2

Sorry if this is a simple question, but I am new to scientific writing. I noticed that some review papers uses a "Perspective" section as the final part of review (with no conclusion section) while others have a conclusion.

Since I understand what both means, my question is whether I can cite from the "Perspective" section? Does it matter whether it is not a traditional conclusion? Thanks.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    I hope the edit is OK, Rain Man and I didn't change the intention of your question.
    – Poidah
    Sep 30, 2019 at 12:26
  • excuse my bad English :)
    – Rain Man
    Sep 30, 2019 at 15:29
  • Please cite and ideally link some examples of the kinds of articles you're talking about, as well as your research discipline. This could help you get better answersI, for one, am not familiar with articles that end with a "Perspectives" section.
    – Tripartio
    Sep 30, 2019 at 21:17
  • yah sure .. this is a link of a review with Perspective section ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284247
    – Rain Man
    Oct 1, 2019 at 9:13
  • ad this is a review with conclusion section ijmedrev.com/article_80797_51bfab445f3deffe62a3f08e9c316af0.pdf
    – Rain Man
    Oct 1, 2019 at 9:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I think that a perspective section of a review at best offers material to reference to at best in the introduction of your work. The things likes "currently there is renewed interest in ..... and bla bla". Yes, cite it. Anyway you will cite the review, not a part of it. As far the reference corroborates your claims (actual text claims, not results), you can cite what best serves the purpose.

Improve this answer
7
  • thanks, kindly if I may ask .. if the reviewer said in any part of the review for example ( since author A proved C matter and author B proved C matter, so its possible for C to be a solution for matter Z ) ..that's mean I can cite his claim ( its possible for C to be a solution for matter Z ) away from the results for A and B data ??
    – Rain Man
    Oct 2, 2019 at 7:04
  • 1
    For actual and factual data is correct to cite the original source. In that scenario I would likely cite the review in my introduction, and then againt together with the original sources, A seems not really needed, and in doing this I would legitimately cherry pick. If I understand the situation.
    – Alchimista
    Oct 2, 2019 at 10:37
  • 1
    I mean I would cite a review in general. So likely in the intro of my work, where you give a broad frame for motivation. If I need to refer to a specific fact, eg A > 2, or B > 5, I cite the specific papers asserting that. If a review point out that B is > A because of some other reasons or logic, and I agree, I would cite the review and what lead to B. This makes me cite the review anyway, and so I will mention it already in my intro even if originally I was thinking of better or more up to date reviews. It is not that you cite the intro of review, but it is that likely you need it in your.
    – Alchimista
    Oct 4, 2019 at 13:25
  • 1
    ... own intro. With exceptions as those I gave an example above .// Yes rereading your last comment, it is something like that.
    – Alchimista
    Oct 4, 2019 at 13:26
  • 1
    thanks a lot , so logically I can cite from the review paper as long as the cited information is by the sound of the review author when he/she doesn't talk about someone else work ( information with no values, numbers , specific results or reference is mentioned ) wherever it can be found in the review sections regardless which section is it
    – Rain Man
    Oct 4, 2019 at 13:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .