
Writing a review article is a different skill to writing a research article. Rather than presenting new data from a research project, a review article brings together information already available in the published literature in order to collate, critique and interrogate it (Jalongo and Saracho, 2016; Rewhorn, 2018). Reviews have the advantage that they give an overview of a topic that can act as a starting point for others to learn more if it is not already their area of expertise. They can also highlight to other scholars gaps in current knowledge where further research is needed, and thus also provide a good resource for early career academics to identify research areas with the most potential to help develop careers. In other words, they tell us what we know and what we need to know (Paul and Criado, 2020). In consequence, reviews are often quoted more frequently than are papers that make up the original research base for that topic, typically with around three times more citations than original research (Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero, 2018).
4301 Archaeology, 43 History, Heritage and Archaeology
4301 Archaeology, 43 History, Heritage and Archaeology
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
