Should You Really be Writing A(nother) Review Manuscript?

Abstract

Figure 1. Review articles on a few popular energy research topics published in 2023–2024 (TENG refers to Tribo Electric Nano Generators, and LEDs refers to Light Emitting Diodes). The legends include the numbers of review articles and the percentages as part of all published peer review articles. Source: Web of Science, Clarivate (retrieved and analyzed on July 7, 2025). Editorial challenges. Whereas scientific articles provide new research advances, review articles are composed based on published literature. As a result, review articles are seldom rejected by journals on scientific grounds after peer review unless they are poorly composed and difficult to comprehend. The number of review articles on a given topic depends on its popularity. For popular topics such as halide perovskites, storage batteries, and LEDs, the number of review articles can reach thousands each year (see Figure 1), making it difficult to assess novelty and impact. Except for a few well-thought-out reviews in each category, others merely serve as placeholders, repeating already summarized content, hoping to get cited. Citation practices. Citing review articles in the introduction of a manuscript is a common practice since the authors do not need to give a full literature survey. Authors often look for the most-cited reviews so their citations remain credible. Just ask any author how many review articles they fully read before citing them in a manuscript. Superficial reviews. The ease of compiling literature through various databases has led to a rise in review articles, sometimes authored by groups who repeatedly publish on trending topics without offering new insights or critical analysis, compiling literature with no specific data analysis, critique, or detailed discussion. Although these articles are likely to be scientifically correct, they are not likely to contribute to the advancement of scientific literature. As authors, we really need to ask ourselves: Is there more room and need for another review on the same popular topic after many similar review papers have been published over the previous years? (2) Just like original research papers, the novelty (timeliness) of a review manuscript could have a significant impact on its significance and usefulness to the research community (i.e., in practical terms, the future citations). The idea of “novelty” of a review has not often been considered when making editorial decisions on accepting a review paper, but now it is becoming important as duplicative articles appear throughout literature. AI-Generated content. The availability of AI tools has made writing even easier. (3−6) LLM Tools like ChatGPT have accelerated the production of papermill activity and review articles, including those generated with minimal human input that only summarize the latest developments in a scientific field with key references. (7) The authors thank Dr. González Miera for helpful discussions This article references 9 other publications. This article has not yet been cited by other publications.