A primary article is an authentic, first-hand retelling of a document or report. Furthermore, the author has a direct connection to the field being reported and is assessed by peers or other professionals in the same field. Specific elements, such as introductions or procedures, may be included in primary articles, along with data. Additional typical instances of primary sources are news articles, legal texts, first-hand studies, and direct quotes. 

A review article is an examination of another source, typically a primary source, and is occasionally referred to as a secondary source. They go into greater detail about a subject that is discussed in a primary article or source, providing analysis and clarification. Documentaries, law reviews, most textbooks, and many more are examples of secondary sources. Review articles and secondary sources are the main resources we use in education.  

Credibility and work quality are determined in large part by the scientific peer review process. A scientist researches something and writes about the results; the work is then given to a journal editor, where it is subjected to peer review and, if approved, published to the public. This is the standard procedure for a scientific peer review. A peer review includes summarizing the research, offering ideas or changes, and approving or rejecting publication. It will be sent back for editing after all peer review revisions are finished, and it will then be published. Experts in the same subject as the discussion are usually referred to as “peers.” 

The primary article is titled“Rapid and Sensitive Detection of SARS-Co V-2 Using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.” The review article is titled “Development of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated technology for potential clinical applications.” Because one of the articles in the top corner mentioned “mini reviews,” I was able to tell the two apart. However, there was a noticeable formatting change. A section for analyzing the data was absent from the primary article, although it was there in the review article. Additionally, I saw that the review article had more explanation for specific outcomes and treatments rather than as many data tables.