Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am trying to figure out if the following article is a primary or secondary source.

I'm leaning towards secondary but here are my cases for both.

Primary: Published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Secondary: It seems to be mostly a summary of other works so it might not be original research.

Can anyone confirm this for me? Thank you!

share|improve this question
probably better on Academia? – Alan Boyd Jan 26 '14 at 17:05
This would be a better fit on – Alan Boyd Jan 26 '14 at 17:05

Too long for a comment: Although this is a review article which summarizes the findings of other researchers, considers this as a primary article. The author gives you all the resources he used in the reference section of this article and summarises their finding. Additionally, review articles in renowned journals (and Genome Research is definitely such a journal) are peer-reviewed. Primary vs. secondary sources would be more the comparision of research articles and news articles. In my observation, news articles hardly ever name the sources or the original articles about which they report. Plus they sometimes have problems of getting the message wrong.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.