Are Review Articles Original Research?

Many of us have probably heard this question before. The answers are often as poles apart as black and white. The “no camp” would argue that review articles produce little or no new knowledge, writing a review article is not as difficult, and many review articles lack rigor and transparency, among others. The “yes camp” would put forward almost the opposite arguments including that producing rigorous and high-quality review articles takes a lot of effort, and that review articles can indeed produce novel insights (e.g. see Kunisch et al., 2023). The controversy around review articles is also reflected in the fact that they are often not considered as important in promotion decisions as other forms of research (e.g. see Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2018).

To the best of my knowledge, the question has not been examined in a systematic way in business and management studies. However, it has been examined in other fields. For example, Krnic Martinic et al. (2019) conducted a mixed-method study among journal editors in medical sciences (including a survey and qualitative interviews) to understand the “attitudes of editors ... about whether systematic reviews are original research.” Here are some key insights from excerpts from the abstract:

“[…]

Results: We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.

Conclusion: The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.”

To me, this research suggests that neither “yes” nor “no” is the correct answer to the question about. Rather, “it depends.” It also suggests that the question is probably wrong in the first place. A better question would be: “When are review articles original research?” – And the answer is: whenever criteria of rigorous and impactful research are met.

What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

?

References:

Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). The academy of management annals: Looking back, looking forward. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0167

Krnic Martinic, M., Meerpohl, J. J., von Elm, E., Herrle, F., Marusic, A., & Puljak, L. (2019). Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: A mixed-methods study. BMJ Open, 9(8), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704

Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 3-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221127292