Print this page Email this page
Users Online: 1381
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 66-67

A wake-up call to value, promote, and stop the extinction of review articles


Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Yenepoya Research Centre, Yenepoya Dental College and Hospital, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Date of Web Publication17-Jan-2017

Correspondence Address:
Vagish Kumar L Shanbhag
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Yenepoya Research Centre, Yenepoya Dental College and Hospital, Yenepoya University, Mangalore - 575 018, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4958.198473

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Shanbhag VL. A wake-up call to value, promote, and stop the extinction of review articles. J Med Soc 2017;31:66-7

How to cite this URL:
Shanbhag VL. A wake-up call to value, promote, and stop the extinction of review articles. J Med Soc [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Dec 8];31:66-7. Available from: https://www.jmedsoc.org/text.asp?2017/31/1/66/198473

Sir/Madam,

The Academic Committee of Medical Council of India recently clarified in its circular on what constitutes the publications/"accepted for publication" articles for the promotion of teaching faculty in medical colleges/institutions in India. [1] It was astonishing to see review articles being totally excluded from the type of articles' list to be considered for the promotion of teaching faculty. Although review articles are not original one, they help to identify primary sources and help in conceiving an idea for carrying out primary research. [2]

A good-quality review article helps researchers assimilate the vast amount of information pertaining to the subject of research interest in considerably short time. [3] Quality review articles published regularly help update the researchers on the concerned subject efficiently. In addition, journals which publish more review articles are read more frequently and usually have high-impact factors. [3] This proves that review articles are popular to quench the thirst of knowledge of researchers.

In general, review articles may be one of mini review or full review depending on the length of the manuscript. A full review covers, explains, and discusses in detail about the concerned topic. A mini review might not cover in detail about all aspects about the topic, but may be of value to update busy clinicians and researchers on the concerned subject. A systematic review addresses a specific research question and it is conducted according to a prescribed protocol to exclude bias. It is performed by a systematic search of literature and then synthesizing, comparing, and discussing available research evidence methodologically. [4] A narrative review is a descriptive one and may not include review of all the available literature. Narrative reviews are informative, however there may be an element of author bias as the literature search and coverage of the topic are not done systematically. [5] Systematic reviews are positioned higher up in the hierarchy of research evidence. [6] Systematic review answers research gaps and gives ideas to researchers to conduct original research.

A good review article whether it is a systematic review or narrative review helps to answer specific clinical questions, compare research studies, and make aware of what already has been done in research in the concerned field and what needs or can be done in future. [4] Review articles form an inspiration and foundation for primary research. [7] They help to hone the skills of writing, analyzing, and synthesizing research in their concerned specialty. [7]

In general, nowadays, promotion is the main motivational force for teaching faculty to write academic articles. Hence, teaching faculties are likely to devote much time and interest on original articles rather than review articles or other types of articles. Although original research articles immensely contribute to the development of scientific research, restricting the type of articles to original research articles for promotion basically restricts the literary, analyzing, synthesizing, debating, creativity, and thinking skills of teachers in a long run. In addition, neglecting the value of review articles leads to the availability of less review articles in the literature, resulting in information, time, and financial losses.

Published review articles should also be acknowledged as an achievement and should be considered when awarding for promotions. Review articles should not be depicted inferior when compared to original research articles. Grants should be provided to support candidates who intend to publish critical high-quality reviews addressing a novel scientific question; for example, a review assessing the current knowledge of the role of cancer stems cells in head and neck cancer from oral medicine point of view can be helpful to uninitiated scholars of the concerned field embarking to research into this concerned fascinating subject.

Barriers to access relevant articles while conducting a quality extensive review on the topics of current burning issues because of financial restriction, especially in developing countries, is best overcome by taking measures to promote grants for writing review articles. Furthermore, grants can be used to submit review articles to journals which charge publication charges/article processing charges (APCs); for example, PLOS ONE charges $1495 USD per article as APCs. [8] Journals like "the BMJ" confer awards every year for best research papers. [9] Journals should consider giving awards every year for best review articles. Every university should promote its researchers to conduct at least one quality review article per year by providing incentives. Regular workshops and short courses on how to perform literary search and write quality review articles should be conducted regularly by universities.

Review articles should be seen on par with original research articles. Neglecting review articles while exclusively focusing on original research articles will tend to undermine the current and past knowledge of science. This will have a negative effect on the principle of foundation of carrying out original research. Review articles should be promoted by providing grants, valued, and should be acknowledged as an achievement in academic field. In summary, there should be a balance in valuing and promoting both original research and review articles.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Medical Council of India. Clarification with Regard to Research Publications in the Matter of Promotion for Teaching Faculty in a Medical College/Institution (Circular No. MCI 12(1)/2015 TEQ/131880); 3 September, 2015. Available from: http://www.mciindia.org/circulars/ Circular 03.09.2015 TEQ Promotion Publication.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 15].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mount St. Mary′s University. Chemistry Resources: Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles. Available from: http://www.libguides.msmary.edu/c.php?g=11462&p=59914. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 22].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Rapple C. The Role of the Critical Review Article in Alleviating Information Overload. Annual Reviews White Paper; 2011. Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/Content Editor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 20].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Dijkers MP; Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines. The value of traditional reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009;88:423-30.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2011;20:57-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC Levels of Evidence and Grades for Recommendations for Developers of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 May 28].  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Boote DN, Beile P. Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educ Res 2005;34:3-15.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
PLoS One. Publication Fees. Available from: http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 23].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
The BMJ Awards. Shortlisted Teams for the BMJ Awards; 2016. Available from: http://www.thebmjawards.bmj.com/64277. [Last accessed on 2016 Feb 23].  Back to cited text no. 9
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1823    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded126    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]