately for each institution and with both institutions combined. A two-way ANOVA was conducted for the comparison between years and institutions. For the subscale analysis of EC, PT, and PD, we used one-way ANOVA for significant differences between years at both institutions. For the gender-effect analysis, t-test was performed to examine the differences in total IRI scores at both institutions combined and at each institution separately. Additionally, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was done to identify the influence of gender on empathy scores.

A total of 140 students from both institutions participated in this study. We found a fluctuating pattern of empathy scores without a clear trend across the years. The sub-scales of EC, PD, and PT across academic years at both institutions showed significant differences within the EC at RCSI-MUB ( p  = 0.003). No significant differences were identified across other years from both institutions. There were significant differences between empathy scores from RCSI-MUB and UoS for EC ( p  = 0.011). Additionally, a pronounced interaction effect between year and institution was observed for PT ( p  = 0.032). The gender-wise analysis showed that female students had higher empathy scores than males ( p  = 0.004). The ANCOVA for IRI score results revealed a p -value of 0.023, indicating that gender plays a crucial role in empathy levels among medical students. The ANCOVA results revealed a p -value of 0.022 in the EC subscale.

Our study unveiled intricate patterns in empathy development among medical students across years and genders at RCSI-MUB and UoS. These congruences and dissimilarities in empathy scores signal a subjective understanding of empathy by medical students. The disparities in understanding may encourage medical educators to embed empathy in standard medical curricula for better healthcare outcomes.

Peer Review reports

In modern healthcare systems, empathy is considered as a fundamental pillar that plays a pivotal role in fostering patient trust, improving patient outcomes, and enhancing patient satisfaction [ 1 ]. Additionally, empathy allows physicians to communicate effectively with their patients and to express their humanistic and compassionate attitude [ 2 ]. Empathy pertains to the ability to perceive, recognize, and share another person’s feelings [ 3 ]. An empathic approach by physicians enhances physician-patient relationships, patient safety, and healthcare outcomes due to improved patient compliance and understanding of management plans [ 4 ]. Despite its outright benefits in the medical field, empathy needs to be better nurtured and understood in medical schools. A multitude of factors may contribute to this poor understanding of empathy, including a lack of a standard definition of empathy and consistency in the delivery and assessment of its cognitive, affective, and behavioral parts [ 5 ]. Furthermore, research has found that social commitment to medicine, including empathy, declines as students’ progress through their studies [ 6 ]. The medical curriculum is infamously known to burn out aspiring doctors, and consequently, their ethical values rapidly decrease, particularly during clinical years [ 7 ]. This is perhaps an aftermath of less emotional involvement of medical students with patients. [ 8 ].

In the context of patient care, a clear distinction between cognitive empathy, defined from a knowledge perspective (involving understanding processes), and empathy, defined from an emotional perspective (involving feelings and affect), is very crucial. These two forms of engagement yield different outcomes [ 9 ]. This emotional attunement of physicians fulfills the cognitive purpose of apprehending and sharing patients’ feelings and sufferings. Having a surplus of cognitive empathy (also known as clinical empathy) in patient care is consistently advantageous and can lead to the development of trust-based relationships, more precise diagnoses, enhanced patient compliance, and consequently, more favorable patient outcomes [ 10 , 11 ]. However, an excess of emotional involvement, also known as sympathy, can be detrimental to patient care, resulting in emotional exhaustion and professional burnout among healthcare providers and unchecked emotional reliance on the part of the patient [ 12 , 13 ]. Uncontrolled emotions can readily interfere with the objective process of making clinical decisions [ 14 ].

Empathy is contextually contingent and primarily shaped by situational factors and one’s inherent empathic tendencies [ 15 ]. These inherent tendencies can impact both cognitive and affective empathy. Individuals with high inherent empathic tendencies may better understand and appreciate others’ perspectives and emotions, complementing their cognitive empathy [ 16 ]. In medical education, understanding the inherent empathic tendencies of undergraduate medical students can provide valuable information to provide implications for their future patient care practices and interactions. In unison, such natural inclination towards emotional resonance can foster affective empathy, enabling one to genuinely share in the emotional experiences of others and respond compassionately [ 17 ]. Therefore, inherent empathic tendencies are integral to an individual’s overall empathic disposition, influencing how they connect with and understand the feelings and perspectives of those around them.

To date, numerous studies have explored the progression of empathy among medical students using various measurement scales, including the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. However, most of these studies have primarily focused on institutions in North America and Asia, with limited research conducted in the Middle Eastern region. It’s crucial to acknowledge that cultural nuances influence empathy, and therefore, findings from studies conducted in one cultural context may not necessarily generalize to medical institutions in other settings. This underscores the importance of conducting research in diverse cultural contexts to better understand the complexities of empathy development among medical students globally.

By investigating the empathic tendencies of medical students using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) from two Middle Eastern institutions, we aim to shed light on the interplay of the complex relationship between innate empathy and external factors (educational environment), ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of empathy in medical education. By administering the IRI questionnaire, we aim to investigate the variations in empathic tendencies between these two groups of medical students, including perspective-taking (PT), empathic concern (EC), and personal distress (PD). PT measures the ability to shift to another person’s perspective, EC measures other-oriented feelings of sympathy and concern for others, and PD measures self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and uneasiness in tense interpersonal settings. Additionally, this research seeks to identify potential factors or associations that may influence empathy scores within the context of medical education and institutional differences at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain (RCSI-MUB) and the University of Sharjah (UoS) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Our research delved into the evolution of the empathic approaches among medical students of two distinct academic institutions in the Middle Eastern region. The primary research question of our study was to determine the pattern of empathic insights of medical students across certain time points of their medical curriculum. A secondary end-point outcome was to compare yearly, gender-wise, and institutional variations in the understanding of medical students’ empathy between both institutions.

Materials and methods

The Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) programs of RCSI-MUB and UoS contain a foundation year and a 5-year program with three phases of basic medical sciences, pre-clinical, and clinical sciences. Empathy is not delivered as a stand-alone subject in both institutions; however, it is arbitrarily covered during the clinical training of medical students. Between March and June 2023, an email invitation was sent to the undergraduate medical students of RCSI-MUB and UoS studying in foundation year till year 5. The invitation included details of the research study, a participant information leaflet (PIL), and a consent form. The registered students received another email with PIL and a SurveyMonkey questionnaire. Participants were requested to abide by the regulations for data privacy and their institutional codes of professional conduct throughout the study.

The study’s target population was undergraduate medical students who were currently studying foundation year till year 5 of study. A purposive sampling method was used to recruit medical students, and a convenience sample was obtained by approaching the participants who were available at the time of data collection. We invited student representatives from each year and institution to provide their perceptions of the IRI questionnaire. In total, we invited 144 student representatives from foundation to year 5 of both institutions, around 24 students from each year. Of those, 140 participated in our study with a response rate of 97%.

Empathy measuring tools

An online survey was conducted using a modified version of the IRI, a widely recognized instrument for gauging empathy with a subset of scales and relevant tools [ 23 ]. This index was used for this study since it is the most widely used self-report measure for empathic tendencies due to its multidimensional approach and comprehensive assessment of empathic dispositions [ 24 , 25 ]. Its validity and ease of administration are why we selected it for our study to assess empathic tendencies. The questionnaire also collected demographic data of student initials, gender, and year of study. We utilized the modified version of IRI, where we evaluated three of its four subscales: PT, EC, and PD, which contribute to cognitive and affective empathy [ 26 ] (Appendix I ). PT, encompassing the cognitive aspect of empathy, delineates one’s capacity to understand and adopt another person’s viewpoint, thoughts, and feelings. On the other hand, EC is associated with affective empathy, encompassing the emotional resonance and compassionate response one feels in response to another person’s emotional distress or suffering. PD within the IRI pertains to an individual’s own discomfort and unease when confronted with the suffering of others, which can hinder empathic responses. Therefore, the IRI’s dimensions help dissect the intricate interplay between cognitive and affective empathy, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of empathic experiences. For the context of our study, we excluded the fantasy subscale, considering it less relevant to the medical milieu. The participants were instructed to answer on a 5-point scale of A-E ranging from ‘does not describe me well,’ ‘neutral’ to ‘does describe me well.’ Each subscale enquired about the participants’ insights on different empathic dispositions. A high score on PT indicates a tendency to adopt another’s psychological perspective, while a high score on EC shows a tendency to experience feelings of warmth, sympathy, and concern toward others. Finally, a high score on PD demonstrates a tendency towards feelings of discomfort when witnessing others’ negative experiences.

Statistical analysis

Total iri score analysis.

Initially, we conducted an analysis of the total IRI scores across all participants from both institutions, stratified by academic year (foundation to year 5). This comprehensive approach provided an overarching insight into the empathic tendencies of students at different stages in their academic journey. Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, were calculated for each year group, offering a preliminary understanding of each cohort’s data distribution and central tendency. A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed separately for each institution and with both institutions combined to discern whether significant differences in empathy levels existed between various years’ groups. This step was crucial for identifying intra- and inter-institution variations in empathy scores. Furthermore, a Two-Way ANOVA was conducted with ‘year’ and ‘institution’ as factors to elucidate any interaction effects between the academic year and the institution to determine whether institutions had differential impacts on students’ empathy levels across the years.

Sub-scale analysis

Subsequently, we delved deeper into the individual sub-scales of the IRI (PT, PD, and EC) to dissect the components of empathy exhibited by students. Descriptive statistics for each sub-scale were computed for every year group at each institution, laying the groundwork for understanding the specific empathic tendencies prevalent in each cohort. One-Way ANOVA tests were employed for each sub-scale to probe for significant differences between years at both institutions. This granular analysis was important for unmasking the nuances of empathic development among students. Notably, since a significant variance was detected in the EC sub-scale at RCSI-MUB, post-hoc tests were executed exclusively for this group to identify any differences in insights about empathy. Additionally, Two-Way ANOVA tests were conducted for each sub-scale with ‘year’ and ‘institution’ as factors, facilitating a comparative analysis between the two institutions while considering the interaction effects.

Gender effect analysis

To investigate the influence of gender on empathy, we calculated the mean and standard deviation of total IRI scores for each gender at both institutions. T-tests were performed to examine the differences in total IRI scores between genders at both institutions combined and the total scores of each sub-scale at each institution separately. The rationale for selecting the t-test was its suitability for comparing the means of two groups (male and female students). This step was essential for validating the gender effect on empathy levels, offering a lens through which the data could be interpreted from a gender perspective. Lastly, we included an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). This was conducted to control the potential confounding effect of gender on empathy scores. ANCOVA was applied to the combined data from both institutions, integrating gender as a covariate. This step was crucial to discern if the observed variations in empathy scores, both in total IRI and its subscales (PT, PD, and EC), could be attributed to gender differences among student cohorts.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the relevant Institutional Research Ethical Committees of RCSI-MUB (REC/2023/147/18-Jan-2023) and UoS (REC-23-03-12-01-F). All participants gave fully informed written consent to participate at the start of the study.

Influence of year and institution

A total of 140 medical students from RCSI-MUB and UoS responded to the online questionnaire in our study. There were 89 female and 51 male students. The yearly distribution of IRI and three sub-scales scores for all participating students from both institutions is presented in Table  1 . This table illustrates the mean, median, standard deviation, and standard error of the total IRI scores and does not apply statistical tests to these values. Observationally, the data show a fluctuating but consistent pattern in empathy scores across the years without marked differences.

Figure  1 a and b, and 1 c display the bar plots of mean scores for the EC, PD, and PT sub-scales, respectively, for students at RCSI-MUB and UoS across different academic years. The results of the One-Way ANOVA for all three IRI sub-scales across the academic years at both institutions showed significant differences within the EC sub-scale at RCSI-MUB ( p  = 0.003), as detailed in Table  2 . Subsequently, the Tukey post-hoc test results, demonstrated in Table  3 , show a significant pairwise difference in EC between Year 1 and Year 4 students at RCSI-MUB ( p  = 0.035). No significant differences were identified in comparison to other years from both institutions.

Bar plot based on descriptive data with mean scores for empathic concern ( a ), personal distress ( b ), and perspective taking ( c )

Table  4 outlines the results of Two-Way ANOVA tests with significant differences between the insights of medical students from RCSI-MUB and UoS for EC ( p  = 0.011, Table  4 ). This implies that the educational environment or the mode of curricular delivery might exert a tangible influence on students’ empathic concerns. Additionally, a pronounced interaction effect between year and institution was observed for PT ( p  = 0.032, Table  4 ). An interesting analysis of the responses by medical students from RCSI-MUB and UoS for the subscale PT illustrates a unique pattern of the development of an empathic approach across different year groups (Fig.  2 ). Briefly, Fig.  2 displays the PT scores for foundation year students of RCSI-MUB students who exhibited higher scores than UoS. The PT scores of year 1 students at both institutions increased; however, a divergence was observed in year 2, with RCSI-MUB scores declining while UoS scores continued to increase. In year 3, the scores converged, with both institutions showing similar levels. Year 4 had a reversal, with RCSI-MUB scores increasing and UoS scores declining. Finally, in year 5, RCSI-MUB scores decreased while UoS scores escalated.

A plot diagram with the interaction effect between years and institution for perspective taking ( N  = 140)

Gender-specific findings

Table  5 shows the percentages of male and female students across different years at RCSI-MUB and UoS and the overall gender distribution by institution. Table  6 compares the mean IRI scores for female and male medical students from RCSI-MUB and UoS using a t-test. The results showed that female students had higher overall empathy scores than males ( p  = 0.004). The gender-wise comparison of scores among medical students for EC, PD, and PT showed a significantly higher empathic concern by female students of RCSI-MUB than their male counterparts ( p  = 0.014), as shown in Table  7 . This finding might have been influenced by the fact that all year 1 students at RCSI-MUB were females, potentially affecting the observed gender disparities. Table  8 outlines the ANCOVA for IRI results, which revealed a significant p -value of 0.023, which is below the conventional alpha level of 0.05, and ANCOVA for EC subscale shows a p -value of 0.022, affirming the impact of gender on empathy development.

The findings of our study offer a nuanced perspective on the trajectory of empathy development among medical students, reflecting a deeper understanding of empathy. Though there were insignificant differences for three subscales of IRI for each institution, there was a recognizable variation in EC scores and a fluctuating pattern of responses to PT between RCSI-MUB and UoS medical students. These results underscore the evolving nature of understanding empathy, that may be partly due to an absence of a standardized and accredited empathy-based curriculum. Lastly, female students had a significantly better understanding of EC, which signals a gender-based preference toward empathic care of patients.

These findings are consistent with the notion that empathy is not a static trait but rather a dynamic quality that evolves over time and can be influenced by various factors. In their cross-sectional and longitudinal mixed-methods study on undergraduate and graduate medical students, Michael et al., have deduced that targeted educational programmes should be introduced to develop empathic and patient-centered skills and competence of physicians [ 27 ]. Similar to other studies, our research also showed variations in responses and understanding of medical students in the absence of standard teaching of empathy in the curricula of both RCSI-MUB and UoS [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. At the same time, we found yearly, gender, and institutional variations in understanding of empathy. The trends in PT scores suggested several points of consideration. The higher initial PT scores of foundation year students at RCSI-MUB compared to UoS may reflect differences in admission criteria, foundational training, or student characteristics between the two institutions. The shared increase in year 1 might indicate a common emphasis on developing perspective-taking skills early in medical education. The divergence in year 2, convergence in year 3, and subsequent variations may be indicative of differences in curricular focus, educational experiences, or other institutional factors that influence the development of perspective-taking skills at RCSI-MUB and UoS. The reversal in year 4 and the final intersection in year 5 may highlight variations in the later stages of medical training at each institution, potentially influenced by different clinical exposures or preparation for professional practice. These observed trends warrant further investigations to understand fully the factors contributing to the development of PT skills at medical academic institutions [ 31 ].

The identified significant variations within the EC sub-scale, particularly at RCSI-MUB between year 1 and 4 students, are particularly noteworthy. While the exact reasons for these variations require further exploration, these findings may indicate the uniqueness of the empathic development trajectory between years 1 and 4. Studies on empathy concerns among medical students report inconsistent data as they may decline, remain stable, or enhance [ 32 , 33 ]. Piumatti et al. witnessed that empathy remains stable in most medical students and declines in fewer [ 34 ]. Furthermore, the authors observed that freedom to talk and patient-centric motives for studying medicine were associated with a higher and consistent empathic approach. The differences in EC scores among students of both institutions might indicate variations in educational environment or curriculum or both. Further research is essential to interpret the implications of these findings fully and understand the factors contributing to the observed differences in EC scores among medical students at RCSI-MUB and UoS.

The significant interaction effect between year and institution for PT suggests that the journey of empathy development is not linear and is influenced by a myriad of factors, including the educational environment. The gender differences observed, especially within RCSI-MUB, further complicate the narrative. The exclusive female composition of year 1 students at RCSI-MUB could have introduced a potential bias, potentially skewing the results. However, gender distribution was more consistent in some years, particularly at UoS. The ANCOVA results revealed a p -value of 0.023, which falls below the conventional alpha level of 0.05, and p -value of 0.022 for EC subscale. This finding indicates that gender influences empathy levels among medical students. Female students exhibited higher empathy scores than their male counterparts, suggesting that gender differences might be an important factor to be considered in medical education and training. This insight into the gender disparities in empathic tendencies can be pivotal for medical educators and curriculum designers, as it highlights the need for tailored approaches to develop and nurture empathy among future healthcare professionals. However, we acknowledge the limitations in our demographic analysis due to the unavailability of additional sociodemographic details such as age, nationality, and socioeconomic status.

Most published studies have reported that female medical students are more empathic than their male counterparts [ 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. However, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting this correlation, there have been inconsistencies in the findings of some studies. Electroencephalography measures have not found significant gender differences in empathic abilities [ 44 ]. A cross-sectional study in Pakistan yielded results that align with the general trend, showing that females had significantly higher scores on specific items of the IRI and EC scales [ 45 ]. Nevertheless, when considering total empathy scores, both male and female students demonstrated similar levels of empathy overall. This emphasizes the importance of diverse participation in research to ensure comprehensive insights. Developing PT skills and strategies to mitigate PD are fundamental core competencies of medical graduates. Empirical research has argued that medical students’ distress may potentially lead to cynicism and subsequently affect their care of patients and their relationship with peers and faculty [ 46 ]. The manifestations and causes of PD, alongside its potential adverse personal and professional outcomes, are detrimental to enhancing EC among medical students [ 47 ]. These adverse consequences can be arrested by targeting medical education and paying more attention to fortifying the EC of medical students.

In our exploration of empathic development among medical students, the year-based analysis did not show significant differences across academic years, indicating consistency in empathy levels as students’ progress through their medical education. This finding adds an intriguing dimension to our understanding of empathy, suggesting that despite varying challenges and experiences encountered in different stages of medical education, the overall capacity for empathy among students remains relatively stable. However, this finding may be due to the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Despite significant similarities in the core curricula at RCSI-MUB and UoS, we posit that other factors unique to each institution, such as cultural contexts, teaching methodologies, student demographics, and extracurricular activities, might influence the development of empathic behaviors. Our study, therefore, recommends that researchers extend beyond the curriculum to include these broader institutional factors, offering a more nuanced perspective on how empathy is shaped within medical education settings.

Despite the significant role of empathy in enhancing healthcare outcomes, this important trait in medical students and residents has paradoxically been reported to decline during their clinical training [ 13 , 48 ]. Several factors can contribute, such as emotional exhaustion, suboptimal social support, burnout due to workload, and an inadequate curriculum [ 49 ]. For the professional enhancement of empathic skills of medical students, educators can consider well-structured faculty development programs [ 50 ], interprofessional education [ 51 ], simulation-based scenarios [ 52 ], and patient-centered medical education for effective communication [ 27 ]. Particular attention must be paid to interprofessional education, which carries great potential to enhance the empathic concerns of medical students [ 53 ].

Medical institutions might contemplate implementing structured empathy training modules, ensuring that future doctors are equipped with this indispensable soft skill. The observed differences between institutions underscore the need for a tailored approach, considering the unique characteristics of each institution. As the medical community continues to recognize the importance of empathy in patient care, research like ours calls for the need for continuous evaluation and refinement of medical curricula to foster this critical trait.

Strengths and limitations

This study was conducted on medical students of two premier medical institutions of the Middle Eastern region. This unique opportunity allowed us to analyze the cross-cultural and curricular influence of empathic approaches of medical students across the entire continuum of medical education. Additionally, this research yields significant findings that medical educators can use to modify the medical curriculum.

Our study has several limitations. First, based on the nature of the study, the number of participants may be considered small, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Second, this study identified differences in empathic approaches at defined time points rather than in a prospective manner. Due to the cross-sectional design, the research measured different participants at distinct stages rather than following the same individuals over time. Consequently, the findings reflect differences in empathy scores between separate groups rather than changes within the same individuals. This design limitation means that the study captures variations in empathy approaches at specific time points rather than longitudinally tracking how individual empathy develops or changes throughout progression in a medical program. Third, the results may not be used to cover other cultures or contexts. Finally, the self-reported insights of students to IRI may reflect subject bias. Individuals are likely to overestimate their empathy due to factors like social desirability.

Future directions

Our study used a self-administered IRI questionnaire and did not explore the empathy that takes place between patients and medical students. Future investigators should employ studies that could focus on patient perceptions of empathic student and physician behavior. Furthermore, expanding the sample size and incorporating longitudinal examination of participants to observe changes over time will certainly advance the understanding of medical students’ empathy. In addition, future research could benefit from incorporating gender balance and sociodemographic variables to present a more comprehensive demographic profile and to understand their potential influences on empathy development among medical students.

In summary, our study substantially contributes to the evolving nature of empathy development among medical students and the potential impact of curriculum and gender on this critical attribute. Though there are certain variations in insights about empathy, this study observed a unique fluctuating trend between RCSI-MUB and UoS across years and gender. Such disparities highlight the potential ramifications of curricular elements, teaching methodologies, clinical experiences, or even institutional ethos on students’ empathy development. This research urges medical educators to modify existing medical curricula by inculcating empathy into standard teaching and learning pedagogies.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Interpersonal Reactivity Index

Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland – Medical University of Bahrain

University of Sharjah

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

Empathic concern

Perspective taking

Personal distress

Analysis of Variance

Analysis of Covariance

Participant Information Leaflet

Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(Suppl):S9–12.

Google Scholar  

Sulzer SH, Feinstein NW, Wendland CL. Assessing empathy development in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2016;50(3):300–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Greif EB, Hogan R. The theory and measurement of empathy. J Couns Psychol. 1973;20(3):280.

Zhang X, Li L, Zhang Q, Le LH, Wu Y. Physician Empathy in Doctor-Patient communication: a systematic review. Health Commun. 2023:1–11.

Chen A, Hanna JJ, Manohar A, Tobia A. Teaching empathy: the implementation of a video game into a psychiatry clerkship curriculum. Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42:362–5.

Costa-Drolon E, Verneuil L, Manolios E, Revah-Levy A, Sibeoni J. Medical students’ perspectives on empathy: a systematic review and metasynthesis. Acad Med. 2020;96(1):142–54.

Menezes P, Guraya SY, Guraya SS. A systematic review of educational interventions and their impact on empathy and compassion of undergraduate medical students. Front Med. 2021;8:758377.

Decety J, Smith KE, Norman GJ. Predictive utility cannot substitute for construct validity. Med Educ. 2018;52(4):457–8.

Hojat M, Spandorfer J, Louis DZ, Gonnella JS. Empathic and sympathetic orientations toward patient care: conceptualization, measurement, and psychometrics. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):989–95.

Tone EB, Tully EC. Empathy as a risky strength: a multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Dev Psychopathol. 2014;26(4pt2):1547–65.

Smith A. Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. Psychol Record. 2006;56(1):3–21.

Tamayo CA, Rizkalla MN, Henderson KK. Cognitive, behavioral and emotional empathy in pharmacy students: targeting programs for curriculum modification. Front Pharmacol. 2016;7:96.

Hojat M, Vergare MJ, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine SK, Isenberg GA, et al. The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1182–91.

Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, Mangione S, Vergare M, Magee M. Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement, and relationship to gender and specialty. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(9):1563–9.

Melloni M, Lopez V, Ibanez A. Empathy and contextual social cognition. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;14:407 – 25.

Hein G, Singer T. I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its modulation. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008;18(2):153–8.

Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Rattner S, Erdmann JB, Gonnella JS, et al. An empirical study of decline in empathy in medical school. Med Educ. 2004;38(9):934–41.

Hegazi I, Wilson I. Maintaining empathy in medical school: it is possible. Med Teach. 2013;35(12):1002–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2013.802296 .

Suh DH, Hong JS, Lee DH, Gonnella JS, Hojat M. The Jefferson Scale of Physician empathy: a preliminary psychometric study and group comparisons in Korean physicians. Med Teach. 2012;34(6). https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2012.668632 .

Quince TA, Parker RA, Wood DF, Benson JA. Stability of empathy among undergraduate medical students: a longitudinal study at one UK Medical School. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-90 .

Chen D, Lew R, Hershman W, Orlander J. A cross-sectional measurement of medical student empathy. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1434–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0298-x .

Chen DC, Pahilan ME, Orlander JD. Comparing a self-administered measure of empathy with observed behavior among medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):200–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1193-4 .

Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. 1980.

Pulos S, Elison J, Lennon R. The hierarchical structure of the interpersonal reactivity index. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2004;32(4):355–60.

Rui-yua G. Reliabilities and Validities of Interpersonal Reactivity Index among Nursing Students. Chinese journal of clinical psychology. 2014.

Wang Y, Li Y, Xiao W, Fu Y, Jie J. Investigation on the rationality of the extant ways of scoring the interpersonal reactivity index based on confirmatory factor analysis. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1086.

Michael K, Dror MG, Karnieli-Miller O. Students’ patient-centered-care attitudes: the contribution of self-efficacy, communication, and empathy. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(11):2031–7.

Batt-Rawden SA, Chisolm MS, Anton B, Flickinger TE. Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88(8):1171–7.

Paro HB, Silveira PS, Perotta B, Gannam S, Enns SC, Giaxa RR, et al. Empathy among medical students: is there a relation with quality of life and burnout? PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e94133.

Costa-Drolon E, Verneuil L, Manolios E, Revah-Levy A, Sibeoni J. Medical students’ perspectives on empathy: a systematic review and metasynthesis. Acad Med. 2021;96(1):142–54.

Houser MM, Worzella G, Burchsted S, Marquez C, Domack T, Acevedo Y. Wellness skills for medical learners and teachers: perspective taking and cognitive flexibility. MedEdPORTAL. 2018;14:10674.

Papageorgiou A, Miles S, Fromage M. Does medical students’ empathy change during their 5-year MBBS degree? Educ Health. 2018;31(3):142–7.

Andersen FA, Johansen A-SB, Søndergaard J, Andersen CM, Assing Hvidt E. Revisiting the trajectory of medical students’ empathy, and impact of gender, specialty preferences and nationality: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:1–18.

Piumatti G, Abbiati M, Baroffio A, Gerbase MW. Empathy trajectories throughout medical school: relationships with personality and motives for studying medicine. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:1227–42.

Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD, editors. Medical student distress: causes, consequences, and proposed solutions. Mayo Clinic Proceedings; 2005: Elsevier.

Voultsos P, Galanis P, Dafni M-FA, Velonaki V-S, Andreou G-N, Kovatsi L. The Greek Jefferson Scale of empathy—medical student version (JSE-S): psychometric properties and its associated factors. Behav Sci. 2024;14(3):195. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14030195 .

Tiwari K, Agarwal N, Pandey S. Clinical empathy and its correlates among Indian medical students: a cross-sectional study of Bihar. Cureus. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40159 .

Blanco Canseco JM, Blanco Alfonso A, Caballero Martínez F, Hawkins Solís MM, Fernández Agulló T, Lledó García L, et al. Medical empathy in medical students in Madrid: a proposal for empathy level cut-off points for Spain. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267172 .

Shaheen A, Mahmood M, Miraj M, Ahmad M. Empathy levels among undergraduate medical students in Pakistan, a cross-sectional study using jefferson scale of physician empathy. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;01. https://doi.org/10.5455/jpma.301593 .

Hojat M, DeSantis J, Shannon SC, Speicher MR, Bragan L, Calabrese LH. Empathy as related to gender, age, race and ethnicity, academic background and career interest: a nationwide study of osteopathic medical students in the United States. Med Educ. 2020;54(6):571–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14138 .

Triffaux J-M, Tisseron S, Nasello JA. Decline of empathy among medical students: dehumanization or useful coping process? L’Encéphale. 2019;45(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2018.05.003 .

Chatterjee A, Ravikumar R, Singh S, Chauhan PS, Goel M. Clinical empathy in medical students in India measured using the Jefferson Scale of empathy–student version. J Educational Evaluation Health Professions. 2017;14:33. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.33 .

Youssef FF, Nunes P, Sa B, Williams S. An exploration of changes in cognitive and emotional empathy among medical students in the Caribbean. Int J Med Educ 2014 Sept 24;5:185–92. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5412.e641

Chen DC, Kirshenbaum DS, Yan J, Kirshenbaum E, Aseltine RH. Characterizing changes in student empathy throughout Medical School. Med Teach. 2012 Mar;28(4):305–11. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2012.644600 .

Pang C, Li W, Zhou Y, Gao T, Han S. Are women more empathetic than men? Questionnaire and EEG ESTIMATIONS OF SEX/gender differences in empathic ability. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci. 2023;18(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsad008 .

Javaeed A, Rasheed A, Manzoor A, Tul-Ain Q, D Costa P, Ghauri S. Empathy scores amongst undergraduate medical students and its correlation to their academic performance. J Adv Med Educ Professionalism. 2022;10(2):99–104. https://doi.org/10.30476/jamp.2022.93026.1512 .

Matheson KM, Barrett T, Landine J, McLuckie A, Soh NL-W, Walter G. Experiences of psychological distress and sources of stress and support during medical training: a survey of medical students. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40:63–8.

Eikeland H-L, Ørnes K, Finset A, Pedersen R. The physician’s role and empathy–a qualitative study of third year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):1–8.

Neumann M, Edelhäuser F, Tauschel D, Fischer MR, Wirtz M, Woopen C, et al. Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):996–1009.

Guraya SY, Chen S. The impact and effectiveness of faculty development program in fostering the faculty’s knowledge, skills, and professional competence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2019;26(4):688–97.

Sulaiman N, Rishmawy Y, Hussein A, Saber-Ayad M, Alzubaidi H, Al Kawas S, et al. A mixed methods approach to determine the climate of interprofessional education among medical and health sciences students. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:1–13.

Sawczak C, McAndrews MP, Gaesser B, Moscovitch M. Episodic simulation and empathy in older adults and patients with unilateral medial temporal lobe excisions. Neuropsychologia. 2019;135:107243.

Fenn N, Reyes C, Mushkat Z, Vinacco K, Jackson H, Al Sanea A, et al. Empathy, better patient care, and how interprofessional education can help. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(5):660–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors are thankful to the participants of the study.

This study received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Bahrain, Busaiteen, 15503, Bahrain

Haniya Habib, Sara Anjum Niinuma, Khadeja Alrefaie, Zarish Hussain, Prianna Menezes, Bincy Mathew & Alfred Nicholson

College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, 27272, United Arab Emirates

Heba Awad Al Khalaf, Mohammad Jasem Hani, Zeinab Yaareb Mosleh Al-Rawi & Salman Yousuf Guraya

University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 6QG, UK

Sornali Rani Roy

College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medical and Health Sciences, Dubai, 505055, United Arab Emirates

Shaista Salman Guraya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SSG conceptualized the idea. HH, SAN, and SSG developed the protocol. HH, SAN, HAK, MJH, and ZYMA obtained ethical approval at the respective institutions. Data collection was performed by HH, SAN, KA, HAK, MJH, ZYMA, ZH, PM, SRR, and BM. Data analysis was conducted by KA, HAK, MJH, HH, SAN and SYG. Initial draft prepared by SYG, SSG, KA, HH, and SAN. Later on, BM, AN, and SSG improved the intellectual content of the initial draft. All authors contributed and proofread the final draft. SYG, SSG, and AN supervised the whole project and ensured the accuracy of the devised protocol and research integrity. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salman Yousuf Guraya .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The study was approved by the relevant Institutional Research Ethical Committees of RCSI-MUB (REC/2023/147/18-Jan-2023) and UoS (REC-23-03-12-01-F).

Consent to participate

All participants gave fully informed written consent to participate at the start of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

SYG is a senior editorial board member and SSG an editorial board member of BMC Medical Education Journal. Other authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Habib, H., Niinuma, S.A., Alrefaie, K. et al. Unfolding the empathic insights and tendencies among medical students of two gulf institutions using interpersonal reactivity index. BMC Med Educ 24 , 976 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05921-1

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2023

Accepted : 16 August 2024

Published : 09 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05921-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical students
• Interpersonal reactivity index

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]