If you wish to publish a review paper, but want to include...

[rwooduk]

... some of your own theories, what would you call it?

Like, say I wanted to publish a review paper on the mating of tigers, then you may call the title:

The Mating of Tigers - A Review

But what now if I wanted to include my own theories on why they mate? Can I even do this without data of my own? What would the title then be?

Thanks for any suggestions on this.

 

[.Scott]

I don't have the right experience to answer this, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Perhaps my response will be more timely - or give you a direction to think about until someone with more authority can answer it.

If you are basing your theory on only the data presented in the original paper, then your new theory would be, in essence, a statement that any competing theory presented in the original paper was disproved or incomplete - or that your theory is an example of a better interpretation because it is simpler. For example, a paper may have picked the wrong null-hypothesis, and your new theory would fit in as an alternative null-hypothesis that remains consistent with the data collected.
On the other hand, if you are basing your theory on multiple papers, you may have something more than just a review.

 

[DrClaude]

"Review and Prospects"

"A Review and New Insights"

 

[rwooduk]

I don't have the right experience to answer this, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Perhaps my response will be more timely - or give you a direction to think about until someone with more authority can answer it.

If you are basing your theory on only the data presented in the original paper, then your new theory would be, in essence, a statement that any competing theory presented in the original paper was disproved or incomplete - or that your theory is an example of a better interpretation because it is simpler. For example, a paper may have picked the wrong null-hypothesis, and your new theory would fit in as an alternative null-hypothesis that remains consistent with the data collected.
On the other hand, if you are basing your theory on multiple papers, you may have something more than just a review.

Thanks. I want to combine things I have read in numerous papers and theorise that a combination of these effects would be advantageous. So it would be a review of the fundamentals, then the papers and then my hypothesis. So I guess it would be the latter.

"Review and Prospects"

"A Review and New Insights"

ahh I see thanks. So it is acceptable to publish a review of papers with a theory on how they could work together? Or would I have to test this theory first?

The thing is I have written a combined research proposal and literature review, so it's all intertwined. I've been asked to separate them into two separate pieces. However I'm hesitant to just write a review and regurgitate facts, I want to present some new ideas at the same time.

 

[DrClaude]

So it is acceptable to publish a review of papers with a theory on how they could work together? Or would I have to test this theory first?

I've seen it before, but it is not that common. What is common is for a review to focus a lot on the reviewer's previous work in the field

The thing is I have written a combined research proposal and literature review, so it's all intertwined. I've been asked to separate them into two separate pieces. However I'm hesitant to just write a review and regurgitate facts, I want to present some new ideas at the same time.

Sounds like a sensible suggestion. One of the problems in having both together is that your new work might go unnoticed. If you are very knowledgeable in a field, than a review can be very useful to others, in condensing information and making links which might not be obvious to everyone. If you are not an expert in the field, then its not a review, its an introduction! Keep it shorter, and use it to put your work in context.

 

[rwooduk]

I've seen it before, but it is not that common. What is common is for a review to focus a lot on the reviewer's previous work in the field

hmm, I only have my undergraduate thesis, which is on the subject hence why I chose the PhD as it's similar. We are starting experiments soon though.

Sounds like a sensible suggestion. One of the problems in having both together is that your new work might go unnoticed. If you are very knowledgeable in a field, than a review can be very useful to others, in condensing information and making links which might not be obvious to everyone. If you are not an expert in the field, then its not a review, its an introduction! Keep it shorter, and use it to put your work in context.

Define knowledgeable lol I have spent the last 2 years in the field, but have no experimental experience, I know the theory. In essence I would be making links between papers, hmm, we will end up going around in circles here lol I know what you are saying, thanks for the advice, very helpful!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Normally one is invited to write review papers. Normally the scope of the paper (w.r.t. new theories) is outlined in the invitation.