No, review articles are secondary sources; they synthesize existing studies, except when the review itself is the object of study.
If you came here to settle a citation choice or to sort reading lists, here’s the short rule: a review gathers and interprets work done by others, while a primary source presents original material. That’s why most journals tag reviews as secondary literature. Still, there are edge cases. When your research topic is the review genre itself, a review can serve as a primary source.
Are Review Articles Primary Sources? When They Are And Aren’t
The label depends on your question. If your project asks, “What does the field know about X?”, a review is secondary material. If your project asks, “How do reviewers frame X over time?”, that same review turns into primary evidence about scholarly conversation. In short: function over format. Many readers type “are review articles primary sources?” into a search box; the answer is almost always “no,” unless the review itself is under study.
Fast Way To Classify Any Article
Use the purpose test. Ask, “Does this paper report new data, firsthand records, or original creative work?” If yes, you’re looking at a primary source. If no, and the paper summarizes past studies, compares results, or draws conclusions from others’ work, it’s a secondary source. Many reviews also include reference lists, trend summaries, and method notes, which are telltale signs of secondary status.
Common Source Types And What They Count As
The table below gives a quick map across common genres you’ll see in databases and reading lists.
| Source Type | What It Usually Contains | How It’s Treated |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative Review | Synthesis of prior studies with themes and context | Secondary |
| Systematic Review | Planned search, inclusion criteria, pooled findings | Secondary |
| Meta-analysis | Statistical pooling of results from prior research | Secondary |
| Scoping Review | Mapping of a topic’s breadth and evidence types | Secondary |
| Primary Research Article | New data, methods, and results from the authors | Primary |
| Case Study / Case Report | Detailed description of a specific person, group, or event | Primary |
| Methods Paper / Protocol | Original technique or study plan proposed by authors | Primary |
| Editorial Or Commentary | Opinion or perspective on existing literature | Secondary |
Why Reviews Are Labeled “Secondary” In Most Fields
Review papers work by selecting prior studies, weighing strengths, noting gaps, and building a take on the current state of knowledge. That is, they work with materials created by others. Health databases and library guides reflect this norm by tagging reviews under secondary literature. You can see this in training pages from medical libraries as well as in primers on evidence types. A clear reference is the NLM definitions, which place reviews among secondary works.
What About Systematic Reviews And Meta-analyses?
These formats add rigor to how studies are found and combined, but they work with previously published material. They set a search plan, screen records, extract results, and combine them. The plan can be tested and repeated, which is why these papers carry weight in evidence syntheses, yet the raw material still comes from other teams. For a plain outline of the process, see this open-access systematic review overview that explains how these papers bring results from many studies together.
Close Variant: Are Review Articles Seen As Primary Sources In Different Fields?
Labels can shift with context. A paper that counts as secondary in one project can serve as primary in another. Below are field-by-field notes that cover the gray areas people ask about most.
Sciences And Health
In lab and clinical areas, primary sources are reports of experiments, trials, cohort studies, or field data. Reviews help you scan a topic and plan searches, but they don’t show new measurements from the authors. University guides spell this out and use reviews as classic secondary material. Databases also mark reviews with their own publication type to keep them distinct from original studies.
Humanities
A monograph that comments on poems is secondary. The poem itself is primary. A literature review in a journal belongs to the secondary camp unless your project studies the review as a text. When you collect reviews to track trends in critique or to map shifts in theory, those reviews become your primary evidence. The role flips because your research question changed.
Social Sciences
Survey reports, field notes, interviews, and datasets are primary. A review that compares those studies is secondary. Still, if your aim is to study how the media or scholars talk about a topic, a review can serve as primary material about discourse. Again, function rules. Many readers also search “are review articles primary sources?” while drafting methods; the same answer holds here.
Practical Tests You Can Run In Minutes
The fastest way to classify a paper is to scan five spots: title, abstract, methods, results, and references. Titles that start with “Review,” “Systematic Review,” or “Scoping Review” point to secondary status. Abstracts that describe search steps and inclusion rules also point there. A methods section that lays out lab steps, surveys, or field work points to primary. A results section that presents new tables and figures drawn from the authors’ own work seals the case. Long reference lists alone do not prove secondary status, but paired with a methods section that describes search steps, they usually do.
Decision Tree You Can Use
Work top-down using the checks below.
- Does the article report new data or firsthand records? If yes, count it as primary.
- Does it summarize past studies or pool prior results? If yes, count it as secondary.
- Is your research question about the content of the review itself? If yes, you can treat the review as primary for that project.
- Does the journal tag the item as “Review” or “Systematic Review”? That’s a strong hint of secondary status.
Are Review Articles Primary Sources? Proof Points And Edge Cases
This section collects tricky situations that trip readers up, plus quick fixes.
When A Review Looks Like A Study
Some reviews include new figures, re-run statistics, or re-labeled categories. The numbers come from other studies, though, not from new sampling by the authors. That keeps the piece in the secondary group.
When A Review Contains A Small Original Dataset
Rarely, a review adds a small survey or a brief audit to give context. In that case, treat the item as mixed. If your citation backs a claim that rests on the added dataset, that part is primary. If your citation backs a claim drawn from the literature summary, that part is secondary. State which part you used in your text so readers see the role.
When Field Boundaries Differ
In art history, a museum catalog that quotes letters may be both: primary for the letters, secondary for the curator’s commentary. In policy work, a government white paper that republishes raw tables can act as primary for the tables and secondary for the narrative that surrounds them. This is why librarians say the label depends on your question and how you use the source.
Field-By-Field Snapshot
Use this quick table to see how common disciplines treat review genres. It sits later in the page so you’ve already seen the core rules and tests above.
| Field | Are Reviews Primary? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Biomedicine | No | Reviews pool prior studies; original trials, cohorts, or lab work are primary. |
| Psychology | No | Primary items are experiments, surveys, and observational datasets. |
| Engineering | No | Primary items are new designs, builds, and test results. |
| History | Usually no | Primary items are letters, diaries, records; reviews of scholarship are secondary. |
| Literary Studies | Usually no | Primary items are texts; reviews are secondary unless the review itself is studied. |
| Sociology | No | Primary items are datasets and field notes; reviews summarize them. |
| Business | No | Primary items are market data and firm records; reviews synthesize trends. |
How To Cite A Review Versus A Primary Study
When your claim rests on a measurement, cite the original study if you can reach it. When your claim is about the state of knowledge or competing results, a review is fine. If your teacher or editor asks for a minimum count of primary sources, plan to trace key numbers back to original papers. Many databases make this easy with filters for “Article” versus “Review” and with publication type tags.
Writing Phrases That Signal The Source Type
Use clear cues. For primary work, write “A trial by Ramirez et al. found…”. For reviews, write “A review of ten trials found…”. If you started with a review, then moved to primary papers, say so in a brief note.
Mistakes To Avoid
- Calling a review “primary” when your claim needs data that only the original study reports.
- Using a review to stand in for a study you haven’t read when the number matters.
- Skipping the abstract or methods section during your check. Two lines there would have told you the correct label.
- Assuming the label is fixed across projects. The role depends on your research question.
Quick Workflow For Students And Writers
Here’s a simple way to keep your notes tidy and your citations sharp.
- Create two folders in your reference manager: “Primary” and “Review.”
- When you add a PDF, tag it with the journal’s publication type and your own test (“reports new data” or “synthesizes others”).
- When you quote a number, trace it back to the first report at least once before you submit.
- Keep one review in your notes to map the field; keep at least three primary studies to back any data-heavy claim.
Where To Learn More
Library guides on source types echo these rules with field-specific tips.