Yes, citing a review article within your own review is allowed, but treat it as a secondary source and balance it with primary studies.
You can reference a review paper when it adds synthesis you can’t get from one study alone. Use it to map themes, trace methods, or credit landmark surveys. When you make claims about evidence, read the original studies and cite them directly. That balance keeps your argument precise and keeps readers confident in your groundwork.
Citing A Review Article In Your Own Review: The Ground Rules
Think about the job each source performs. A review gathers and interprets many studies. A single study reports original data or theory. When your sentence needs a panoramic summary, the review fits. When your sentence makes a point about results, risk of bias, effect sizes, or sample details, lean on the original items.
Quick Decisions You Can Make
Use the checks below to decide which source to cite in a given line. The table keeps it plain and avoids guesswork.
| Situation | Best Source Type | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| You describe the overall state of a field | Review article | Captures trends and gaps across many papers |
| You state a specific result (effect size, accuracy, yield) | Original study | Lets readers verify data and methods |
| You outline methods used across studies | Review article | Summarizes common designs and tools |
| You critique a particular dataset | Original study | Points directly to sampling and limits |
| You credit an idea that became a subfield | Review article + key originals | Acknowledges influence and the source roots |
| You build a meta-analysis claim | Original studies | Evidence must be traceable to included items |
When A Review Citation Helps Your Reader
There are times when pointing to a synthesis speeds understanding and improves clarity. Here are common cases.
To Orient Readers Fast
A short pointer to a respected survey tells readers what the field studies, how it measures success, and where debates sit. That single link can save pages of setup in your introduction.
To Credit Influential Syntheses
Some reviews reshape a topic. Cite them when their framing or taxonomy defines how scholars talk about the area. Pair that with a few pivotal originals so the trail remains clear.
To Signal Method Choices
Reviews often catalog common models, instruments, or coding schemes. Citing such a list shows why your inclusion criteria or variables make sense.
When You Should Prefer Primary Studies
When you draw a numeric claim or a causal line, anchor it in the items that actually ran the test, built the model, or collected the sample. That choice lets others check details and replicate work. It also reduces the risk of compounding errors that can creep in when a chain of paraphrase grows long.
Watch For Secondhand Chains
If a review quotes a result from another review, follow the breadcrumbs to the earliest accessible item. Style guides call this a “secondary source.” Most recommend citing such items only when the original is unavailable or in a language you can’t read.
What Style Guides Say About Indirect Use
Academic styles agree on the same basic message: use the original when you can, and be clear when you can’t. That clarity helps readers see your path from claim to evidence.
APA And MLA On Secondary Sources
APA urges writers to seek the original and cite secondary sources sparingly. See the APA guidance on secondary sources for wording and examples. MLA gives similar advice and shows how to mark an indirect citation when needed; its style site has a note on paraphrasing indirect sources.
Systematic Reviews And Evidence Standards
In evidence-heavy fields, reporting checklists push for transparency about study selection, appraisal, and synthesis. The PRISMA 2020 checklist points writers to list databases searched, dates, criteria, and flow diagrams. Health-focused handbooks, such as the Cochrane Handbook, encourage authors to base findings on included primary studies and treat reviews of reviews as a special case with clear labeling.
How To Cite A Review Article Without Diluting Rigor
Follow a simple method each time you want to reference a synthesis. The steps keep your prose crisp and your citations clean.
Step 1: State The Role Of The Citation
Decide whether you are acknowledging a framing, summarizing a theme, or backing a specific data point. If it is framing or theme, a review fits. If it is a number or a test, reach for the originals.
Step 2: Check The Review’s Scope And Date
Scan its inclusion criteria, search dates, and field coverage. If its window is old, pair it with newer items so your overview stays current.
Step 3: Inspect The Trail
Open the references that feed the claim you plan to cite. Read at least the methods and results. This habit prevents accidental misquotes and keeps your synthesis tight.
Step 4: Phrase The Sentence To Match The Source Type
Signal synthesis with verbs like “surveys,” “maps,” or “summarizes.” Signal direct evidence with verbs like “reports,” “finds,” or “measures.” The cue helps readers parse the strength of a claim at a glance.
Step 5: Balance Your Reference List
A healthy list mixes a few field-defining surveys with a broad set of originals. Readers can then verify details and see that your conclusions rest on solid ground.
Common Pitfalls And How To Avoid Them
Over-Relying On One Big Survey
A single synthesis can be influential, but it can miss newer work, non-English outlets, or gray literature. Cross-check with database searches and set alerts for recent items.
Confusing A Review’s Claim With Primary Evidence
Don’t treat a summary sentence as if it were raw data. When your line needs numbers, cite the papers that generated them.
Copying A Review’s Inclusion Criteria Uncritically
Adopt criteria that match your question, not just what a prior team used. If your scope differs, explain the change so readers see the logic.
Quality Signals Reviewers Look For
Editors and instructors reward clear sourcing. Two signals carry weight: transparent selection and accurate attribution. Tell readers how you searched, what you included, and how you assessed quality. Attribute ideas to the earliest accessible source and mark when you rely on a secondhand quote.
Transparent Selection
State databases, date ranges, and keywords. If you use a flow diagram or a table for screening numbers, place it near your methods. Many fields expect a count of screened, included, and excluded items, with reasons.
Accurate Attribution
When a review shapes your map, credit it. When a specific result matters, show readers the trail to the item that produced that result. Keep both kinds of sources in view.
Style-By-Style Pointers
Each style handles review articles neatly. The patterns below keep you from overexplaining while keeping the path clear.
| Style | In-Text Pattern | Reference List Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| APA | (Author, Year) for the review; use “as cited in” only when the original cannot be obtained | Author. (Year). Title of review. Journal, volume(issue), pages. DOI |
| MLA | Author last name page, or author only for a paraphrase; mark “qtd. in” for indirect use | Author. “Title of Review.” Journal, vol., no., year, pages. DOI/URL |
| Chicago | Author Year, page (notes-bibliography uses footnotes) | Author. “Title of Review.” Journal volume, no. (Year): pages. DOI |
Practical Sentences You Can Reuse
To Acknowledge A Field Survey
“For background on recurring models and measures, see the broad survey by Author (Year).”
To Pair A Survey With Originals
“A recent survey maps three design families; the trials by Author1 (Year) and Author2 (Year) provide the core results behind that map.”
To Flag Indirect Use
“We cite Author (Year) as relayed in Review Author (Year) because the original is unavailable in English.”
Checklist Before You Cite A Review Paper
Use this quick pass to keep your sourcing tight and reader-friendly.
Scope Match
Does the review’s question match your question closely enough to justify a pointer?
Date Window
Is the search window current for your field’s pace?
Evidence Trail
Have you opened the pivotal originals behind the claim you plan to cite?
Balance
Does your paragraph still blend surveys with enough primary items to support each claim?
Takeaways
You can cite a review piece to map a topic, credit a taxonomy, or summarize methods. When you assert results, point to the originals. Style guides back this balance, and reporting checklists reward it. Follow that pattern and your review reads clean, fair, and easy to trust.