difference between research paper and journal

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

County-level death counts for Florida and Ohio based on Datavant data that link mortality records to voter registration files against the CDC data. Each observation represents a single county. Additional details on the data are provided in the eMethods in Supplement 1 .

Weekly excess deaths for Florida and Ohio based on mortality records linked to voter registration files. A, Overall excess death rates in Florida and Ohio. B, Excess death rates by registered party. C, The percentage-point difference between the registered parties, after adjusting for age and state-level differences; the smooth brown curve was fit with locally estimated scatterplot smoothing. A-C, Excess death rates were calculated for each week by comparing the observed deaths in that week with expected deaths based on a Poisson model. The 95% prediction intervals (shaded areas) were determined using simulations from the Poisson coefficient and outcome distribution, with SEs clustered at the county level. Additional details on the excess death methods and statistical analyses are presented in the eMethods in Supplement 1 .

The analyses were additionally adjusted for age and state-level differences in subgroup analyses where these covariates were not used for stratification. The 95% prediction intervals (horizontal lines) were determined using simulations from the Poisson coefficient and outcome distribution, with SEs clustered at the county level. Additional details on the excess death methodology and statistical analyses are presented in the eMethods in Supplement 1 .

The diamonds are binned means; counties with similar vaccination rates were binned to form 8 equally sized bins. The curves were fit to the underlying data using locally estimated scatterplot smoothing. In the pre–COVID-19 period (before April 2020), excess death rates for both Republican and Democratic voters hover around 0. During the beginning pandemic but before open vaccine eligibility (April 2020 to March 2021), the association between excess death rates and county-level vaccination rates were generally negative and nearly identical for Republican and Democratic voters. However, in the period after open vaccine eligibility (April 2021 to December 2021), there was a clear difference between Republican and Democratic voters, with higher excess death rates for Republicans concentrated in counties with lower overall vaccination rates and minimal differences in counties with the highest vaccination rates.

eMethods . Supplemental Description of Methods

eFigure 1. Excess Death Rates by Age in Florida and Ohio: 2018-2021

eFigure 2. Excess Death Rates in Florida: 2018-2021

eFigure 3. Excess Death Rates in Ohio: 2018-2021

eFigure 4. Excess Death Rates and Vaccination Rates in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic Using October 1, 2021, Vaccination Rates

eFigure 5. Excess Death Rates and Vaccination Rates in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic Using March 1, 2021, Vaccination Rates

eTable 1. Summary Statistics

eTable 2. Sensitivity of Estimated Difference in Excess Death Rates Between Republican and Democratic Voters to Alterations in Excess Death Methodology and Statistical Model

Data Sharing Statement

• Discrepancies in Estimating Excess Death by Political Party Affiliation—Reply JAMA Internal Medicine Comment & Response January 1, 2024 Jacob Wallace, PhD; Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, PhD; Jason L. Schwartz, PhD
• Discrepancies in Estimating Excess Death by Political Party Affiliation JAMA Internal Medicine Comment & Response January 1, 2024 Christopher Dasaro, BS; Alyson Haslam, PhD; Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH
• Discrepancies in Estimating Excess Death by Political Party Affiliation JAMA Internal Medicine Comment & Response January 1, 2024 Patrick O’Mahen, PhD

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

For this paper to be accurate, voting records must be accurate. Ohio has historically had inaccurate voting records, so much so that a recent Supreme Court Decision recently went against the state of Ohio, see https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Jon-Husted-Ohio-Secretary-of-State-v.-Philip-Randolph-Institute-et-al.-decision-16-980.pdf.

Also this paper contradicts more recent studies that have showed that mRNA vaccination decreases death rates from COVID, but increases deaths from other causes, so that all cause mortality is unchanged, with a relative risk of dying of 1.03 in the vaccinated group vas the unvaccinated group. https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)00810-6

This is a very interesting and informative study of public health value, but the findings are not unexpected.

It demonstrates the value of preventing disruption of health, and perhaps equally importantly emphasizes the direct and indirect economic loss to the society and the state when public health is compromised.

Political affiliation should not influence health care. Medicine is beyond politics!

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Wallace J , Goldsmith-Pinkham P , Schwartz JL. Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(9):916–923. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1154

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic

• 1 Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
• 2 Yale School of Management, New Haven, Connecticut
• Comment & Response Discrepancies in Estimating Excess Death by Political Party Affiliation—Reply Jacob Wallace, PhD; Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, PhD; Jason L. Schwartz, PhD JAMA Internal Medicine
• Comment & Response Discrepancies in Estimating Excess Death by Political Party Affiliation Christopher Dasaro, BS; Alyson Haslam, PhD; Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH JAMA Internal Medicine
• Comment & Response Discrepancies in Estimating Excess Death by Political Party Affiliation Patrick O’Mahen, PhD JAMA Internal Medicine

Question   Was political party affiliation a risk factor associated with excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida and Ohio?

Findings   In this cohort study evaluating 538 159 deaths in individuals aged 25 years and older in Florida and Ohio between March 2020 and December 2021, excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults, but not before. These differences were concentrated in counties with lower vaccination rates, and primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio.

Meaning   The differences in excess mortality by political party affiliation after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults suggest that differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters may have been a factor in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic in the US.

Importance   There is evidence that Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democratic-leaning counties and similar evidence of an association between political party affiliation and attitudes regarding COVID-19 vaccination; further data on these rates may be useful.

Objective   To assess political party affiliation and mortality rates for individuals during the initial 22 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design, Setting, and Participants   A cross-sectional comparison of excess mortality between registered Republican and Democratic voters between March 2020 and December 2021 adjusted for age and state of voter registration was conducted. Voter and mortality data from Florida and Ohio in 2017 linked to mortality records for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, were used in data analysis.

Exposures   Political party affiliation.

Main Outcomes and Measures   Excess weekly deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic adjusted for age, county, party affiliation, and seasonality.

Results   Between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, there were 538 159 individuals in Ohio and Florida who died at age 25 years or older in the study sample. The median age at death was 78 years (IQR, 71-89 years). Overall, the excess death rate for Republican voters was 2.8 percentage points, or 15%, higher than the excess death rate for Democratic voters (95% prediction interval [PI], 1.6-3.7 percentage points). After May 1, 2021, when vaccines were available to all adults, the excess death rate gap between Republican and Democratic voters widened from −0.9 percentage point (95% PI, −2.5 to 0.3 percentage points) to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0-9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis; the excess death rate among Republican voters was 43% higher than the excess death rate among Democratic voters. The gap in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters was larger in counties with lower vaccination rates and was primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio.

Conclusions and Relevance   In this cross-sectional study, an association was observed between political party affiliation and excess deaths in Ohio and Florida after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults. These findings suggest that differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters may have been factors in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic in the US.

As of May 2023, there had been approximately 1.1 million deaths from COVID-19 in the US. 1 There is evidence that Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democratic-leaning counties and similar evidence of an association between political party affiliation and attitudes regarding COVID-19 vaccination, social distancing, and other mitigation strategies based on political party affiliation. 2 - 6

Prior studies 7 , 8 have found that Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democratic-leaning counties. It is unknown whether this county-level association persists at the individual level and whether it may be subject to the ecologic fallacy. 9 The ecologic fallacy is the incorrect assumption that associations observed at an aggregated level (eg, a county) will be the same at the individual level. Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning counties differ in ways other than political party affiliation, 10 , 11 such as racial and ethnic composition, rurality, and educational levels, making it difficult to establish whether the differences in COVID-19 death rates are associated with political party affiliation or other differences in county-level characteristics. Research before the COVID-19 pandemic has also found evidence of higher death rates in Republican-leaning counties than Democratic-leaning counties. 12

To assess the association between political party affiliation and excess mortality for individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic, we linked voter registration data in Florida and Ohio to mortality data at the individual level to calculate excess death rates for Republican and Democratic voters and compare excess death rates before and after vaccines became available to the full adult population. 13 , 14 Because individual-level vaccination status was not included in the available data, we were able to assess excess death rates and vaccination rates only at the county level.

The eMethods in Supplement 1 provides additional details of all the methods. We obtained detailed US weekly mortality data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, from Datavant, an organization that augments the Social Security Administration Death Master File with information from newspapers, funeral homes, and other sources to construct an individual-level database containing 10 325 730 deaths in the US to individuals aged 25 or older during this period. This data set, which includes deaths reported to Datavant through March 31, 2023, covers approximately 83.5% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention death count for individuals who died at age 25 or older during the period from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021. Because the Datavant mortality data do not contain state identifiers, we are unable to assess data completeness in our individual study states of Florida and Ohio. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Datavant mortality data have been used in other peer-reviewed 15 and publicly available 16 research on excess mortality. The Yale University Institutional Review Board exempted the study from review because the data were deidentified, and reporting adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( STROBE ) reporting guideline.

We linked the mortality data at the individual level to 2017 Florida and Ohio voter registration files; these were the only states for which historical publicly available voter registration data were readily available. The linkage was performed from April 11 to 14, 2023. For each record, the linked data included week of death, age of deceased, county of residence, and 2017 political party affiliation. Political party affiliation in Ohio was defined by whether an individual voted in a party’s primary election within the preceding 2 calendar years; in Florida, political party affiliation was based on party registration. We excluded individuals whose political party affiliation was independent and those who were affiliated with third parties. Because COVID-19 deaths are most common at older ages, 17 we included only death records for individuals who died at age 25 years or older.

We also obtained death counts for the study period from the National Center for Health Statistics 18 and county-level vaccination rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 19 We selected May 1, 2021, as the date for the county-level vaccination rate—1 month after eligibility for vaccines opened to all adults in the study states—because it represented the approximate date when all adults would have had the opportunity to receive at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine if they so desired, taking into account the time that states required during April 2021 to schedule and administer vaccines to newly eligible adults seeking them. As a robustness check, we assessed the sensitivity of our findings to using county-level vaccination rates on alternative dates before (March 1, 2021) and after (October 1, 2021) May 1, 2021.

We aggregated weekly death counts from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at the county-by-party-by-age level. The age ranges used were 25 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years or older. The observed death counts included all the deaths from our mortality data that linked to Republican or Democratic voters who were registered in Florida and Ohio as of 2017.

To calculate the number of excess deaths, we estimated the number of deaths we would expect in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we estimated expected weekly deaths at the county-by-party-by-age level by fitting a Poisson regression model to observed weekly death counts at the county-by-party-by-age-level for January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. 20 , 21 We then predicted expected deaths over our full sample. Excess deaths were defined as the difference between observed and expected deaths for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021. As a check on the model, we used predictions from the model in the weeks before the onset of COVID-19 (January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2020) to estimate excess deaths during this period.

We calculated excess death rates (the primary outcome) as the ratio of observed deaths (the numerator) to expected deaths (the denominator). To obtain estimates of excess death rates at aggregated levels, we used a weighted average of estimated excess death rates in each of the underlying cells (eg, county-by-party-by-age), weighted by their expected death counts. We estimated Poisson 95% prediction intervals (PIs), simulating from the coefficient distribution and outcome distribution, with SEs clustered by county. 22 We additionally adjusted estimated differences in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters—the primary estimate of interest—for differences in excess death rates by age group and state during the COVID-19 pandemic. Intuitively, this approach compared excess death rates between Democratic and Republican voters of the same age residing in the same states during the same week of the pandemic and then weighted those differences in excess death rates to either the weekly level, when plotting weekly differences in excess death rates, or to 3 broader time periods: (1) April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (the part of the study period overlapping the COVID-19 pandemic); (2) April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021 (the period during the pandemic before open vaccine eligibility for all adults); and (3) April 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021 (the period during the pandemic after open vaccine eligibility for all adults).

We also assessed county-level vaccination rates (as of May 1, 2021) and excess death rates by plotting average excess death rates for Republican and Democratic voters against the county-level vaccination rate during (1) the pre–COVID-19 pandemic period, (2) the period during the pandemic before open vaccine eligibility for all adults, and (3) the period during the pandemic after open vaccine eligibility for all adults.

In sensitivity analyses, we altered the Poisson model used to predict baseline death counts by including a linear time trend (and in one analysis allowing it to vary by state) and additional seasonality terms to capture higher frequency season-of-the-year trends. 23 For transparency, we calculated differences in the excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters with no adjustments (removing our state and age group adjustments) and, separately, with a model that included our primary adjustments (state and age group) and additional adjustments for county-by-age differences in excess death rates during the pandemic.

We performed all calculations using R, version 4.1.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Statistical analyses report 95% PIs using simulations from the coefficient distribution and outcome distribution, with SEs clustered by county. Significance testing was 2-sided, and a P  < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Our study included 538 159 deaths for individuals aged 25 years and older in Florida and Ohio between January 2018 and December 2021 linked to their 2017 voter data (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ). The median age at death was 78 years (IQR, 71-89 years). The pattern of death counts in our linked data and in the National Center for Health Statistics data was similar ( Figure 1 ).

Using these data, we found a 20.5 percentage-point (95% PI, 15.6-25.6 percentage points) increase in weekly death counts in Florida and Ohio in the March 2020 to December 2021 period relative to the expected death counts for those weeks ( Figure 2 A and Table ). By comparison, for the time periods before the pandemic, we found only small fluctuations in excess death rates around 0.

Before the pandemic, excess death rates for Republican and Democratic voters were centered around 0 ( Figure 2 B). In the winter of 2021, both groups experienced sharp increases of similar magnitude in excess death rates. However, in the summer of 2021, after vaccines were available to all adults, the excess death rate among Republican voters began to increase relative to the excess death rate among Democratic voters; in the fall of 2021, the gap widened further. Between March 2020 and December 2021, excess death rates were 2.8 percentage points (15%) higher for Republican voters compared with Democratic voters (95% PI, 1.6-3.7 percentage points) ( Table ). After April 1, 2021, when all adults were eligible for vaccines in Florida and Ohio, this gap widened from −0.9 percentage point (95% PI, −2.5 to 0.3 percentage points) between March 2020 and March 2021, to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0-9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis, or a 43% difference ( Table ).

The estimates of differences in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters (adjusted for age, time, and state) were small until the summer of 2021, when excess death rates among Republican voters began to increase compared with excess death rates among Democratic voters ( Figure 2 C). The analyses stratified by age showed that Republican voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Democratic voters for 2 of the 4 age groups in the study, the differences for the age group 25 to 64 years were not significant ( Figure 3 ; eFigure 1 in Supplement 1 ). Democratic voters had significantly higher excess death rates compared with Republican voters for the age group 65 to 74 years. The analyses stratified by state showed that differences in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters were primarily seen in voters residing in Ohio, with smaller, and generally nonsignificant, differences in weekly excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters in Florida (eFigure 2 and eFigure 3 in Supplement 1 ). In analyses that pooled data from March 2020 to December 2021, Republican voters in Florida did not have a statistically significantly higher excess death rate than Democratic voters in Florida ( Figure 3 ). Additional sensitivity analyses supported our main conclusions (eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ).

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no association between county-level excess death rates, which hovered around 0, and the county-level vaccination rates ( Figure 4 A). During the pandemic, there was generally a negative association between county-level excess death rates and the share of the county population administered at least 1 dose of the vaccine as of May 1, 2021 ( Figure 4 B and C). In the period before open vaccine eligibility for adults (April 2020 to March 2021), the association between excess death rates and county-level vaccination rates was nearly identical for Republican and Democratic voters ( Figure 4 B). In the period after open vaccine eligibility (April to December 2021), there was a clear difference between Republican and Democratic voters, with higher excess death rates for Republicans in counties with lower overall vaccination rates ( Figure 4 C). Sensitivity analyses supported our main conclusions (eFigure 4 and eFigure 5 in Supplement 1 ).

During the initial years of the COVID-19 pandemic, political party affiliation in the US was associated with excess death rates in Florida and Ohio at the individual level. Republican voters had higher excess death rates than Democratic voters, as noted in a large mortality gap in the period after, but not before, all adults were eligible for vaccines in Florida and Ohio. With adjustments for differences in age and state of residence between Republican and Democratic voters, our findings suggest that, among individuals in the same age groups living in the same states, there were significant differences in excess death rates during the COVID-19 pandemic associated with political party affiliation. The results were robust to alterations in the methods used to estimate excess mortality as well as the statistical model used to estimate the difference in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters.

Our findings suggest that political party affiliation became a substantial factor only after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US. Although the lack of individual-level vaccination status limited our ability to note further associations, the results suggest that well-documented differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters 24 , 25 may have been factors in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic. However, one alternative explanation is that political party affiliation is a proxy for other risk factors (beyond age, which we adjusted for) for excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as rates of underlying medical conditions, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or health insurance coverage, 26 - 29 and these risk factors may be associated with differences in excess mortality by political party, even though we only observed differences in excess mortality after vaccines were available to all adults. It is also possible that specific risk factors for excess mortality interact with the emergence of COVID-19 variants (eg, Delta) or changes in vaccine-associated protection over time to be more consequential at different stages of the pandemic. Because data limitations prevented us from directly adjusting for these factors, their potential influence remains an important question for future research.

In addition to vaccines, nonpharmaceutical interventions, including facial masks and restrictions on large gatherings, have been reported to contribute to reductions in transmission of COVID-19 or its severe outcomes, including death, in experimental, quasi-experimental, and modeling studies. 30 - 33 However, differences in support for these measures by political party affiliation emerged early in the pandemic, 34 and the gradual loosening of the strictest government policies regarding the use of facial masks and restrictions on large gatherings predated April 2021, when vaccines became available to all adults in the study states. The extent of public adherence to these and other interventions at various stages of the pandemic, associations between individual political party affiliation and the adoption over time of these interventions in specific geographic areas, and their relative contribution to trends in individual and community COVID-19 mortality over time are also worthwhile areas for further investigation.

Since the fall of 2022, the focus of the US COVID-19 vaccination program has turned to the administration of updated, bivalent booster doses to those who have already received a primary vaccine series and, in many cases, 1 or more prior booster dose. Federal health officials have also begun considering future strategies for COVID-19 vaccination, including annual revaccination campaigns using vaccines reformulated to match circulating variants. 35 Yet more than 2 years into the vaccination effort, more than 50 million adults in the US have not completed a primary series, and these individuals remain at a substantially increased risk of hospitalization and death. 36 The causes of this vaccine hesitancy and refusal are varied and extend beyond political beliefs or party affiliation alone. 37 It therefore remains imperative for public health officials to continue and enhance activities intended to improve initial vaccination coverage, in tandem with current or future booster campaigns. To be most effective, these efforts—and corresponding messages—should be tailored to their intended audiences, address the particular sources of vaccine hesitancy among those groups, and seek to include direct participation from members of those communities as trusted ambassadors of provaccine messages. 38 As part of this work, engagement with conservative and Republican leaders, in particular, has been identified as a promising approach to promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. 38

Our study has several limitations. First, there are plausible alternative explanations for the difference in excess death rates by political party affiliation beyond the explanatory role of vaccines discussed herein. Second, our mortality data, although detailed and recent, only included approximately 83.5% of deaths in the US and did not include cause of death. Although overall excess death patterns in our data are similar to those in other reliable sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics data, it is possible that the deaths that our study data did not include may disproportionately occur among individuals registered with a particular political party, potentially biasing our results. In addition, the completeness of our mortality data may vary across states or time, potentially biasing our estimates of excess death rates. Third, all excess death models rely on fundamentally untestable assumptions to construct the baseline number of deaths we would expect in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fourth, because we did not have information on individual vaccination status, analyses of the association between vaccination rates and excess deaths relied on county-level vaccination rates. Fifth, our study was based on data from 2 states with readily obtainable historical voter registration information (Florida and Ohio); hence, our results may not generalize to other states.

Our study found evidence of higher excess mortality for Republican voters compared with Democratic voters in Florida and Ohio after, but not before, COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US. These differences in excess death rates were larger in counties with lower vaccination rates. If differences in COVID-19 vaccination by political party affiliation persist, particularly in the absence of other pandemic mitigation strategies, the higher excess death rate observed among Republican voters may continue through subsequent stages of the pandemic.

Accepted for Publication: March 4, 2023.

Published Online: July 24, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1154

Corresponding Author: Jacob Wallace, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, 60 College St, New Haven, CT 06510 ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Drs Wallace and Goldsmith-Pinkham had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Goldsmith-Pinkham.

Obtained funding: Wallace, Schwartz.

Supervision: Wallace.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: The Tobin Center for Economic Policy at Yale University and the Yale School of Public Health COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Fund funded this study.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessary reflect the official views of the supporting organizations.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The doodle dilemma: How the physical health of ‘Designer-crossbreed’ Cockapoo, Labradoodle and Cavapoo dogs’ compares to their purebred progenitor breeds

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Clinical Science and Services, Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Roles Supervision

Affiliation Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Affiliation EviVet Evidence-Based Veterinary Consultancy, Nottingham, United Kingdom

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Gina T. Bryson, 
• Dan G. O’Neill, 
• Claire L. Brand, 
• Zoe Belshaw, 
• Rowena M. A. Packer

• Published: August 28, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Booming UK ownership of designer-crossbreed dogs resulting from intentional crossing of distinct purebred breeds is often motivated by perceived enhanced health, despite limited evidence supporting a strong ’hybrid vigour’ effect in dogs. Improved evidence on the relative health of designer-crossbreed dogs could support prospective owners to make better acquisition decisions when choosing their new dog. This study used a cross-sectional survey of UK owners of three common designer-crossbreeds (Cavapoo, Cockapoo, and Labradoodle) and their progenitor breeds (Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Cocker Spaniel, Labrador Retriever, and Poodle) to collect owner-reported health disorder information. The authors hypothesised that designer-crossbred breeds have lower odds of common disorders compared to their progenitor breeds. Multivariable analysis accounted for confounding between breeds: dog age, sex, neuter status, and owner age and gender. The odds for the 57 most common disorders were compared across the three designer-crossbreeds with each of their two progenitor breeds (342 comparisons). Valid responses were received for 9,402 dogs. The odds did not differ statistically significantly between the designer-crossbreeds and their relevant progenitor breeds in 86.6% (n = 296) of health comparisons. Designer-crossbreeds had higher odds for 7.0% (n = 24) of disorders studied, and lower odds for 6.4% (n = 22). These findings suggest limited differences in overall health status between the three designer-crossbreeds and their purebred progenitors, challenging widespread beliefs in positive hybrid vigour effects for health in this emerging designer-crossbreed demographic. Equally, the current study did not suggest that designer-crossbreeds have poorer health as has also been purported. Therefore, owners could more appropriately base acquisition decisions between designer-crossbreeds and their purebred progenitors on other factors important to canine welfare such as breeding conditions, temperament, conformation and health of parents.

Citation: Bryson GT, O’Neill DG, Brand CL, Belshaw Z, Packer RMA (2024) The doodle dilemma: How the physical health of ‘Designer-crossbreed’ Cockapoo, Labradoodle and Cavapoo dogs’ compares to their purebred progenitor breeds. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0306350. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350

Editor: Benito Soto-Blanco, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, BRAZIL

Received: March 4, 2024; Accepted: June 14, 2024; Published: August 28, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Bryson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: R.M.A.P. (Kennel Club Charitable Trust - Research Grant) D.G.O. (Kennel Club Charitable Trust - International Canine Health Award) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Over the past decade, as human motivations to own dogs based on their physical and heritage characteristics have continued to evolve, a new phenomenon called ‘designer-crossbreeds’ has emerged that is now a major contributor to the canine demographic landscape in many countries including the UK and USA [ 1 – 4 ]. Although almost all current pure breeds can be considered historically as crosses between other types of dogs (prior to their gene pools becoming closed in the registered pedigree populations) [ 5 ], the modern wave of designer-crossbreeding is different and is instead driven by the aim of deliberately creating ‘hybrids’ between existing pure breeds rather than to create a new breed per se . This designer crossbreeding phenomenon is widely considered to have been triggered in Australia in 1980 by Wally Conran, who then worked for the Royal Guide Dog Association. Conran intentionally crossed a Labrador Retriever with a Poodle with the aim of creating a non-shedding guide dog for a client whose husband was allergic to dog hair [ 6 ]. Faced with the challenge of finding homes for the remaining crossbred ‘mongrel’ puppies from the litter, Conran invoked some basic marketing principles to create public demand for his product by inventing a new, attractive name and a positive sales story that claimed hypoallergenicity and hybrid vigour in the absence of much supporting evidence [ 7 , 8 ]. Hence the portmanteau name ‘Labradoodle’ was coined, with the resultant ‘Labradoodle’ puppies advertised as a new, and now desirable, hybrid breed with a supportive human and canine health-based backstory [ 6 ]. Demand for Labradoodles and subsequently several other ‘designer’ Poodle-crosses has grown rapidly over the intervening four decades [ 9 ]. The Cockapoo, a designer cross between a Cocker Spaniel and Poodle, was the second most popular puppy owned in the UK in 2019 [ 3 ] and demand for other Poodle crosses including the Cavapoo (designer cross between Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and Poodle) also notably increased in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 [ 10 ]. The progeny from this new wave of intentional crosses have been termed ‘designer-crossbreeds’ to distinguish them, and indeed increase the financial value of this category of dogs, from the traditional non-designer crossbreeds (also known as general crossbreeds, mixed breeds, or mongrels) and older crosses that are now considered as purebred dogs, e.g. the Silky Terrier ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Many of today’s purebreds originated from crossbreeding between different pre-existing purebreds. The Silky Terrier, Golden Retriever and Bullmastiff were products of intentional breeding between different pre-existing breeds and therefore, could be considered ‘designer dogs’ that later gained purebred status. The Irish Wolfhound originated similarly but later on, and necessitated crossbreeding with other breeds like Great Danes in order to keep the Irish Wolfhound from disappearing altogether.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.g001

As introduced above, using intentional crossbreeding between different defined types or breeds to create new types of dogs has been standard practice in dog breeding for over 150 years, with many of today’s pure breed dogs resulting from various forms of designer-crossbreeding programmes during their original invention, though terms such as outcrossing may have been used back then to describe these breeding practices [ 11 ]. Therefore to avoid confusion, in the current paper, we will define pure breeds as types of dog where all the dogs within the breed have recognisably similar physical appearances and when bred together give rise to a subsequent generation that closely resemble the parental dogs, and therefore can be assumed to share high genetic similarity i.e., limited genetic diversity within the breed [ 12 ]. Within each pure breed, a pedigree subset of dogs is defined when a recognised breed register maintains a record of the stated forebearers for these dogs [ 13 , 14 ]. For example, the Golden Retriever breed was recognised by The Kennel Club (UK) in 1913 after invention by crossbreeding between two pre-existing pure breeds: the Flat-coated Retriever and the now ‘extinct’ Tweed Water Spaniel [ 15 ]. In many ways, some modern designer-crossbreeds such as the Cockapoo and Labradoodle are now becoming so recognisable and saleable, with breed enthusiasts establishing their own canine registries, that they could already be considered to meet criteria as new, emerging pure breeds or even pedigree dogs [ 16 , 17 ]. Yet despite dramatically rising demand to own designer-crossbreeds, anecdotal evidence suggests that a ‘pure breed bias’ form of discrimination still prevails, whereby the new wave of designer-crossbreeds are still tarred with a ‘mongrel’ moniker as a derogatory rather than simply a descriptive term [ 18 ]. Modern designer-crossbreeds are often considered as somehow ‘less’ than the longer established pure breeds that also had designer-crossbred origins, such as the Golden Retriever [ 19 – 21 ], despite their similar origins differing only in the date when these breed types were originally invented. An improved evidence base on the relative health of the new wave of designer-crossbreeds compared to their progenitor pure bred parent breeds could contribute to a better understanding of these new designer types of dogs, and whether they have health-based deficiencies or advantages compared to their pure breed counterparts [ 22 ].

There is growing evidence of substantial predispositions to disorders in many current pure breeds of dogs resulting from genetic or conformational problems [ 17 , 23 – 25 ]. Historically, skilled breeders were encouraged to improve the health and other aspects of their breed(s) by outcrossing (i.e., breeding between dogs of differing types or breeds) to augment health-related traits, for example, to increase genetic diversity or change conformational and/or behavioural traits [ 26 ]. However, since The Kennel Club’s pedigree breed registers were formally closed to outcrossing in the UK in 1971, the opportunity for outcrossing to redress health, genetic and conformational problems within the pedigree subset of pure breeds has been largely removed, with just a few exceptions. Consequently, there is now growing evidence of certain serious genetic and conformational health issues that may require formally re-opening the stud books to outcrossing to resolve [ 12 , 27 ]. In welcome moves to counter the issues resulting from closed studbooks, The Kennel Club is now increasingly open to registering dogs bred within formally designed outcross programmes with pre-defined rationales necessitating the outcrossing. As an example, an outcross programme was created between Dalmatians and Pointers that aimed to reduce the prevalence of clinical problems associated with elevated levels of uric acid, a disorder inherited as an autosomal recessive fully penetrant gene and affecting one in four Dalmatians [ 28 , 29 ]. Similarly, crossbreeding the Griffon Bruxellois with the Australian Terrier (to create hybrid ‘Graussies’ [ 30 ]) was undertaken to reduce the prevalence of the serious neurological disorder, Chiari malformation/syringomyelia (CM/SM) in the Griffon Bruxellois [ 30 ]. Sadly, however, despite the health success of these outcrossing programmes, there is still resistance from many ‘traditional’ breeders who hold that maintaining the purity of their breed by ‘pure breeding’, i.e., only selecting within their restricted gene pools, is a higher priority than protecting the health of future dogs of that breed using all genetic resources available within the wider dog population [ 26 ].

Outside the realms of pedigree dog registration systems, crossbreeding is still a mainstay breeding tool used by ethical breeders to protect canine health and improve other performance traits, e.g., behaviour. Crossbreeding is regularly used in the breeding of working dogs, such as Guide Dogs (commonly Golden Retriever x Labrador Retrievers), to retain favourable traits from one progenitor breed while displacing some of their health problems by incorporating genetic and conformational characteristics from an alternative progenitor breed [ 31 ]. When successful, this phenomenon is known as ‘positive hybrid vigour’, whereby the performance of the crossbred offspring for a particular trait is superior to the average of the purebred progenitor breeds [ 32 ]. Supporting at least some positive hybrid vigour effect in dogs, data on hip dysplasia between 1991–1995 in the US reported 10% lower prevalence in crossbreeds compared to purebreds [ 33 ]. Furthermore, purebred dogs were more likely to have two copies of the disease-associated allele (homozygous state) than crossbreeds, leading to the disease phenotype’s expression [ 34 ]. However, the quality and strength of the evidence for an overall and meaningful positive hybrid vigour in crossbreed dogs has been challenged [ 32 ]. Inadequate specification of the progenitor breeds for the crossbreds under analysis has meant that most previous studies at best provides evidence for apparent hybrid vigour, as the crossbreeds may have derived from progenitors that already had higher/lower odds for that particular disorder. Furthermore, dogs that are ‘designer-crossbreeds’ (i.e., intentional crosses with known breed parentage) were included alongside non-designer crossbreeds/mixed breeds (with unknown heritage) in many studies as a generic ‘crossbreed’ grouping, obscuring effects of first-generation crosses vs. later genetic mixes [ 27 , 35 – 37 ].

Belief in the existence of meaningful positive hybrid vigour effects in dogs has led to claims that crossbreed dogs are generally healthier, longer lived, and less prone to disease compared to their purebred progenitors [ 32 , 38 , 39 ]. However, despite intuitive allure, there is currently very limited data supporting the notion that a hybrid vigour effect results in substantially better overall health in novel designer-crossbreeds compared to their progenitors. Given this evidence vacuum, many owners appear to be using anecdotes and first principles to create belief systems about increased health in designer-crossbreeds that may be incorrect but yet has been documented as motivating their purchases and perpetuating popularity of these types of dogs [ 1 ]. An improved evidence base on the health of designer-crossbreeds relative to their progenitor breeds could assist prospective owners to use health-based rationale when making more informed decisions on which types of dogs to acquire. This is particularly important given that the concept of negative hybrid vigour has also been discussed, whereby crossbreeds exhibit worse health than their progenitors [ 32 ]. For example, analysis of anonymised primary care veterinary clinical data in the UK VetCompass research programme has identified that several designer-crossbreeds were at higher risk of otitis externa than their progenitor breeds, with Cavapoos, Cockapoos and Labradoodles among the ten breeds with the highest otitis externa prevalence [ 40 ]. Consequently, a better evidence base is critical to ensure would-be owners are aware of both any health benefits or drawbacks of designer-crossbreeds prior to acquisition.

Therefore the current study aimed to address the current knowledge gap on the relative health of common designer-crossbreeds in the UK by exploring owner-reported health differences between designer-crossbreeds (Poodle crosses: Labradoodles, Cockapoos and Cavapoos) and their relevant purebred progenitor breeds. The study objectives were to estimate and compare the prevalence of common health disorders reported by UK owners between the three designer-crossbreeds and their relevant progenitor breeds aged up to five years using an online survey format. The study hypothesis was that in dogs aged up to five years, designer-crossbreeds have more reported disorders with reduced odds than increased odds compared to their progenitor breeds.

Materials and methods

An online questionnaire was used to explore ownership experiences of selected designer-crossbreeds and their progenitor purebred breeds. The questionnaire was hosted using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software [ 41 ] and was open from 21 st February 2023 to 21 st April 2023. Participants typically took 20–25 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The study received ethical approval from the Social Science Research Ethical Review Board at the Royal Veterinary College (URN SR2022-0184). Participants gave their written consent via a tick box prior to starting the questionnaire. Participants could exit the survey at any time; however, because the survey was anonymous, respondents could not withdraw their response once submitted.

Inclusion criteria

Participants were required to be aged 18 years or over, resident in the UK and to currently own at least one designer-crossbreed from a specified list of Poodle crosses [Cavapoo (CKCS crossed with a Poodle), Cockapoo (Cocker Spaniel crossed with a Poodle), Labradoodle (Labrador Retriever crossed with a Poodle)] or a purebred dog of a progenitor breed of the aforementioned designer-crossbreeds [CKCS, Cocker Spaniel, Labrador Retriever, Miniature Poodle, Standard Poodle or Toy Poodle]. The three designer-crossbreeds were chosen as the most numerous designer crosses in VetCompass [ 3 ].

Dogs were required to have been acquired aged 16 weeks or younger from 1 st January 2019 onwards. This ensured all study dogs were aged under 5 years old at completion of the questionnaire to reduce age confounding effects on health [ 42 , 43 ]. Participants with more than one eligible dog were asked to complete the questionnaire for their dog named first alphabetically.

Survey content

The questionnaire comprised two parts.

• The first section captured owner demographics, including age, gender, postcode and occupation, and canine demographics, including breed, sex and date of birth.
• The second section captured the dog’s health and diagnoses (if applicable) within the previous 12 months from the date of filling in the questionnaire, as well as any veterinary treatment received, with many of the questions adapted from previous ‘Pandemic Puppy’ surveys created by the same research group [ 4 , 10 ]. Further questions explored specific health conditions with reported predispositions in the progenitor purebreds: Addison’s disease, paroxysmal dyskinesia, epilepsy, hip and/or elbow dysplasia, Von Willebrand’s disease, cruciate ligament rupture, and cancers [ 44 – 47 ]. Most response options were presented as single-choice or multi-choice with an additional option for free-text responses. The questionnaire also included questions regarding the dog’s behaviour and husbandry, that are not reported here. The full questionnaire is included in S1 Text .

Survey recruitment

Participants were recruited by several pathways. Digital posters for individual designer-crossbreeds and purebred progenitor breeds (see S1 Fig ) were shared by the authors via snowball sampling on relevant breed-specific pages on the social media sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and X). Large UK animal charities including Blue Cross, RSPCA, and PDSA, veterinary-specific organisations (e.g., VetPartners Ltd), and other organisations from the sector (e.g., PetPlan, Pets at Home and APDAWG) promoted the questionnaire on their social media platforms. The pet classifieds site, Pets4Homes, shared the questionnaire link by direct email to users that had shown an interest in purchasing any of the study breeds/crossbreeds in the previous 600 days. The Kennel Club (UK) promoted the questionnaire via their registered breeders for the six purebred breeds and distributed in-person via breed-specific flyers at Crufts 2023, Birmingham. The complete list of disseminators is shown in the Acknowledgements section.

Data processing

The questionnaire data were manually cleaned in Microsoft Excel (2013) to remove any responses missing the specified inclusion criteria, or ineligible responses. Free text disorder information was manually mapped to a VetCompass list of canine disorders using standardised VetCompass methodology [ 48 ].

Data analysis

Statistical analysis used IBM SPSS Statistics (V29.0.0.0) software. Poodle responses were combined to represent all three Poodle-type breeds for analysis purposes. Descriptive statistics reported the frequency and percentage for relevant variables. Dog age (years) was calculated at the completion date of the questionnaire. Demographic variables were compared between designer-crossbreeds and purebreds using chi-square testing.

Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis evaluated each designer-crossbreed compared to their two progenitors as risk factors for each disorder. Each multivariable model included a fixed set of additional variables to account for confounding which were selected using an information theory approach [ 49 ] developed from other canine health studies that identified the following as confounding factors [ 50 , 51 ]: dog age, sex, neuter status, insured status; and owner gender and age [ 43 , 52 ]. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Owner demographics

From a total of n = 10,524 responses received, n = 1,113 (10.6%) did not fully meet the inclusion criteria and n = 9 (0.1%) were ineligible responses. The final analytic dataset of 9,402 (89.3%) valid responses represented n = 7,493 female (79.7%) and n = 1,012 male respondents (10.8%) with other gender options for the remaining n = 897 (9.5%). Respondent gender distribution differed between designer-crossbreed and purebred owners, with female respondents more likely to own designer-crossbreeds compared to purebreds (female respondents: designer-crossbreeds: 89.2% vs. purebred: 87.5%, p = 0.020). The most represented age group among all respondents was 45–54 years old (23.5%). The numbers in the age categories did not differ significantly between designer-crossbreed owners compared to purebred owners (designer-crossbreed owners: n = 2,345, 76% over 35; purebred owners: n = 4,019, 75.7% over 35; p = 0.562).

Overall, 5,132 (60.5%) respondents were first-time dog owners, while the remaining 3,353 (39.5%) respondents had previously owned a dog. Designer-crossbreed dogs were more likely to have first-time dog owners compared to purebred dogs (first-time owners: designer-crossbreeds: 49.6% vs. purebreds: 33.7%, p <0.001).

Most respondents lived in an adult-only home ( n = 4,864, 51.73%). Designer-crossbreeds were more likely to live in households with children than purebred dogs (adult-only home: designer-crossbreeds: 53.0% vs. purebreds: 59.8%; p <0.001). Almost 10% of respondents ( n = 810; 9.5%) worked in the canine/animal care sector. Owners of designer-crossbreed dogs were less likely to work in the canine/animal care sector compared to purebred owners (designer-crossbreeds: 4.9% vs purebreds: 12.1%; p <0.001).

Dog demographics

The 9,402 dogs in the final analysis included 3,424 (36.4%) designer-crossbreed and 5,978 (63.6%) purebred dogs. The designer-crossbreed dogs included 985 (10.5% of 9,402 dogs) Cavapoo, 1,856 (19.7%) Cockapoo and 583 (6.2%) Labradoodle. The purebred dogs included 715 (7.6%) CKCS, 2,237 (23.8%) Cocker Spaniel, 2,099 (22.3%) Labrador Retriever, 352 (3.7%) Miniature Poodle, 315 (3.4%) Standard Poodle and 260 (2.8%) Toy Poodle (n = 927, 9.9% Poodles overall).

Among the n = 3,424 Poodle-cross designer-crossbreeds, Miniature Poodles ( n = 1,749, 51.5%) was the most represented progenitor Poodle type in the sample. Of the three designer-crossbreed types, Cockapoo were the most likely to include a Miniature Poodle progenitor (Cockapoo: n = 1,031, 55.8%; Cavapoo: n = 467, 47.7%; Labradoodle: n = 251, 44.1%; p <0.001). Toy Poodle (884, 26.0%) was the second most represented progenitor Poodle type in the sample. Of the three designer-crossbreed types, Cavapoo were the most likely to include a Toy Poodle progenitor (Cavapoo: n = 406, 41.5%; Cockapoo: n = 442, 23.9%; Labradoodle: n = 36, 6.3%; p <0.001). Standard Poodle ( n = 426, 12.50%) was the least commonly represented Poodle progenitor in the sample. Of the three designer-crossbreed types, Labradoodle were the most likely to include a Standard Poodle progenitor (Labradoodle: n = 228, 40.1%; Cockapoo: n = 163, 8.8%; Cavapoo: n = 35, 3.6%; p <0.001).

An ‘F1’ (first-generation cross between two purebred progenitor breeds) ( n = 1,899, 20.2%) was the most commonly stated generational type overall across all three designer-crossbreeds. Labradoodles were significantly less likely to be an F1 cross compared to the other two designer-crossbreeds (F1: Cockapoo: n = 1,103, 59.70%; Cavapoo: n = 600, 61.3%; Labradoodle: n = 196, 33.8%; p <0.001).

The overall study population included n = 4,373 (50.5%) male and n = 4,287 (49.5%) female dogs. Designer-crossbreeds were more likely to be female than purebred dogs (designer-crossbreed: female n = 1,638, 51.3%, male: n = 1,558, 48.7%; purebred: female: n = 2,648, 48.5%, male: n = 2,815, 51.5%; p = 0.013). The probability of being female did not differ between the three designer-crossbreeds (Cockapoo n = 870, 50.1%, Cavapoo n = 429, 46.9%, Labradoodle n = 259, 47.4%; p = 0.237). The overall study population included n = 4,786 (50.9%) entire dogs and n = 3,869 (41.1%) neutered dogs. The neuter status of n = 747 (8%) dogs was unspecified. Designer-crossbreeds were more likely to be neutered than purebreds (neutered: designer-crossbreeds: n = 1,650 (51.6%), purebreds: n = 2,219 (40.6%); p <0.001). The probability of being neutered did not differ between the three designer-crossbreeds, (Cockapoo n = 909, 52.4%, Cavapoo n = 460, 50.2%, Labradoodle n = 281, 51.6%; p = 0.558).

Overall, n = 7,432 (79.0%) of the study population were insured. Designer-crossbreeds were more likely to be insured than purebreds (insured: designer-crossbreeds n = 2,826 (82.5%) purebreds n = 4,606 (77.1%); p <0.001). The probability of being insured did not differ between the three designer-crossbreeds, (Cockapoo n = 1,535, 88.4%, Cavapoo n = 803, 87.6%, Labradoodle n = 489, 89.6%; p = 0.516).

Disorder odds

Comparison of the odds between each of the three designer-crossbreeds and each of their two progenitor breeds in dogs aged up to five years across the 57 disorders (342 comparisons) did not identify statistical difference in 86.6% ( n = 296) disorder comparisons, with designer-crossbreeds having higher odds in 7.0% of disorders ( n = 24) and lower odds in 6.4% of disorders ( n = 22).

Cockapoo vs. their two progenitor breeds.

Compared to their Poodle progenitor breed, Cockapoos did not differ in their odds for 45 of 57 (79.0%) disorders after accounting for confounding in multivariable analyses ( Table 1 ). Cockapoos had lower odds of five of 57 (9.0%) common disorders compared to Poodles: ophthalmological disorders (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.42–0.72, p <0.001), patellar luxation (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29–0.81, p = 0.005), weight loss (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.23–0.99, p = 0.046) food hypersensitivity/intolerance (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19–0.94, p = 0.035) and dental disease (OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03–0.87, p = 0.033).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.t001

In contrast, Cockapoos had higher odds of seven of 57 (12.0%) disorders compared to Poodles: foreign bodies (OR: 3.53, 95% CI: 1.04–12.03, p = 0.044), roundworm infestations (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.42–4.62, p = 0.002), anal sac disorders (OR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.51–2.87, p <0.001), diarrhoea (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.34–1.98, p <0.001), dietary indiscretion (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.24–2.05, p <0.001), pruritus (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13–1.99, p = 0.005) and vomiting (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06–1.59, p = 0.011).

Compared to their Cocker Spaniel progenitor breed, Cockapoos had lower odds of five of 57 (4.0%) disorders: dietary indiscretion (OR:0.75, 95% CI: 0.63–0.89, p <0.001), lameness (OR:0.58, 95% CI: 0.41–0.84, p = 0.004), multiple masses (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34–0.93, p = 0.025), ophthalmological disorders (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52–0.81, p <0.001) and wounds (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48–0.86, p = 0.003). Cockapoos had higher odds of three of 57 (5.0%) disorders studied: pruritus (OR:2.67, 95% CI:2.10–3.39, p <0.001), otitis externa (OR:2.13, 95% CI: 1.72–2.63, p <0.001) and vomiting (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.21–1.65, p <0.001). The odds for the remaining 49 of 57 (86.0%) disorders did not differ statistically between the Cockapoo and Cocker Spaniels.

Labradoodle vs. their two progenitor breeds.

Compared to their Poodle progenitor breed, Labradoodles did not differ in their odds for 50 of 57 (88.0%) disorders after accounting for confounding in multivariable analyses.

Labradoodles had lower odds of one of 57 (2.0%) disorders studied compared to Poodles: patellar luxation (OR:0.24, 95% CI: 0.10–0.58, p = 0.002) ( Table 2 ). In contrast, Labradoodles had higher odds of six of 57 (11.0%) disorders compared to Poodles: allergies (OR:3.31, 95% CI: 1.36–14.16, p = 0.013), alopecia (OR: 2.94, 95% CI: 0.87–9.96, p = 0.083), dietary indiscretion (OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.48–2.76, p <0.001), wounds (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.12–2.96, p = 0.015), diarrhoea (OR:1.64, 95% CI: 1.27–2.11, p <0.001) and vomiting (OR:1.54, 95% CI: 1.20–1.99, p <0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.t002

Compared to their Labrador Retriever progenitor breed, Labradoodles had lower odds of four of 57 (7.0%) disorders studied compared to Labrador Retrievers: hip and/or elbow dysplasia (OR:0.37, 95% CI: 0.17–0.81, p = 0.014), lameness (OR:0.35, 95% CI: 0.20–0.62, p <0.001), multiple masses (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.20–1.72, p = 0.029) and wounds (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36–0.74, p<0.001). Labradoodles had higher odds of one of 57 (2.0%) disorders studied, otitis externa (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.38–2.34, p <0.001).The odds for the remaining 52 of 57 (91.0%) disorders studied did not differ statistically between the Labradoodle and Labrador Retriever.

Cavapoo vs. progenitor breeds.

Compared to their Poodle progenitor breed, Cavapoos did not differ in their odds for 50 of 57 (88.0%) disorders studied after accounting for confounding in multivariable analyses.

Cavapoos had lower odds of three of 57 (5.0%) disorders studied compared to Poodles: otitis externa (OR:0.68, 95% CI: 0.51–0.91, p = 0.009), ophthalmological disorders (OR:0.64, 95% CI: 0.47–0.87, p = 0.005) and lameness (OR:0.51, 95% CI: 0.28–0.94, p = 0.032) ( Table 3 ). In contrast, Cavapoos had higher odds of four of 57 (7%) disorders studied compared to Poodles: anal sac disorders (OR:2.64, 95% CI: 1.85–3.75, p <0.001), diarrhoea (OR:1.55, 95% CI: 1.24–1.94, p <0.001), dietary indiscretion (OR:1.38, 95% CI: 1.03–1.84, p = 0.031) and vomiting (OR:1.27, 95% CI: 1.01–1.60, p = 0.041).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.t003

Compared to their CKCS progenitor breed, Cavapoos had lower odds for four of 57 (7.0%) disorders studied compared to CKCS: ophthalmological disorders (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40–0.77, p <0.001), anal sac disorders (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40–0.70, p <0.001), obesity (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24–0.94, p = 0.032) and overgrown nails (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20–0.93, p = 0.033). Cavapoos had higher odds for three of 57 (5.0%) disorders studied: vomiting (OR:1.92, 95% CI: 1.48–2.48, p <0.001), otitis externa (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.51–0.91, p = 0.009) and diarrhoea (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.03–1.66, p = 0.031). The odds for the remaining 50 of 57 (88.0%) disorders studied did not differ statistically between the Cavapoo and CKCS.

This study used a questionnaire to capture and explore ownership experiences regarding designer-crossbreeds and their progenitor breeds. The study focused on the health of three popular UK designer-crossbreeds that share Poodle as a common progenitor, and compared this to their progenitor purebred breeds in the UK. Comparison of the odds between each of three designer-crossbreeds and each of their two progenitor breeds in dogs aged up to five years across the 57 common disorders (342 comparisons) did not identify a statistical difference in 86.6% (n = 296) comparisons, with designer-crossbreeds having higher odds in 7.0% (n = 24) and lower odds in 6.4% (n = 22). Overall, these findings provide no evidence for a meaningful difference in overall health between these three designer-crossbreeds and their relevant progenitor breeds. The results therefore offer little support for the study hypothesis, and widespread common belief, of enhanced overall health profiles in designer-crossbreeds as a result of positive hybrid vigour. Instead, the results suggest that the overall health of this emerging designer-crossbreed demographic is largely similar to their progenitor breeds. This is particularly pertinent when referring back to Fig 1 which illustrates how many of today’s purebreds originated from crossbreeding between distinct purebred breeds and were therefore designer-crossbreeds themselves during the early phase of their purebred development.

These findings conversely challenge the ‘pure bred bias’ that maintains that indiscriminate breeding outside of purebred lines will automatically lead to crossbreed dogs that have poorer health than their purebred parent breeds [ 21 , 53 , 54 ].

The current study’s results differ from some of the pre-existing, albeit limited, health data available which had suggested a substantial health advantage in some specific designer-crossbreeds compared to purebreds. For example, a US pet insurance provider analysed cancer diagnosis claims for 1.61 million dogs over a six-year period, reporting that owners of Labradoodle and Goldendoodle were significantly less likely to submit a claim related to cancer diagnoses/treatment compared to their progenitor breeds [ 55 ]. Given the current study only explored health in dogs aged under five, it is possible that later differences in the risk of disorders such as cancers that are associated with more aged dogs [ 56 ] could emerge as these populations age. In the current study, reduced disorder prevalence in designer-crossbreeds was identified for a limited number of disorders, and an almost equal proportion of disorders were found to be of higher prevalence in this population. This novel finding supports an overall health equivalence between these three designer-crossbreeds and their relevant progenitors, at least while under five years old, and is particularly pertinent given public perceptions of better general health compared to purebreds is a major purchasing motivator for many owners of designer-crossbreed dogs [ 1 ].

Although results from the current study predominantly suggest minimal overall health differences between designer-crossbreeds and their progenitor breeds, several notable health trends were identified. Having accounted for confounding factors, all three designer-crossbreeds in the current study had higher odds of dietary indiscretion, vomiting and diarrhoea than the Poodle that was their shared progenitor breed. Labradoodle and Cockapoo did not differ from their non-Poodle progenitors regarding these specific disorders, but Cavapoo also had higher odds for vomiting than the CKCS. Numerous studies exploring health and longevity in UK dogs reveal enteropathy as a highly prevalent canine disorder in the UK [ 52 , 57 , 58 ]. Higher odds of enteropathy in designer-crossbreeds than Poodles could reflect the influence of their non-Poodle progenitor; for example, Labrador Retrievers were previously reported with higher odds compared to non-Labrador Retrievers for enteropathy [ 59 , 60 ], which may have contributed to the increased odds observed in Labradoodles compared to Poodles. Similarly, enteropathy was the sixth most prevalent disorder in Cocker Spaniels [ 61 ] which may have contributed to the increased odds observed in the current study in Cockapoo compared to Poodles. The current study’s findings may help veterinary professionals tailor diagnostics, treatments and/or advice for owners of these specific designer-crossbreeds, including dietary modification and preventative care, although further study into specific disorder prevalence and reasons contributing to this are necessary to support this study’s results.

There was a trend towards higher odds of dermatological disorders in designer-crossbreeds compared to their progenitors in the current study. Cockapoo had higher odds for pruritus than both progenitor breeds (although neither Labradoodle or Cavapoo significantly differed from their progenitor breeds regarding the odds of pruritus). Pruritus, often associated with skin disorders, is a commonly recorded dermatological condition in dogs, and other small domestic animals, in the UK [ 52 , 62 ] and is often caused by allergies, including contact dermatitis and atopy. However, the current results are one of the first times pruritus has been recorded as a predisposition in a specific designer-crossbreed and is of relevance to overall UK dog health at a population level, considering Cockapoos were the second most popular dog breed aged under one year in the UK in 2019 [ 3 ]. All three designer-crossbreeds had higher odds of otitis externa than their non-Poodle progenitor breeds, although not compared to Poodles. Otitis externa is another disorder often triggered by allergies, and associated with environmental factors and the carriage of a dog’s ears [ 40 ]. Designer-crossbreeds, Poodle-type breeds and Spaniel-type breeds have all previously been reported as predisposed to otitis externa, proposed in part as due to their tendencies towards pendulous ear carriage and hairy ear canal [ 40 ]. Presence of abundant ear hair, as commonly seen in breeds like the Cocker Spaniel and Poodle, can cause retention of moisture and heat in the ear canal, increasing the risk of bacterial infection [ 63 ]. Otitis externa can carry serious implications for animal welfare, with this condition often requiring long-term treatment and frequent clinical visits [ 64 ]. The challenges faced by owners in managing otitis externa and other skin conditions may impair the human-dog bond and further compromise these dogs’ welfare [ 62 ] as well as the owners’ quality of life [ 65 ]. Diagnosis and monitoring of canine dermatological disorders is often limited due to its expensive, time-consuming and subjective nature, posing a challenge to veterinarians and owners alike [ 66 ]. Given that designer-crossbreeds with a Poodle progenitor often show distinctive curly coats, if it turns out that this coat type contributes to this predisposition, then breeding for these traits based on an aesthetic appeal may run counter to animal welfare.

Reduced odds were noted in a number of disorders in designer-crossbreeds. Both Labradoodle and Cockapoo had lower odds of patellar luxation compared to Poodles but did not differ from their other progenitor breed. Conversely, Cavapoo did not differ from either their CKCS or Poodle progenitor in their risk of patellar luxation. Previous studies have reported CKCS with higher odds of patellar luxation than crossbreeds, and that toy dog breeds, such as the Toy poodle, had increased odds of patellar luxation compared to larger dog breeds [ 67 , 68 ]. Almost half (41.5%) of the Cavapoos in this study had Toy Poodle parentage, the smallest of the Poodle breeds. Given the shared risk factors of small size plus a purebred progenitor breed with high prevalence for patellar luxation, it is perhaps less surprising that Cavapoo did not show reduced odds of patellar luxation compared to the CKCS and Poodle progenitors, and thus did not show a potential positive hybrid vigour effect for this trait as did the Labradoodle and Cockapoo. This finding highlights the need for a stronger evidence base to support breeding programmes that aim to cross with known serious disorder predispositions.

The current findings on designer-crossbreed health can be used to support the design of many future research possibilities to better understand the health and welfare of this relatively new canine demographic. For example, future work could focus on identifying parentage and the generation number of cross to ascertain whether potential hybrid vigour effects have been obscured in research to date by sampling from populations that includes multi-generational crosses, rather than being restricted to F1 crosses, where these hybrid vigour effects are most likely to exist [ 69 ].

Additionally, age is known to strongly associate with the prevalence and likelihood of disorders in dogs [ 52 ]. All dogs, both designer-crossbreeds and their progenitor breeds, in the current study were relatively young (< 5yrs old), with age kept relatively consistent across the breeds to limit the effect of age upon health. However, this study design does mean that the health burden in more aged subsets of these emerging designer-crossbreeds remains unclear. A longitudinal study investigating disorder profiles of designer crossbreeds compared to their progenitor breeds as they age into their more senior years would be valuable to help owners know what to expect over time (e.g., move into the next canine age grouping [ 70 ]), and what preventative measures could be taken to slow and/or prevent these disease burdens.

It is important to note that the health results from this study relate directly only to the three designer-crossbreeds investigated (all of which were Poodle crosses) and should be extrapolated with caution to other designer-crossbreeds. Designer-crossbreeds that have a progenitor purebred with known health issues e.g. those associated with extreme conformations (e.g., brachycephalic breeds) or with genetic disorders with a recessive inherence pattern may still benefit from a hybrid vigour effect and exhibit relatively better health than that progenitor breed. The current study should be considered as introductory and further research into the health of other designer-crossbreeds is needed, particularly for breeding programmes where the outcrossing is designed and motivated to counter known serious and common health issues of the purebred progenitors [ 71 ].

Implications for current and future designer-crossbreed owners

The findings from the current study indicate that prospective owners should not use perceptions of enhanced health status as a reason to support acquisition of these three designer-crossbreeds. Better communication of the current evidence base on designer-crossbreed health is needed for both prospective and current owners of designer-crossbreed dogs, both pre- and post-purchase, to protect canine welfare in this population. This is particularly pertinent in this population because there is evidence that designer-crossbreed owners are less likely to follow important pre-purchasing practices (e.g., seeing the puppy with its mother) that risk acquisition from poorer welfare sources and may place these dogs at heightened risk of health problems [ 1 ]. The internet is now a key resource for prospective owners to source both information and also actual dogs [ 72 ] so good quality information on designer-crossbreed health should be made readily available via online resources, using user-friendly methods such as infographics and factsheets. Given that owners of non-pedigree and crossbreed dogs are more likely to source information from animal charities than owners of pedigree dogs [ 72 ] there is also a role here for leading canine charities to ensure readily available and good advice on designer-crossbreed health via their social media pages and websites. The increasing popularity of designer-crossbreeds means that this canine demographic is here to stay and many owners already consider these dogs as ‘breeds’ [ 73 , 74 ]. Consequently, the time may now have arrived for kennel clubs to re-open their registers to designer-crossbreeds to play their part in collecting further health data, opening up the stud books, and providing detailed and evidence-based advice to prospective owners. Driving health improvements in dogs is known to be challenging [ 75 ]. However, increasing awareness of common health disorders in prospective owners of designer-crossbreeds may encourage consumer pressure on breeders to prioritise health over aesthetics when deciding which breeds and individual animals to cross (e.g., avoiding use of dogs affected by disorders in their breeding programme).

Limitations of the study

The current study had some limitations, with attempts to mitigate taken where possible. The individual breed/crossbreed of dogs were not confirmed via pedigree history for registered purebreds or genetic sampling for designer crosses beyond the owners’ certification. Some participants may not have known the precise parentage of their dog (particularly for designer-crossbreeds) or misinterpreted the crossbreed criteria (e.g., owners of Australian Labradoodles, who have Labrador Retriever, Poodle, English Cocker Spaniel, American Cocker Spaniel and Irish Water Spaniel parentage [ 76 ], may have believed they were eligible under the “Labradoodle” breed). Mitigation measures taken to limit these misclassifications included specifically defining Labradoodles as “Labrador Retriever crossed with any Poodle breed” in the survey instructions and the breed selection question. Owners have poorer dog health literacy compared to veterinary professionals, so therefore owner-reported health data may be less reliable compared to analysis of veterinary clinical records [ 59 ]. Future work on designer-crossbreed health could consider using parallel study designs that include both owner and veterinary clinical data collection. But even with veterinary clinical data, there are still challenges because some veterinary practices/practitioners still tend to use the generalised label of “crossbreed” for all crosses, designer or otherwise. Veterinary professionals and clinics could be encouraged to record more precise parentage (where known) in veterinary records so that clinical data on designer-crossbreeds can be used in further research (e.g., VetCompass studies) [ 48 ].

Due to the relatively lower Poodle numbers in the present study sample compared to the other pure breeds, the Poodle responses were merged so all three Poodle-type breeds were considered as a whole rather than as separate entities. This ensured that each study ‘breed’ had over 500 responses to facilitate higher powered statistical analyses. However, the health profiles of Toy, Miniature and Standard Poodles are not exactly the same so this may confound some of the current results [ 77 , 78 ].

Although the questionnaire included a question asking what hybrid generation that the crossbreed was, the current analysis did not consider this variable. The main focus of this current health study compared between designer-crossbreed and progenitor purebred rather than a deeper exploration on the effects of various levels of hybrid generations. However, exploration of effects from the hybrid generation on disorder prevalence are important to consider and hopefully will be considered in a future analysis.

The use of convenience sampling methods can introduce selection bias because those owners who respond may not be fully representative of all owners. For example, it is possible that responding owners may be more welfare conscious and thus our results may represent a ‘best case scenario’ for all breeds studied because of data collected from owners who are more vigilant and proactive regarding their dog’s health e.g., purchasing from health-focused breeders, using appropriate preventative healthcare [ 79 ]. Likewise, owners who have experienced problems and/or health issues in their dog in the past may have been more inclined to complete a questionnaire on their dog’s health. To mitigate some of this selection bias, the current survey was promoted very broadly, including across many different social media platforms, breed and non-breed specific platforms, via diverse organisations with large owner/follower databases and also promoting on general pet or animal groups as a way of reaching a wider audience.

Conclusions

The current results provide little support that the three designer-crossbreeds studied benefit from improved health due to crossbreeding, but instead exhibit overall health patterns that are equivalent largely with their purebred progenitor breeds. Given that perceived enhanced health is a major motivator of the acquisition of designer crossbreeds, communicating this message to prospective owners is of importance to align their expectations for future potential health issues and veterinary costs with reality and to ensure that any acquisition decisions are based on good evidence rather than marketing hype or social anecdote. Although this study provides a comprehensive and timely evaluation of the health of the UK’s three most common designer-crossbreeds, given the growing popularity of Poodle-crosses [ 3 ], and paucity of research on this topic, further studies are warranted to test and expand the results reported.

Supporting information

S1 text. complete questionnaire text..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.s001

S1 Fig. Recruitment posters.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.s002

S1 Dataset. Health dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306350.s003

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following organisations for their support in disseminating the questionnaire: Pets4Homes, The Blue Cross, RSPCA. PDSA, VetPartners, Marc Abraham and the All-Parliamentary Dog Advisory Welfare Group (APDAWG), Pets at Home, BVA, Dog Breeding Reform Group (DBRG) and many other organisations and individuals. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to all the dog owners who responded to the questionnaire.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 5. Worboys M, Strange JM, Pemberton N. The Invention of the Modern Dog: Breed and Blood in Victorian Britain. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2018.
• 14. The Kennel Club. What is a pedigree dog? [Online]. The Kennel Club; 2023 [Accessed 9 July 2023]. Available from: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/getting-a-dog/are-you-ready/what-is-a-pedigree-dog/ .
• 15. Coile, C. Golden Retriever dog. [Online]. Encyclopedia Britannica; 2024 [Accessed 17 July 2023]. Available from: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/getting-a-dog/are-you-ready/what-is-a-pedigree-dog/#:∼:text=A%20pedigree%20dog%20is%20one,222%20breeds%20to%20choose%20from .
• 16. The Cockapoo Club of GB. [Online]. CockapooClubGB; 2024 [Accessed 2 October 2023]. Available from: https://www.cockapooclubgb.co.uk/ .
• 17. The UK Labradoodle Association [Online]. The UK Labradoodle Association; 2024 [Accessed 5 Jan 2024]. Available from: http://www.labradoodle.org.uk/findbreeder.php .
• 18. Cambridge Dictionary. Mongrel. [Online]. Cambridge University Press and Assessment; 2024 [Accessed 7 Jan 2024]. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mongrel .
• 19. The Guardian. Is the Kennel Club letting crossbreeds out of the doghouse? [Online]. The Guardian; 2015 [Accessed 11 August 2023]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/nov/30/kennel-club-crossbreeds .
• 20. Smith A. Why Do Dog People Hate Doodles? [Online]. REBARKABLE; 2021 [Accessed 11 July 2023]. Available from: https://rebarkable.com/why-dog-people-hate-doodles/ .
• 21. Wood S. Our little $7,000 dog’: inside Australia’s oodle boom [Online]. The Guardian; 2022 [Accessed 11 August 2023]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/nov/13/our-little-7000-dog-inside-australias-oodle-boom .
• 24. Gough A, Thomas A, O’Neill D. Breed Predispositions to Disease in Dogs and Cats. 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2018.
• 26. Continental Kennel Club, Inc. Low uric acid Dalmatians: the Dalmatian back-cross project [Online]. Continental Kennel Club Inc: Walker, LA; 2019 [Accessed 6 Jan 2024]. Available from: https://ckcusa.com/blog/2019/november/the-dalmatian-back-cross-project/ .
• 48. VetCompass. VetCompass Programme London: RVC Electronic Media Unit. [Accessed 22 June 2023] Available from: http://www.rvc.ac.uk/VetCOMPASS/ .
• 54. Quora. What can I buy, purebred or mix-breed dogs? 2017. Available from: https://www.quora.com/What-can-I-buy-purebred-or-mix-breed-dogs?top_ans=126544712 .
• 71. Sargan D. How to save inbred, short-faced dogs such as pugs and bulldogs from poor health. [Online]. The Conversation: University of Cambridge; 2016 [Accessed on 17 June 2023]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/how-to-save-inbred-short-faced-dogs-such-as-pugs-and-bulldogs-from-poor-health-63341 .
• 73. Carter M. Statement on the Registration of ‘Designer Dogs’[Online]. Pets Mag; 2015 [Accessed on 6 November 2023]. Available from: https://www.petsmag.co.uk/statement-on-the-registration-of-designer-dogs/ .
• 76. ALAUK. About the Australian Labradoodle [Online]. Australian Labradoodle Association UK; 2018 [Accessed on 12 December 2023]. Available from: https://australianlabradoodleassociation.co.uk/about .

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Comparative oral...

Comparative oral monotherapy of psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, ayahuasca, and escitalopram for depressive symptoms: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

• Related content
• Peer review
• Tien-Wei Hsu , doctoral researcher 1 2 3 ,
• Chia-Kuang Tsai , associate professor 4 ,
• Yu-Chen Kao , associate professor 5 6 ,
• Trevor Thompson , professor 7 ,
• Andre F Carvalho , professor 8 ,
• Fu-Chi Yang , professor 4 ,
• Ping-Tao Tseng , assistant professor 9 10 11 12 ,
• Chih-Wei Hsu , assistant professor 13 ,
• Chia-Ling Yu , clinical pharmacist 14 ,
• Yu-Kang Tu , professor 15 16 ,
• 1 Department of Psychiatry, E-DA Dachang Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 2 Department of Psychiatry, E-DA Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 3 Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 4 Department of Neurology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Centre, Taipei, Taiwan
• 5 Department of Psychiatry, National Defense Medical Centre, Taipei, Taiwan
• 6 Department of Psychiatry, Beitou Branch, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
• 7 Centre for Chronic Illness and Ageing, University of Greenwich, London, UK
• 8 IMPACT (Innovation in Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Treatment) Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
• 9 Institute of Biomedical Sciences, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 10 Department of Psychology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
• 11 Prospect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology and Neurology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 12 Institute of Precision Medicine, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 13 Department of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
• 14 Department of Pharmacy, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan
• 15 Institute of Health Data Analytics and Statistics, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
• 16 Department of Dentistry, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
• Correspondence to: C-S Liang lcsyfw{at}gmail.com
• Accepted 20 June 2024

Objective To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of oral monotherapy using psychedelics and escitalopram in patients with depressive symptoms, considering the potential for overestimated effectiveness due to unsuccessful blinding.

Design Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Data sources Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrial.gov, and World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 12 October 2023.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials on psychedelics or escitalopram in adults with depressive symptoms. Eligible randomised controlled trials of psychedelics (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (known as MDMA), lysergic acid diethylamide (known as LSD), psilocybin, or ayahuasca) required oral monotherapy with no concomitant use of antidepressants.

Data extraction and synthesis The primary outcome was change in depression, measured by the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale. The secondary outcomes were all cause discontinuation and severe adverse events. Severe adverse events were those resulting in any of a list of negative health outcomes including, death, admission to hospital, significant or persistent incapacity, congenital birth defect or abnormality, and suicide attempt. Data were pooled using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. To avoid estimation bias, placebo responses were distinguished between psychedelic and antidepressant trials.

Results Placebo response in psychedelic trials was lower than that in antidepression trials of escitalopram (mean difference −3.90 (95% credible interval −7.10 to −0.96)). Although most psychedelics were better than placebo in psychedelic trials, only high dose psilocybin was better than placebo in antidepression trials of escitalopram (mean difference 6.45 (3.19 to 9.41)). However, the effect size (standardised mean difference) of high dose psilocybin decreased from large (0.88) to small (0.31) when the reference arm changed from placebo response in the psychedelic trials to antidepressant trials. The relative effect of high dose psilocybin was larger than escitalopram at 10 mg (4.66 (95% credible interval 1.36 to 7.74)) and 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54)). None of the interventions was associated with higher all cause discontinuation or severe adverse events than the placebo.

Conclusions Of the available psychedelic treatments for depressive symptoms, patients treated with high dose psilocybin showed better responses than those treated with placebo in the antidepressant trials, but the effect size was small.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO, CRD42023469014.

Introduction

Common psychedelics belong to two classes: classic psychedelics, such as psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide (known as LSD), and ayahuasca; and entactogens, such as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). 1 Several randomised controlled trials have shown efficacy of psychedelics for people with clinical depression. 2 3 The proposed mechanism of its fast and persistent antidepressant effects is to promote structural and functional neuroplasticity through the activation of intracellular 5-HT 2A receptors in the cortical neurons. 4 Additionally, the increased neuroplasticity was associated with psychedelic’s high affinity directly binding to brain derived neurotrophic factor receptor TrkB, indicating a dissociation between the hallucinogenic and plasticity promoting effects of psychedelics. 5 A meta-analysis published in 2023 reported that the standardised mean difference of psychedelics for depression reduction ranged from 1.37 to 3.12, 2 which are considered large effect sizes. 6 Notably, the standardised mean difference of antidepressant trials is approximately 0.3 (a small effect size). 7 8

Although modern randomised controlled trials involving psychedelics usually use a double blinded design, the subjective effects of these substances can compromise blinding. 9 Unsuccessful blinding may lead to differing placebo effects between the active and control groups, potentially introducing bias into the estimation of relative treatment effects. 10 Concerns have arisen regarding the overestimated effect sizes of psychedelics due to the issues of blinding and response expectancy. 9 Psychedelic treatment is usually administered with psychological support or psychotherapy, and thereby the isolated pharmacological effects of psychedelics remain to be determined. 2 Surprisingly, on 1 July 2023, Australia approved psilocybin for the treatment of depression 11 ; the first country to classify psychedelics as a medicine at a national level.

To date, only one double blind, head-to-head randomised controlled trial has directly compared a psychedelic drug (psilocybin) with an antidepressant drug (escitalopram) for patients with major depressive disorder. 12 This randomised controlled trial reported that psilocybin showed a better efficacy than escitalopram on the 17 item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-17).

We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of oral monotherapy with psychedelics and escitalopram in patients experiencing depressive symptoms. Given that unsuccessful blinding can potentially lead to a reduced placebo response in psychedelic trials, we distinguished between the placebo responses in psychedelic and antidepressant trials. We also investigated the differences in patient responses between people who received extremely low dose psychedelics as a placebo and those who received a placebo in the form of a fake pill, such as niacin, in psilocybin trials. 13 14 Our study allowed for a relative effect assessment of psychedelics compared with placebo responses observed in antidepressant trials.

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023469014). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis (NMA) (appendix 1). 15

Data sources and searches

A comprehensive search of the Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrial.gov, and World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were performed without language restrictions from database inception to 12 October 2023. We also searched the grey literature and reviewed reference lists of the included studies and related systematic reviews. 2 3

Study selection

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials with parallel group or crossover designs. We included: (i) adults (≥18 years) with clinically diagnosed depression (eg, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or other psychiatric disorders with comorbid clinical depression) or life threatening diagnoses and terminal illness with depressive symptoms; and (ii) adults with assessment of treatment response (preapplication/postapplication) using standard, validated, and internationally recognised instruments, such as HAMD-17. The outcome of interest was the change in depressive symptoms at the end of treatment compared with the controls, and we only extracted data from the first phase of crossover randomised controlled trials to avoid carry-over effects. Eligible psychedelic randomised controlled trials (including psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide, MDMA, and ayahuasca without dosage limit) required oral monotherapy without the concomitant use of antidepressants. For escitalopram, we included only fixed dose randomised controlled trials that compared at least two arms with different doses of oral form escitalopram (maximum dose of 20 mg/day) with placebo because psychedelic therapies usually use a fixed dose study design. We also included randomised controlled trials that evaluated psychedelic monotherapy compared with escitalopram monotherapy. We excluded follow-up studies and studies with healthy volunteers. We also excluded conference abstracts, editorials, reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and case series, as well as publications reporting duplicate data. We did not consider ketamine because this drug is usually administered parenterally and is not a classic psychedelic. 16 Screening and selection of the studies were performed independently by two authors. Discrepancies in study inclusion were resolved by deliberation among the reviewer pairs or with input from a third author. Appendix 2 shows the complete search strategies, and appendix 3 presents the reasons for exclusion.

Definition of outcomes, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment

The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms from baseline (continuous outcome), as measured by a validated rating scale, such as HAMD-17. When multiple measurement tools were used, they were selected in the following order: the HAMD-17, Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale, and Beck depression inventory (second edition). To improve interpretability, all extracted depression scores were converted to corresponding HAMD-17 scores using a validated method. 17 We used a conservative correlation coefficient of 0.5 or other statistics (eg, t statistics) to calculate the standard deviation of change from baseline when unreported. 18 The secondary outcomes were all cause discontinuation and severe adverse events (categorical outcomes). Severe adverse events were classified as those resulting in any of a list of negative health outcomes including, death, admission to hospital, significant or persistent incapacity, congenital birth defect or abnormality, and suicide attempt. Outcome data were extracted from original intention-to-treat or last observation carrying forward analysis, as well as from estimates of mixed-effect models for repeated measures.

Two authors independently extracted and reviewed the data, each being reviewed by another author. WebPlot Digitizer ( https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/ ) was used to extract numerical data from the figures. Two authors independently used the Cochrane randomised trial risk of bias tool (version 2.0) to assess the risk of bias in the included trials, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. 19

Data synthesis

To estimate the relative effect between two interventions, we computed mean difference on the basis of change values (with 95% credible interval) for continuous outcomes (change in depressive symptoms) and odds ratios for categorical outcomes (all cause discontinuation and severe adverse event). To assess the clinical significance of the relative effect, we evaluated whether the mean difference exceeded the minimal important difference, which is estimated to be 3 points for HAMD-17. 20 We defined high, low, and extremely low doses of the included psychedelics as follows: (i) psilocybin: high dose (≥20 mg), extremely low dose (1-3 mg), low dose (other range); and (ii) MDMA: high dose (≥100 mg), extremely low dose (≤40 mg), low dose (other range). Escitalopram was divided into escitalopram 10 mg and escitalopram ≥20 mg. In previous clinical trials, a dose of 1 mg of psilocybin or a dose range of 1-3 mg/70 kg were used as an active control because these doses were believed not to produce significant psychedelic effects. 21 22 A dose of 5 mg/70 kg can produce noticeable psychedelic effects. 22 In many two arm psilocybin trials, the psilocybin dose in the active group typically falls within the range of 20-30 mg. 12 21 23 24 In a three arm trial, 25 mg was defined as high dose, and 10 mg was considered a moderate dose. 21 Another clinical trial also defined 0.215 mg/kg of psilocybin as a moderate dose for the active group. 25 Therefore, we used 20 mg and 3 mg as the boundaries for grouping psilocybin doses; when the dosage was calculated per kilogram in the study, we converted it to per 70 kg. For MDMA, in two trials with three arms, 125 mg was defined as high dose, and 30-40 mg was defined as active control. 26 27 Thus, we used 100 mg and 40 mg as the boundaries for grouping MDMA doses.

We conducted random effects network meta-analysis and meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. 28 29 Previous meta-analyses considered all control groups as a common comparator; however, concerns have been raised regarding the overestimated effect sizes of psychedelics because of unsuccessful blinding and poor placebo response. 9 Therefore, we treated the three treatments as distinct interventions: the placebo response observed in psychedelic trials, the placebo response observed in antidepressant escitalopram trials, and extremely low dose psychedelics (ie, psilocybin and MDMA). We calculated the relative effects of all interventions compared with these three groups, indicating the following three conditions: (1) the treatment response of placebo response in the psychedelic trials is assumed to be lower than that of placebo response in antidepressant trials because of unsuccessful blinding. 9 As such, the relative effects compared with placebo response in the psychedelic trials represented potential overestimated effect sizes. (2) the placebo response in antidepressant trials is assumed to be the placebo response in antidepressant trials with adequate blinding, therefore, the relative effects compared with placebo response in antidepressant trials represents effect sizes in trials with adequate blinding. (3) Psychedelic drugs are usually administered with psychotherapy 13 or psychological support, 14 the relative effects of psychedelics compared with extremely low dose psychedelics might eliminate the concomitant effects from psychotherapeutic support, approximating so-called pure pharmacological effects.

In network meta-analysis, the validity of indirect comparison relies on transitivity assumption. 30 We assessed the transitivity assumption by comparing the distribution of potential effect modifies across treatment comparisons. In addition, we assessed whether the efficacy of escitalopram is similar in placebo controlled randomised controlled trials (escitalopram v placebo response in antidepressant trials) and in the head-to-head randomised controlled trial (psilocybin v escitalopram) using network meta-analysis. 12 Furthermore, we assessed the efficacy of the different placebo responses (placebo response in the psychedelic trials v placebo response in antidepressant trials) as additional proof of transitivity. If the placebo response in antidepressant trials was better than that in the psychedelic trials, the transitivity assumption did not hold when grouping placebo response in antidepressant trials and placebo response in the psychedelic trials together. Finally, for the primary outcome (change in depressive symptoms), network meta-regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of potential effect modifiers, including proportion of men and women in the study, mean age, baseline depression severity, disorder type, and follow-up assessment period. We assumed a common effect on all treatment comparisons for each of the effect modifiers. In other words, all interactions between the treatment comparisons and the effect modifier were constrained to be identical.

We also conducted the following sensitivity analyses: analysing studies of patients with major depressive disorder; excluding studies with a high risk of bias; adjusting for baseline depression severity; and using correlation coefficient of zero (most conservative) to calculate the standard deviation of change from baseline when unreported.

Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of a comparison adjusted funnel plots. The first funnel plot used placebo response in the psychedelic trials as the comparator. The second funnel plot used placebo response in antidepressant trials as the comparator. The third funnel plot used both placebo response in the psychedelic trials and placebo response in antidepressant trials as comparators simultaneously. Additionally, we conducted the Egger test, Begg test, and Thompson test to examine the asymmetry of the third funnel plot. A previous meta-analysis reported that the standardised mean difference of psychedelics for depression reduction ranged from 1.37 to 3.12. 2 Therefore, we also transformed the effect size of mean difference to standardised mean difference (Hedges’ g) for the primary outcome. The global inconsistency of the network meta-analysis was examined by fitting an unrelated main effects model. Local inconsistency of the network meta-analysis was examined using node splitting methods. 31 Four Markov chains were implemented. 50 000 iterations occurred per chain and the first 20 000 iterations for each chain were discarded as a warm-up. Convergence was assessed by visual inspection of the trace plots of the key parameters for each analysis. The prior settings and convergence results are shown in appendix 4. All statistical analyses were done using R version 4.3.1. The network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework were fitted using the Bayesian statistical software called Stan within the R packages multinma 28 and brms, 29 respectively. The frequentist random effects network meta-analysis, funnel plots, and tests for funnel plot asymmetry were conducted using the R package netmeta. Reasons for protocol changes are in appendix 5.

Assessment certainty of evidence for the primary outcome

The certainty of evidence produced by the network meta-analysis was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation). 32 33 We used a minimally contextualised framework with the value of 3 (minimal important difference) as our decision threshold. The certainty of evidence refers to our certainty that the intervention had, relative to minimal intervention, any clinically minimal important difference. The optimal information size was calculated using a validated method. 32 33 34

Patient and public involvement

Both patients and the public are interested in research on novel depression treatments and their efficacy compared with existing antidepressants. However, due to a scarcity of available funding for recruitment and researcher training, patients and members of the public were not directly involved in the planning or writing of this manuscript. We did speak to patients about the study, and we asked a member of the public to read our manuscript after submission.

Characteristics of included study

After searching the database and excluding duplicated records, we identified 3104 unique potential studies. We then screened the titles and abstracts of these studies for eligibility and excluded 3062 of them, in which 42 studies remained. Twenty six studies were excluded after an assessment of the full text for various reasons (appendix 3). We identified three additional studies through a manual search resulting in total 19 eligible studies (efigure 1). Details of the characteristics of the included studies are shown in etable 1. Protocols of psychological support or psychotherapy with psychedelic treatment are shown in etable 2. Overall, 811 people (mean age of 42.49 years, 54.2% (440/811) were women) were included in psychedelic trials (15 trials), and 1968 participants (mean age of 39.35 years, 62.5% (1230/1968) were women) were included in escitalopram trials (five trials).

Risk of bias of the included studies

No psychedelic study (0/15) had a high overall risk of bias (efigure 2A and efigure 3A). The percentages of studies with high, some concerns, or low risk of bias in the 15 psychedelic trials were as follows: 0% (k=15), 33% (k=5), and 67% (k=10) for randomisation; 0% (k=0), 33% (k=5), and 67% (k=10) for deviations from intended interventions; 0% (k=0), 13% (k=2), and 87% (k=13) for missing outcome data; 0% (k=0), 33% (k=5), and 67% (k=10) for measurements of outcomes; 0% (k=0), 67% (k=1), and 93% (k=14) for selection of reported results. No non-psychedelic studies (0/5) were rated as high risk of bias (efigure 2B and efigure 3B). The percentages of studies with high, some concerns, and low risk of bias in the five non-psychedelic trials were as follows: 0% (k=0), 80% (k=4), and 20% (k=1) for randomisation; 0% (k=0), 100% (k=5), and 0% (k=0) for deviations from intended interventions; 0% (k=0), 80% (k=4), and 20% (k=1) for missing outcome data; 0% (k=0), 80% (k=4), and 20% (k=1) for measurements of outcomes; 0% (k=0), 20% (k=1), and 80% (k=4) for selection of reported results.

Network meta-analysis

In the network structure, all interventions were connected, with two main structures ( fig 1 ). All psychedelics were compared with placebo response in the psychedelic trials, and escitalopram was compared with placebo response in antidepressant trials. A head-to-head comparison of high dose psilocybin and 20 mg escitalopram connected the two main structures. 12

Network structure. LSD=lysergic acid diethylamide; MDMA=3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

In the main network meta-analysis, all interventions, except for extremely low dose and low dose MDMA, were associated with a larger mean difference exceeding the minimal important difference of 3 points on the HAMD-17 than with placebo response in the psychedelic trials ( fig 2 ). Notably, placebo response in antidepressant trials (3.79 (95% credibile interval 0.77 to 6.80)) and extremely low dose psilocybin (3.96 (0.61 to 7.17)) were better than placebo response in the psychedelic trials, with mean differences exceeding 3 and 95% credibile intervals that did not cross zero. Additionally, in comparison with placebo response in antidepressant trials ( fig 2 ), the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.52 (3.19 to 9.57)), escitalopram 10 mg (1.86 (0.21 to 3.50)), and escitalopram 20 mg (1.82 (0.16 to 3.43)) did not cross zero. Only high dose psilocybin resulted in a mean difference that was greater than 3. The standardised mean difference of high dose psilocybin decreased from large (0.88) to small (0.31) when the reference arm was changed from placebo response in the psychedelic trials to placebo response in antidepressant trials.

Forest plots of network meta-analytical estimates v different reference arms by observed placebo response. The dotted line represents the minimal important difference of 3 whereas the red line indicates 0. LSD=lysergic acid diethylamide; MDMA=3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine

When compared with extremely low dose psilocybin ( fig 2 ), only the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (6.35 (95% credibile interval 3.41 to 9.21)) and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−3.96 (−7.17 to −0.61)) showed a larger mean difference exceeding 3, without crossing zero. All relative effects between interventions are showed in efigure 4. Importantly, the mean differences of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.66 (1.36 to 7.74); standardised mean difference 0.22), escitalopram 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54); 0.24), high dose MDMA (4.98 (1.23 to 8.67); 0.32), and low dose psilocybin (4.36 (1.20 to 7.51); 0.32) all exceeded 3 and did not cross zero (efigure 4).

Transitivity assumption

The assessment of transitivity assumption is showed in efigure 5 and efigure 6. We compared the efficacy of escitalopram in the placebo controlled antidepressant trials 8 with that in the head-to-head trial (psilocybin v escitalopram) 12 using network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that the relative effects between these two study designs (0.64 (95% credibile interval −4.41 to 5.40), efigure 6A; 1.94 (−2.66 to 6.14), efigure 6B) included zero, and the mean differences did not exceed 3. Placebo response in antidepressant trials was better than placebo response in the psychedelic trials with a small effect size (3.79 (0.77 to 6.80), standardised mean difference 0.2), and the mean difference exceed 3 ( fig 2 ).

Sensitivity analyses

When including only patients with major depressive disorder, the relative effects of escitalopram 20 mg, escitalopram 10 mg, ayahuasca, and high dose psilocybin were better than placebo response in antidepressant trials, while placebo response in the psychedelic trials was worse than placebo response in antidepressant trials ( fig 3 ). However, only the mean differences for high dose psilocybin (6.82 (95% credibile interval 3.84 to 9.67)), ayahuasca (5.38 (0.02 to 10.61)), and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−4.00 (−6.87 to −1.13)) exceeded 3. When compared with extremely low dose psilocybin (excluding the effects from concomitant psychotherapeutic support), only the 95% credibile intervals of the relative effects of high dose psilocybin (4.36 (0.54 to 8.27); standardised mean difference 0.30) and placebo response in the psychedelic trials (−6.46 (−10.41 to −2.32), standardised mean difference −0.46) exceeded 3 and did not cross zero ( fig 3 ). All of the relative effects between interventions are showed in efigure 7. Notably, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin compared with escitalopram 10 mg (4.96 (1.97 to 7.82)), escitalopram 20 mg (4.97 (2.19 to 7.64)), and low dose psilocybin (3.82 (0.61 to 7.04)) all exceeded 3 and did not cross zero (efigure 7).

Forest plots of network meta-analytical estimates when considering a population with major depressive disorder

The other three sensitivity analyses showed similar findings with the main analyses: exclusion of studies with high risk of bias (efigure 8); adjustment of baseline depression severity (efigure 9); and use of most conservative correlation coefficient of zero (efigure 10).

All cause discontinuation and severe adverse event

When referencing placebo in psychedelic trials, no interventions were associated with higher risks of all cause discontinuation rate nor severe adverse event rate (efigure 11).

Network meta-regression and publication bias

In network meta-regression analyses, the 95% credibile intervals of the relative effects of the baseline depressive severity, mean age, and percentage of women, crossed zero (etable 3). The results of the statistical tests (Egger, Begg, and Thompson-Sharp tests) for funnel plot asymmetry and visual inspection of funnel plots did not show publication bias (efigure 12). The results of GRADE assessment are provided in the efigure 13. Most of the certainty of evidence for treatment comparisons was moderate or low.

Consistency assumptions

The back calculation methods for all the models (appendix 6) did not show any inconsistencies. The node splitting methods also did not show any inconsistencies (appendix 7).

Principal findings

This network meta-analysis investigated the comparative effectiveness between psychedelics and escitalopram for depressive symptoms. Firstly, we found that the placebo response observed in antidepressant trials was associated with greater effectiveness than that observed in psychedelic trials. Secondly, when compared with placebo responses in antidepressant trials, only escitalopram and high dose psilocybin were associated with greater effectiveness, and only high dose psilocybin exceeded minimal important difference of 3. Notably, the effect size of high dose psilocybin decreased from large to small. Thirdly, among the included psychedelics, only high dose psilocybin was more likely to be better than escitalopram 10 mg or 20 mg, exceeding the minimally important difference of 3. Fourthly, in patients with major depressive disorder, escitalopram, ayahuasca, and high dose psilocybin were associated with greater effectiveness than placebo responses in antidepressant trials; however, only high dose psilocybin was better than extremely low dose psilocybin, exceeding minimal important difference of 3. Taken together, our study findings suggest that among psychedelic treatments, high dose psilocybin is more likely to reach the minimal important difference for depressive symptoms in studies with adequate blinding design, while the effect size of psilocybin was similar to that of current antidepressant drugs, showing a mean standardised mean difference of 0.3. 7

Comparison with other studies

In a randomised controlled trial, treatment response was defined as the response observed in the active arm; placebo response was defined as the response observed in the control (placebo) arm. 10 Treatment response consists of non-specific effects, placebo effect, and true treatment effect; placebo response consisted of non-specific effects and placebo effect. Therefore, when the placebo effect is not the same for the active and control arms within an randomised controlled trial, the estimation of the true treatment effect is biased. For example, in a psychedelic trial, unsuccessful blinding may occur due to the profound subjective effects of psychedelics. This unblinding may lead to high placebo effect in the active arm and low placebo effect in the control arms, and the true treatment effect is overestimated. 10 Without addressing unequal placebo effects within studies, the estimation of meta-analysis and network meta-analysis are biased. 10 However, in most psychedelic trials, blinding was either reported as unsuccessful or not assessed at all. For example, two trials of lysergic acid diethylamide reported unsuccessful blinding, 35 36 whereas the trial of ayahuasca only reported that five of 10 participants misclassified the placebo as ayahuasca. 37 In trials of MDMA, participants' accuracy in guessing which treatment arm they were in ranged from approximately 60-90%. 26 27 38 39 40 In the case of most psilocybin trials, blinding was not assessed, with the exception of the study by Ross and colleagues in 2016. 13 In that study, participants were asked to guess whether the psilocybin or an active control was received, and the correct guessing rate was 97%. In our study, we established several network meta-analysis models addressing this issue, and we found that placebo response in the psychedelic trials was associated with less effectiveness than that in antidepressant trials. Therefore, the effect sizes of psychedelics compared with placebo response observed in psychedelic trials may be overestimated. All of the psychedelics’ 95% credibile intervals of the relative effects crossed zero when compared with the placebo response in antidepressant trials, except for high dose psilocybin.

The comparisons between psychedelics and escitalopram showed that high dose psilocybin was more likely to be better than escitalopram. Psilocybin was usually administered with psychotherapy or psychological support. 13 14 Therefore, the greater effectiveness of psilocybin may be from not only pharmacological effects but also psychotherapeutic support. However, we also found that high doses of psilocybin was associated greater effectiveness than extremely low doses of psilocybin. This effect also indicates that the effectiveness of psilocybin cannot be attributed only to concomitant psychotherapy or psychological support.

In patients with major depressive disorder, ayahuasca, low dose psilocybin, high dose psilocybin, escitalopram 10 mg, and escitalopram 20 mg were associated with greater effectiveness than the placebo response in antidepressant trials . However, when compared with extremely low dose psilocybin, only high dose psilocybin was associated with better effectiveness; the standardised mean difference decreased from 0.38 (compared with placebo response in antidepressant trials) to 0.30 (compared with extremely low dose psilocybin). As such, the effectiveness of psilocybin should be considered with concomitant psychotherapeutic support in people with major depressive disorder. The effect size of high dose psilocybin was similar with antidepressant trials of patients with major depressive disorder showing a mean standardised mean difference of 0.3. 7 8

Strengths and limitations of this study

This study has several strengths. We conducted separate analyses for placebo response in antidepressant trials, placebo response in psychedelic trials, and an extremely low active dose of psychedelics, thereby mitigating the effect of placebo response variations across different studies. This approach allowed us to assess the efficacy of psychedelics more impartially and make relatively unbiased comparisons than if these groups were not separated. This study supported the transitivity assumption of the efficacy of escitalopram in placebo controlled antidepressant trials with that in psilocybin versus escitalopram head-to-head trial, thereby bridging the escitalopram trials and psychedelic trials. We also performed various sensitivity analyses to ensure the validation of our statistical results.

Nevertheless, our study has several limitations. Firstly, we extracted only the acute effects of the interventions. A comparison of the long term effects of psychedelics and escitalopram remains unclear. Secondly, participants in the randomised controlled trials on MDMA were predominantly diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, whereas participants in the randomised controlled trials on escitalopram were patients with major depressive disorder. However, depressive symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder could be relatively treatment resistant, requiring high doses of psychotropic drugs. 41 Moreover, our study focused not only on major depressive disorder but also on the generalisability of psychedelic treatment for depressive symptoms. Thirdly, although all available studies were included, the sample size of the psychedelic randomised controlled trials was small (k=15). Fourthly, when using extremely low dose psychedelics as a reference group, the relative effect may also eliminate some pharmacological effects because our study found that extremely low dose psychedelics could not be considered a placebo. Fifthly, in network meta-analysis, direct evidence for one treatment comparison may serve as indirect evidence for other treatment comparisons, 42 and biases in the direct evidence might affect estimates of other treatment comparisons. Because the absolute effect of escitalopram in the head-to-head trial (high dose psilocybin v escitalopram 20 mg) 12 was lower than those of placebo controlled trials, the relative effects of high dose psilocybin might be slightly overestimated when compared with other treatments in the current study. We addressed this issue by use of a Bayesian network meta-analysis, distinguishing between placebo response in psychedelic trials and placebo response in antidepressant trials. Specifically, we only considered that the 95% credibile interval of the relative effect between two comparisons did not cross zero. Indeed, the relative effect of escitalopram 20 mg between these two study designs included zero. Finally, our network meta-analysis may not have sufficient statistical power to detect potential publication bias due to the scarcity of trials and participants.

Implications and conclusions

Serotonergic psychedelics, especially high dose psilocybin, appeared to have the potential to treat depressive symptoms. However, study designs may have overestimated the efficacy of psychedelics. Our analysis suggested that the standardised mean difference of high dose psilocybin was similar to that of current antidepressant drugs, showing a small effect size. Improved blinding methods and standardised psychotherapies can help researchers to better estimate the efficacy of psychedelics for depressive symptoms and other psychiatric conditions.

What is already known on this topic

Psychedelic treatment resulted in significant efficacy in treating depressive symptoms and alleviating distress related to life threatening diagnoses and terminal illness

Meta-analyses have reported standardised mean difference of psychedelics for depression reduction ranging from 1.37 to 3.12, while antidepressant trials were approximately 0.3

No network meta-analysis has examined comparative efficacy between psychedelics and antidepressants for depressive symptoms, and effect sizes of psychedelics might be overestimated because of unsuccessful blinding and response expectancies

What this study adds

To avoid estimation bias, placebo responses in psychedelic and antidepressant trials were separated; placebo response in psychedelic trials was lower than that in antidepressant trials

Among all psychedelics studied, only high dose psilocybin was associated with greater effectiveness than placebo response in antidepressant trials (standardised mean difference 0.31)

Among all psychedelics, only high dose psilocybin was associated with greater effectiveness than escitalopram

Ethics statements

Ethical approval.

Not required because this study is an analysis of aggregated identified clinical trial data.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (C-SL) upon reasonable request.

Contributors: T-WH and C-KT contributed equally to this work and are joint first authors. Y-KT and C-SL contributed equally to this work and are joint last/corresponding authors. C-SL, T-WH, and Y-KT conceived and designed the study. T-WH, C-KT, C-WH, and P-TT selected the articles, extracted the data, and assess the risk of bias. C-LY did the systemic search. T-WH and C-SL wrote the first draught of the manuscript. TT, AFC, Y-CK, F-CY, and Y-KT interpreted the data and contributed to the writing of the final version of the manuscript. C-KT and T-WH have accessed and verified the data. C-SL and Y-KT were responsible for the decision to submit the manuscript. All authors confirmed that they had full access to all the data in the study and accept responsibility to submit for publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: The study was supported by grant from the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC 112-2314-B-016−036-MY2 and NSTC 112-2314-B-002−210-MY3). The funding source had no role in any process of our study.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from National Science and Technology Council for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Transparency: The lead author (C-SL) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned

Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities: Dissemination of the work to the public and clinical community through social media and lectures is planned.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

• Tupper KW ,
• Cleare AJ ,
• Muttoni S ,
• Ardissino M ,
• Vargas MV ,
• Dunlap LE ,
• Moliner R ,
• Brunello CA ,
• Sawilowsky SS
• Cipriani A ,
• Furukawa TA ,
• Salanti G ,
• Muthukumaraswamy SD ,
• Forsyth A ,
• Nikolakopoulou A ,
• Chaimani A ,
• Carhart-Harris R ,
• Giribaldi B ,
• Raison CL ,
• Sanacora G ,
• Woolley J ,
• Caldwell DM ,
• Marcantoni WS ,
• Akoumba BS ,
• Thorlund K ,
• Walter SD ,
• Johnston BC ,
• Higgins JPT ,
• Chandler J ,
• Sterne JAC ,
• Savović J ,
• Hengartner MP ,
• Goodwin GM ,
• Aaronson ST ,
• Alvarez O ,
• Griffiths RR ,
• Johnson MW ,
• Carducci MA ,
• Barrett FS ,
• von Rotz R ,
• Schindowski EM ,
• Jungwirth J ,
• Mithoefer MC ,
• Mithoefer AT ,
• Feduccia AA ,
• Ot’alora G M ,
• Grigsby J ,
• Poulter B ,
• ↵ Phillippo DM. multinma: Bayesian network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate data. 2020.
• Bürkner P-C
• Del Giovane C ,
• Welton NJ ,
• Brignardello-Petersen R ,
• Alexander PE ,
• GRADE Working Group
• Izcovich A ,
• Mustafa RA ,
• Brignardello-Petersen R
• Guyatt GH ,
• Holstein D ,
• Dolder PC ,
• Palhano-Fontes F ,
• Barreto D ,
• Mitchell JM ,
• Bogenschutz M ,
• Lilienstein A ,
• Wagner MT ,
• Wolfson PE ,
• Andries J ,

International Journal of Research (IJR)

IJR Journal is Multidisciplinary, high impact and indexed journal for research publication. IJR is a monthly journal for research publication.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Difference between research paper and journal article.

Research Paper

Argumentative Research Paper

Analytical research paper, journal article, the differences, research paper:, journal article:.

• Share on Tumblr

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

Home / Research papers / Difference Between Journal and Research Paper?

It is an absolute confusion and worry in some ways for a wannabe or a first-time researcher or a research scholar especially if you are still a student trying to work on a research project with your professor. Many of us get often confused when we hear the words research paper or a journal for the first time. The reason is that we have no or little idea what the words mean or we never looked into them even though we keep hearing them every once in a while. So, here are a few differences between a “ JOURNAL” and a “RESEARCH PAPER ”

A Journal is collection of articles on various topics. There are various types of journals such as personal journal, academic journal , creative journals etc. But in terms of academic we need to learn more about an academic journal. It is book that comprises articles on different variety of topics. It is an anthology of different work collections. Unlike a research paper it consists of articles on various topics. It is often used as a reference to write a research paper. It is a periodical publication based various topics and contexts are related or co-related to each other. The information provided in a journal is not as deep as it is in a paper. As already said, a journal acts as a reference point to various individuals or organizations who are carrying out a research.

A research paper is basically a sheet of information on a specific topic. If we look at the standard definition it says, “It is a descriptive context in the form of words or text”. It provides detailed and relevant information on a specific topic to its readers. It is a study on a specific problem and it intends to provide a possible practical solution at the end of it. It is a team work of two or three individuals mostly. It can be up to 20 pages long or even more and it is an extensive study on one specific topic. Nevertheless, it should be understood that its length depends on the context of the study.

However, the key difference between a journal and a research paper is that a journal is limited to 5,000 – 10,000 words unlike a research paper. A journal can provide you with a list of national and international conferences as it is a periodical publication. It also provides you with conference alerts as it is a periodical publication like already said. Journal publication is a dream to many students and research scholars especially if it is their first ever research paper.

In conclusion, a journal is a collection of articles on a various academic related topics with limited words. Whereas a research paper is extensive and detailed study on a specific topic. If you are one of those wannabe research scholars looking to get your first journal publications then conference alerts here have a list of journals and their details waiting for you.

Related Posts

• Research article

Difference Between Research Article and Journal Article

As an academic researcher, publishing one’s work and contribute to the growing research, either by research articles or through journal articles, ...

• Research papers

How to Publish a Research Paper?

Publishing your research paper is an absolute honor for you as an author. It acknowledges the work you have done in your field. It’s an ...

• Conference in India

Upcoming Conferences in India 2024 with Journal Publication

Conferences in Tamil Nadu 2024 Conference Papers & Journal Papers, In Essence Conference papers refer to papers written for the purpose of ...

• International conferences

The 5 Important Reasons to Attend International Conference

While attending a conference is always a pleasure and considered an esteemed opportunity by students, research scholars, and academicians, many ...

• Fast publishing scopus indexed journals

Where can I Find Fast Publishing Scopus Indexed Journals?

Finding the right Scopus-indexed journal with a quick publication process becomes so difficult and sometimes confusing as well, owing to the fact ...

In the realm of academia, the publication of research papers serves as a gateway to recognition, knowledge dissemination, and professional ...

• Upcoming Conferences

Upcoming International Conferences with Journal Publication 2020-2021

Researchers often broadcast their research work and findings through conference proceedings, presentations, or publications. International ...

How to Find a Suitable Journal to Publish My Research Papers?

When it comes to finding the best possible journal for the publication of your research work, there are numerous factors that have to be paid ...

Which are the Best Journals to Publish My Research Papers in India?

The primary intention of every researcher or academic who wishes to have their research work, findings, and outcomes published in journal ...

Where can I Submit My Research Paper for Publication in India and International Journal

The primary goal and aspiration of all academics, irrespective of the field or discipline they specialize in, is to gain prominence and ...

• Conference Alerts

How Conference Alert is playing a vital role in Scholar’s Life

Nowadays in this world, everyone needs to be updated with the technology to make the life smoother with innovation. The only way which leads to ...

Filter by Category

• Academic conferences
• Academic conferences 2024
• Academic journals
• Australia conference
• Australia invitation letter
• Best cities for conference
• Business Conference in USA
• Business conference in USA with invitation letter
• Canada conference
• Canada conference invitation letter
• Canada invitation letter
• Christian Conferences
• Church Conference in USA
• Church Conferences
• Civil engineering conference
• Conference 2021
• Conference Alert 2021
• Conference Alerts 2020
• Conference Alerts 2021
• Conference Alerts 2024
• Conference Benefits
• Conference in Canada
• Conference in Indonesia
• Conference in USA
• Conference invitation letter
• Conference planning checklist
• Conference planning tips
• Conference Topics
• Conferences
• Dental conference
• Dental conference 2024
• Dental conference india
• Dentistry conference
• e-conference visa India
• Engineering
• Engineering and technology conference
• Engineering conference
• Fully funded international conference
• India conference
• India conference 2024
• Indonesia conference 2024
• International academic conferences
• International and National conference
• International Church Conferences
• International conference 2021
• International conference 2024
• International conference in india
• International conference in India 2021
• International conference on engineering
• International conferences 2024
• International conferences in Indonesia 2024
• International medical conference
• International medical conferences 2024
• Invitation letter
• Journal article
• Journal publication
• Journal publication 2020
• Journal publication 2024
• Journal publication scopus
• Journal publication services
• Letter for invitation letter
• Lithuania conference
• Lithuania conference with invitation letter
• Medical conferences 2024
• Online conference
• Pharma conference
• Pharmaceutical conference
• Pharmacy conference
• Publish a research paper
• Research paper in India
• Research paper publication in India
• Research paper publishers
• Scopus indexed conference 2024
• Scopus Indexed Conferences
• Scopus indexed journals
• Scopus journals
• Top cities 2024
• Top cities for conference
• UK conference 2024
• UK invitation letter
• Upcoming conferences 2020
• Upcoming conferences 2024
• Upcoming dental conferences
• Upcoming engineering conferences
• Upcoming international conference
• Upcoming medial conferences 2024
• USA business conference
• USA Church Conference
• USA conference
• USA conference 2024
• USA conference visa
• USA invitation letter
• Video conference
• Virtual conference 2020
• Virtual conference 2021
• Virtual conferences

Subscribe Now

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Copyright © 2024 Conference Alerts All Rights Reserved.

Research Article vs. Research Paper

What's the difference.

A research article and a research paper are both scholarly documents that present the findings of a research study. However, there are some differences between the two. A research article is typically a shorter document that is published in a peer-reviewed journal. It focuses on a specific research question and provides a concise summary of the study's methodology, results, and conclusions. On the other hand, a research paper is usually a longer document that provides a more comprehensive analysis of a research topic. It often includes a literature review, detailed methodology, extensive data analysis, and a discussion of the implications of the findings. While both types of documents contribute to the scientific knowledge base, research papers tend to be more in-depth and provide a more thorough exploration of the research topic.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research articles and research papers are both essential components of academic and scientific discourse. They serve as vehicles for sharing knowledge, presenting findings, and contributing to the advancement of various fields of study. While the terms "research article" and "research paper" are often used interchangeably, there are subtle differences in their attributes and purposes. In this article, we will explore and compare the key characteristics of research articles and research papers.

Definition and Purpose

A research article is a concise and focused piece of scholarly writing that typically appears in academic journals. It presents original research, experiments, or studies conducted by the author(s) and aims to communicate the findings to the scientific community. Research articles often follow a specific structure, including an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

On the other hand, a research paper is a broader term that encompasses various types of academic writing, including research articles. While research papers can also be published in journals, they can take other forms such as conference papers, dissertations, or theses. Research papers provide a more comprehensive exploration of a particular topic, often including a literature review, theoretical framework, and in-depth analysis of the research question.

Length and Depth

Research articles are typically shorter in length compared to research papers. They are usually limited to a specific word count, often ranging from 3000 to 8000 words, depending on the journal's guidelines. Due to their concise nature, research articles focus on presenting the core findings and their implications without delving extensively into background information or theoretical frameworks.

On the other hand, research papers tend to be longer and more comprehensive. They can range from 5000 to 20,000 words or more, depending on the scope of the research and the requirements of the academic institution or conference. Research papers provide a deeper analysis of the topic, including an extensive literature review, theoretical framework, and detailed methodology section.

Structure and Organization

Research articles follow a standardized structure to ensure clarity and consistency across different publications. They typically begin with an abstract, which provides a concise summary of the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions. The introduction section provides background information, states the research problem, and outlines the objectives of the study. The methodology section describes the research design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis techniques used. The results section presents the findings, often accompanied by tables, figures, or graphs. The discussion section interprets the results, compares them with previous studies, and discusses their implications. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main findings and suggests future research directions.

Research papers, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure depending on the specific requirements of the academic institution or conference. While they may include similar sections as research articles, such as an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion, research papers can also incorporate additional sections such as a literature review, theoretical framework, or appendices. The structure of a research paper is often determined by the depth and complexity of the research conducted.

Publication and Audience

Research articles are primarily published in academic journals, which serve as platforms for disseminating new knowledge within specific disciplines. These journals often have a rigorous peer-review process, where experts in the field evaluate the quality and validity of the research before publication. Research articles are targeted towards a specialized audience of researchers, scholars, and professionals in the respective field.

Research papers, on the other hand, can be published in various formats and venues. They can be presented at conferences, published as chapters in books, or submitted as dissertations or theses. While research papers can also undergo peer-review, they may have a broader audience, including researchers, students, and professionals interested in the topic. The publication of research papers allows for a wider dissemination of knowledge beyond the confines of academic journals.

In conclusion, research articles and research papers are both vital components of academic and scientific discourse. While research articles are concise and focused pieces of scholarly writing that present original research findings, research papers provide a more comprehensive exploration of a particular topic. Research articles follow a standardized structure and are primarily published in academic journals, targeting a specialized audience. On the other hand, research papers have a more flexible structure and can be published in various formats, allowing for a wider dissemination of knowledge. Understanding the attributes and purposes of research articles and research papers is crucial for researchers, scholars, and students alike, as it enables effective communication and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in various fields.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours: 

• Maxwell Library
• Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
• Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

• Where Do I Start?
• How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
• How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
• Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece:  An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short. 

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

• Journal Title and Author
• Abstract 
• Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
• Literature Review
• Methods/Methodology
• Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions.  Common sections of these articles include:

• an Introduction
• Discussion/Conclusion
• works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
• INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
• Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
• UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
• << Previous: Where Do I Start?
• Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

• Privacy Policy

Difference Between Research Paper and Journal Paper

Whether you have been attending a university or college or planning to pursue the career in the trading such as medicine, there remains always a chance that you may hear a lot about the “journal papers” and “research papers”.

For having the complete knowledge regarding these two, it is important to know the basics of each of them and the difference amid them. So, lets dig deeper and get a glimpse of each form and its use.

Research Paper

The professor history named, Dr. Jane once said that “the design and work are created by your mind, however your mind can’t do it without depending on the wisdom and efforts of other minds”.

This is right as per Jane’s notion. The research papers are considered as a form of the writing, general utilized in academic world by the students in universities or colleges for investigating and doing research on a given topic, which they give a certain conclusion or findings.

Students are encouraged and also need some support for their findings using the facts taken from the reputable references. Typical research papers range 5 to 15 pages in length.

The work of students will get organize in a framework after compilation of all the proper info taken from the various sources. The instructors usually assign these tasks to the students for teaching them how to create balance in the writing skills, and encouraging the structural discipline as well as known formatting.

Moreover, as per the famous research guides for the students, the research papers usually gather the genuine info on the given topic and after then they gather data during the stage of investigation, a student has to sum up giving the concise and clear analysis or disposition.

The research papers use different major kinds of the citation formats like APA , Chicago, and MLA. The paper is provided with the consistent focus, clear research, and gives a deep understanding of the subject or topic while distinguishing the opinions and facts, and is reliable when it comes to findings and conclusion. Most of the times a research paper is also termed as the research project or term paper too.

For sure, most of the research papers have the thesis statements in accordance with the given topic. And, sometimes the students may need to write down any of the two kinds of the research papers given below;

Journal Paper

As per the definition given by the University of Simon Fraser, the journal paper is a piece of writing which is done on a particular topic. Moreover, you can see this usually written by the expert of the field. This type of writing is also known as the peer reviews.

The journal paper is the short writing on the specific topic which gets chiefly published in the periodicals and issues. It may also include the updated info and research regarding some particular topic including latest development, short paper reviewing ideas and reviews on the product or method.

With the journal paper, you can find info, for instance, regarding the recent medicine or the techniques of a certain subject, for example, “latest ways used for eradicating the medicine in 21 st century”.

Few other examples of the journal papers include the case studies, peer reviews, scholarly articles, social and scientific science articles. Journal paper are published in the publications after the extensive research done in the corresponding field. The Publication Manual can call journal papers as a way of categorizing the primary literature as well as review articles.

The Differences

Now, an important thing to know here is what is the difference between the two kinds of writing?

• The major difference amid research paper and journal paper is that you can call journal paper as an article which comprises of few particular criteria. While a research paper is like a sheet of information regarding particular topic.
• Meaning of the term ‘journal’ means the book in which you can write about the personal thoughts and experiences.

It is an article kind of content which comprises of the particular format where the thoughts are put in form of the words. It works like an experience booklet which gets updated on the regular basis. Journal papers are educational book logs. They can have a pre-defined kind of content which is needed to be monitored accordingly. They are mostly used for the referring purposes.

A journal paper comprises of the desired concentration of the info that can be utilized for the reference. They are also called as the reference books. After going through some particular contents, a content is done in the general form and give the shape of a journal. Journal papers are the particular records which are kept in form of booklets. They are like the periodicals which get published on a specific topic. They have reviews about the other researches and papers.

Talking about the research paper, it is just like a description. It consists of the detailed layout on a particular topic which is presented in form of a paper. It also possesses the related stuff and the explanation of the topic.

• Journals may also consist of group of research papers arranged in quite systematic way, where each of the paper develops a systematic preview to the reader. Most of these papers together contribute to give a shape to the journal.
• Most of the research papers are done in a traditional way by the students at college or university, where the work is usually assigned. On the other hand, journal paper is a paper, regarding a topic which has researched or reviewed recently, and written by the experts of some field. Both of these kinds of paper use same kind of techniques, the research papers are done and evaluated by the instructors or teachers.
• A small difference between two is an extent of references utilized. More often, the journal papers are expected to have the extensive bibliographies, whereas the research paper don’t have an extensive list of references.
• The research paper doesn’t get published in any of the publications unless it has some reference of how to write a research paper, whereas journal paper is submitted to the magazines or periodicals.
• A journal paper reviews a current or possible idea and is related to the impact. While a research paper also offers a thesis, however it is not as deep as an actual thesis paper.
• The lengths and format of two are opposite traditionally. A journal paper can reach up to 15 pages – but usually it doesn’t. while the range of length of research paper is 3 pages to 10 pages. The way of delivering the research paper also looks different as compared to journal paper – including indenting and spacing.
• At last, a research paper has no authority to present the original research, but it can show empirical data, whereas a journal paper has the explanation for the readers about its original research.

Research Paper and Journal Paper Comparison

Along with the differences amid these writing methods, there remains some similarities too like both of these have concise and clear grammatical structure or formatting along with the conclusions and list of references.

Examples of the differences between two are given below:

Research Paper:

A research paper can have the name of student with date, and name of instructor, everything written on the left side of paper, with the title in center.

Journal Paper:

A journal paper can have a title on the top center of paper. Name of author is written below the title and whole format is kept same like the one in magazine article’s format.

A main difference is the usage of each paper. Research paper is for practical writing while other one is for practicing by the fellow practitioners.

Other than this a research paper is utilized as the method for educating students about how to do writing clearly and efficiently regarding a topic, while journal paper is done for educating the reader about the subject.

Related Posts

Research paper example, how to write a motivational statement, how to write a good psychology research proposal, how to write a mechanical engineering research paper, apa research paper parts and sections, how to research a topic, how to write a personal essay, research project outline example, research paper format, what is a dissertation paper, leave a comment cancel reply.

Please enter an answer in digits: four − two =

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

• About The Journalist’s Resource
• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

White papers, working papers, preprints, journal articles: What’s the difference?

In this updated piece, we explain the most common types of research papers journalists will encounter, noting their strengths and weaknesses.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource February 25, 2022

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/working-papers-research-articles/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This tip sheet, originally published in May 2018, has been updated to include preprint research, a type of research featured often in news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic.

Journalists rely most often on four types of research in their work. White papers, working papers, preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles.

How are they different? And which is best?

Below, we explain each, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. As always, we urge journalists to use care in selecting any research to ground their coverage and fact-check claims.

Peer-reviewed article

Peer-reviewed research — the kind that appears in academic journals and that we highlight here at The Journalist’s Resource — has undergone a detailed critique by scholars with expertise in the field. While peer-reviewed research is generally the most reliable, journalists should keep in mind that publication in a prestigious journal is no guarantee of quality and that no single university or research organization always does the best research on a given topic.

It is safe to assume, however, that articles published in top-tier journals have been reviewed and given a stamp of approval by a number of accomplished scholars. For journalists who are uncertain, we’ve put together a list of 13 questions  to ask to gauge the quality of a research article.

Keep in mind that not everything that appears in a scholarly journal has been peer reviewed. Journals publish various types of content, including book reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and, sometimes, even poetry.

Working paper

This broad category describes research papers that have not been peer reviewed or published in a journal. Working papers can be in various stages of completion. One might be ready for publication in a prestigious journal while another requires significant editing and other changes that could actually alter its main findings. Sometimes, working paper findings are so preliminary, authors will advise against citing their work .

Even so, working papers are a great way for journalists to gain access to new research quickly. The peer-review and publication process can take months to a year or longer, which means that by the time studies get published, their findings are sometimes not as useful or the data are old.

In choosing working papers, journalists should communicate with scholars about the progress of their research and how confident they are in their findings. It’s a good idea to seek corroboration from peer-reviewed research and to ask other researchers for help assessing a study.

A preprint is similar to a working paper in that it has not been vetted through a formal peer-review process. However, preprints tend to be more complete . Also, preprints submitted to public servers such as the Social Science Research Network and the health sciences server medRxiv get a cursory screening before they’re published online for public view.

Preprints, like academic journal articles, are assigned a Digital Object Identifier , or DOI, and become a permanent part of the scientific record.

White paper

A white paper is a report, often compiled by government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations, that outlines an issue and often explores possible solutions to a problem. For example, in November 2021, the federal Office of Community Oriented Policing Services released a white paper looking at factors that help or hinder law enforcement recruitment of Black Americans. Earlier in the year, the Advanced Technology Academic Research Center published a white paper on the American Rescue Plan ‘s widespread implications for government agencies.

In the business world, white papers also are used for marketing purposes — to describe a new product or approach, for instance, or diagnose a problem.

While a white paper can help journalists get up to speed quickly on an issue, it’s important to note some white papers advocate a specific position or policy change. Some rely on incomplete research or research that has not been peer reviewed.

Looking for more guidance on writing about research? Check out our tip sheets on covering biomedical research preprints amid the coronavirus and what journalists should know about peer review .

The Journalist’s Resource would like to thank Matthew Baum , the Marvin Kalb professor of global communications and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, for his help preparing this tip sheet.

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

Journal Article vs. Research Paper — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Journal Article and Research Paper

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, review process, length & scope, publication, compare with definitions, journal article, research paper, common curiosities, what's the main difference between a journal article and a research paper, are journal articles always peer-reviewed, who reads journal articles, can a research paper become a journal article, who typically writes journal articles, why are citations important in both journal articles and research papers, do journal articles have a word limit, are all journal articles based on experimental research, where can i find journal articles, is a thesis the same as a research paper, can i use a journal article as a reference for my research paper, do all research papers get published, why is it essential for a journal article to be peer-reviewed, do all academic journals charge to publish journal articles, how long can a research paper be, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

• Steps for Writing a Stellar Dissertation

Differences between Journal Papers and Research Papers

• How to Write a PhD Synopsis
• Unique Features That Turn Your Research Paper Stand Out
• 12 Practical Ways to Apply & Obtain Good Grades
• Innumerable Ways Parents Can Help Improve Their Wards' Student's College Essay
• 11 Most Effective Features That Turn Your Website Unique & Distinct
• Tips to Write an Abstract for a Thesis or Dissertation
• The Key Differences Between Endnotes & Footnotes That You Must Know
• University Assignments: What Makes Cover Page Relevant & Necessary?

Digital & Content Marketing Agency in India

Significant Differences between Journal Papers and Research Papers: Keeping Both Apart

There are four ways to distinguish a journal paper from a research paper . Are you familiar with the terms research paper and journal paper ? Although the terms journal paper and research paper might sound similar, there are a lot of differences between both papers. Both are literary works that hold knowledge about people engaged in various educational research courses at different stages of their lives. Keeping in mind the potential queries of readers, we have elaborated on the main differences between journal papers and research papers.

Hence, often, people confuse the journal paper with the research paper and vice versa . Do you need clarification on both papers, too, like many others? Do not worry! In this blog, you will get all the necessary guidance required to differentiate between them next time!

What is a journal paper?

First, you will need to learn what a journal paper is all about . It is the right time for you to explore options and reach out to experts to learn more about journal paper writing services . The term can be best defined as a periodical literary work based on a particular topic that is not concerned with academic students in general. In such literary works, you usually find detailed information about the recent activities of a particular area, besides recent developments flourishing in a specific place, product reviews, public feedback regarding certain incidents, and so on.

Though it is not directly concerned with academic literary courses, it may still comprise scholarly articles, scientific studies, etc. Some other vital niches covering journal articles are peer reviews, case studies, social works, etc. Now you understand the differences between journals and research papers . Or, you still have questions.

What are the different types of journal papers?

The various types of papers are as follows:.

● Case Studies : Of all the various types, case studies occupy a significant position in journal articles. In a case study paper , a particular instance or phenomenon is highlighted. It also depicts the possible outcomes of a specific incident. A case study is highly beneficial in the medical field to test and comprehend the possible results and effects of particular medicines and treatments. So are cases important in numerous other study areas? Connect with experts to know more about case studies and remain abreast of this important academic research domain.

● Short Reports : Short reports, also termed brief communications, are report writings of a specified word length. The data interpreted here are original data acquired mainly from field surveys and have a rigid and unalterable structure. Scientists can use short reports best as they are convenient, to the point, and concise.

● Review Articles : Review articles also fall under journal papers. In this literary work, the writer accumulates or presents a generalized review of any particular incident, product, etc. Review articles are beneficial for decision-making.

● Methodologies : Methodologies aim to explore existing or new methods and techniques. Through a process, readers can understand the different perspectives on the same method and thus discover better alternatives to the existing procedures.

What is a research paper?

A research paper primarily concerns academic students who must investigate, analyze, and interpret a particular subject or topic into a literary work. Just as the name suggests, a research paper writing service requires a lot of proper research so that the writers can derive a suitable conclusion for that particular research domain. The students are provided with a particular topic upon which they must thoroughly investigate to derive the desired information. The gathered information is then minutely analyzed and later presented concisely. You can make your Research Paper stand out if you read this post.

What are the different types of research papers?

The different types of research papers are as follows:.

● Argumentative Research Paper : An argumentative research paper comes with a controversial topic that enables people to run multiple debates on the subject. In such a paper, the students are tasked with carefully exploring the topic and addressing the case’s audience by providing a thesis according to their intellectual thinking.

● Analytical Research Paper : In an analytical research paper, the student is presented with a topic concerning a question. The prime aim of an analytical paper is to examine and critique the question thoroughly and conclude the most reliable and accurate answers or solutions to it. This type of literary work greatly resembles an essay.

● Compare and Contrast Paper : In a compare and contrast paper, the students must compare two viewpoints, incidents, subjects, etc. and derive a suitable conclusion for the audience. The writer needs to focus equally on both sides to avoid bias.

What Are the Key Points of Difference?

The key points of difference between an article and a research paper are as follows :

Time Frame:

The central point of difference between both literary articles is their time frame. The time taken to frame both works is considerably different. A journal paper requires a short amount of writing time-based on the writer’s expertise. A research article is written over a long period of time due to its extensiveness . It is constantly occurring; hence, the time frame required for citing it becomes much longer than the other one.

Though many people perceive both papers to have the same context, this is untrue. The content matter of both works stands poles apart from one another. A journal article’s contents are primarily based on personal experiences, skills, and expertise. In a research article, the contents are mainly derived from extensive research on the given topic or subject. The former is primarily subjective, whereas the latter is highly objective.

Arc of the Work:

The total arc of both works is highly different as well. Hence, perceiving both as the same will be a complete misunderstanding. A journal paper is a published work. On the other hand, a research paper can be cited. Hence, it is a significant point of difference between both of the literary articles.

Though both are literary works, it does not imply that both papers will be able to acquire a patent. Simply put, a patent is a temporary legal right to a document. A journal, in general, does not comprise a patent. In contrast, a research article might sometimes contain a patent for specific documents. It is one of the main differences between a research paper and a review article .

Conclusion: Differences between Journal Papers and Research Papers

Though both journals and research papers are advantageous mediums of knowledge and they comprise and cater to different types of audiences, they are often misjudged to be of a similar context. These were some of the significant fundamental differences between both that readers often overlook. However, even though they are poles apart, both are equally significant and purposeful in their respective ways.

To know the difference between a journal and an article in research , this post could be helpful for you.

Some related posts :

• Tips to Write Quality Research Papers ;
• Importance of Using Journals for Assignments ;
• Mistakes to Avoid While Writing Research Papers ;
• Research Paper Writing for UGC or Scopus-Approved Journals .

Related posts

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Types of research papers

Analytical research paper

Argumentative or persuasive paper, definition paper, compare and contrast paper, cause and effect paper, interpretative paper, experimental research paper, survey research paper, frequently asked questions about the different types of research papers, related articles.

There are multiple different types of research papers. It is important to know which type of research paper is required for your assignment, as each type of research paper requires different preparation. Below is a list of the most common types of research papers.

➡️ Read more:  What is a research paper?

In an analytical research paper you:

• pose a question
• collect relevant data from other researchers
• analyze their different viewpoints

You focus on the findings and conclusions of other researchers and then make a personal conclusion about the topic. It is important to stay neutral and not show your own negative or positive position on the matter.

The argumentative paper presents two sides of a controversial issue in one paper. It is aimed at getting the reader on the side of your point of view.

You should include and cite findings and arguments of different researchers on both sides of the issue, but then favor one side over the other and try to persuade the reader of your side. Your arguments should not be too emotional though, they still need to be supported with logical facts and statistical data.

Tip: Avoid expressing too much emotion in a persuasive paper.

The definition paper solely describes facts or objective arguments without using any personal emotion or opinion of the author. Its only purpose is to provide information. You should include facts from a variety of sources, but leave those facts unanalyzed.

Compare and contrast papers are used to analyze the difference between two:

Make sure to sufficiently describe both sides in the paper, and then move on to comparing and contrasting both thesis and supporting one.

Cause and effect papers are usually the first types of research papers that high school and college students write. They trace probable or expected results from a specific action and answer the main questions "Why?" and "What?", which reflect effects and causes.

In business and education fields, cause and effect papers will help trace a range of results that could arise from a particular action or situation.

An interpretative paper requires you to use knowledge that you have gained from a particular case study, for example a legal situation in law studies. You need to write the paper based on an established theoretical framework and use valid supporting data to back up your statement and conclusion.

This type of research paper basically describes a particular experiment in detail. It is common in fields like:

Experiments are aimed to explain a certain outcome or phenomenon with certain actions. You need to describe your experiment with supporting data and then analyze it sufficiently.

This research paper demands the conduction of a survey that includes asking questions to respondents. The conductor of the survey then collects all the information from the survey and analyzes it to present it in the research paper.

➡️ Ready to start your research paper? Take a look at our guide on how to start a research paper .

In an analytical research paper, you pose a question and then collect relevant data from other researchers to analyze their different viewpoints. You focus on the findings and conclusions of other researchers and then make a personal conclusion about the topic.

The definition paper solely describes facts or objective arguments without using any personal emotion or opinion of the author. Its only purpose is to provide information.

Cause and effect papers are usually the first types of research papers that high school and college students are confronted with. The answer questions like "Why?" and "What?", which reflect effects and causes. In business and education fields, cause and effect papers will help trace a range of results that could arise from a particular action or situation.

This type of research paper describes a particular experiment in detail. It is common in fields like biology, chemistry or physics. Experiments are aimed to explain a certain outcome or phenomenon with certain actions.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Difference between Paper and Article for scientific writings

As I know, in most of situations (in scientific context) these two terms are used to point to same thing and even they are used interchangeably.

For example,

Theory of value with public goods: A survey article

A survey paper on cloud computing

Are there any major differences between them? and can we use them interchangeably in any context?

• differences

• 1 See also: article vs paper –  Martin Thoma Commented Nov 24, 2019 at 11:46

3 Answers 3

The following extract helps understand the difference between a research article and a research paper :

Research paper and research articles are pieces of writing that require critical analysis, inquiry, insight, and demonstration of some special skills from students and scientists. It is really overwhelming for students when their teachers ask them to write a research paper as a form of assignment. Students remain confused between a research paper and a research article because of their similarities. This article attempts to find out if the two terms are synonymous or there is any difference between the two.

Research Article

What do you do when you are a scientist or a scholar and have arrived at a solution to a problem or have made a discovery that you want to share with the world? Well, one of the best ways to let the world know about your piece of wisdom or knowledge is through a research article. This is a piece of writing that contains an original research idea with the relevant data and findings Research article is published in renowned scientific journals that are involved with works in the area to which the paper pertains. A research article is a paper or writing that informs people of a path breaking research or a finding with clinical data to support the finding.

Research Paper

Research is an activity that is given much importance in academics, and this is why assignments requiring research and technical writing start early in the school. Students are asked to submit a research paper as early as in High School, and they become used to the concept when they are pursuing higher studies in colleges. However, a research paper is not just these assignment papers written by students as those written by scholars and scientists and published in journals are also referred to as research papers.

• What is the difference between Research Article and Research Paper?

• There is no difference as such between a research article and a research paper and both involve original research with findings. • There is a trend to refer to term papers and academic papers written by students in colleges as research papers whereas articles submitted by scholars and scientists with their groundbreaking research are termed as research articles. • Research articles are published in renowned scientific journals whereas papers written by students do not go to journals.

(www.differencebetween.com)

There is no definitive distinction between papers and articles that can be applied to all scientific disciplines. Usage varies between disciplines. and within disciplines it can vary depending on context.

Both the examples quoted refer to ‘writings’ that are surveys (in other areas often termed reviews) — one in the field of a social science (economics) and the other in a numerical science (computing). However the term science is also (and perhaps more) associated with the experimental sciences (physics, chemistry and biology), where the types of ‘writings’ are different and where different words are used to distinguish them.

Articles and papers in the Experimental Sciences

Let me illustrate this for the Biomolecular Sciences (biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular genetics and the like). As a practitioner in this area, when I hear these terms, e.g. talking to colleagues, I understand:

Paper : A report of a piece of experimental research work in which the original data presented by the authors was central to interpretation and conclusions regarding advancement of knowledge and understanding of the field. Article : A review or commentary in which the author was discussing the previously published work of others (perhaps including his own) in attempting to provide a perspective of the field or to present a new theory/model/interpretation by integrating such work.

However, despite this professional conversational use of the terms, if I go to any specific journal — here the US heavyweight, Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) — I would find a somewhat different usage:

JBC publishes several types of articles but only two of those can be submitted as an unsolicited manuscript: regular papers and accelerated communications.

Thus, JBC regards all the ‘writings’ it publishes as ‘articles’, in common with other journals such as The Journal of Biophysics , and this is consistent with general non-scientific usage — “I read an article in the Financial Times yesterday…”

The way JBC uses ‘regular paper’, is consistent with my specialist conversational definition (above), and although it doesn’t actually say what types of ‘article’ are unsolicited, but if you look at a table of contents of the journal , you would conclude that for this journal it is ‘minireviews’ and historical appraisals of the work of individual scientists.

The Journal of Biophysics only uses the term ‘paper’ in describing only one of its categories of ‘article’:

Comments to the Editor | Short commentaries on a paper published earlier in BJ.

Again using ‘paper’ rather in the sense I defined above.

To conclude, in the extended sense used by peer-reviewed journals in the experimental sciences, all published ‘papers’ can be referred to as articles, but not all articles would be referred to as ‘papers’. (One wouldn’t use ‘paper’ for an editorial, a news item and generally not for a review.) This is exactly the opposite conclusion reached by @1006a from his reading of the OED.

Conflict with the OED and non-experimental sciences

How can one resolve the conflict with the OED, mentioned above? I think the OED describes more traditional usage in the non-experimental sciences and the arts. It is pertinent, in this respect, to consider the phrase “reading a paper” .

As far as my area of science goes, this is just a rather outdated term for presenting one’s results orally at a conference. The talk in itself is transitory, the abstract unreviewed, and the information conveyed will most probably be published elsewhere.

However for colleagues in computing science the talk is likely to be based on a ‘paper’ that has been submitted to the conference organisers, selected after peer-review, and will be published as conference proceedings or in a journal associated with the conference. This is more in line with traditional non-scientific academic presentations, although in this case the ‘paper’ might never have been published.

The difference would seem to derive in part from whether the field of science is one in which original work is in the form of ideas or in the form of measurements and their interpretation.

The distinction I would make is that an article is formally published, generally in some kind of periodical. The relevant definition, from Oxford Dictionaries:

A piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication.

Scholarly/scientific/research articles are thus "pieces of writing included with others in" an appropriate publication, most often an academic journal (see Wikipedia).

A paper , on the other hand, may or may not be published anywhere; and if it is published, may be in some alternate venue like conference proceedings (though it can be published in a scholarly journal). Again from Oxford:

An essay or dissertation, especially one read at an academic lecture or seminar or published in an academic journal.

So you can generally call any scientific (research) article a paper, but not all papers are articles.

Edited to clarify the last sentence, to which I also added the parenthetical (research):

Of course, not all articles are scientific (or research ) articles; that distinction generally means that the article presents original research, and as I am using it, that it has met certain standards of whichever field it represents (usually some form of peer review) so that it can be published in a scientific/scholarly journal. A scientific (research) paper meets the first of these criteria, but not necessarily the second (it presents original research, but may or may not be published). There are other kinds of articles/papers, which would ordinarily get a different modifier, like review or meta-review (or newspaper/magazine etc. for articles), or might commonly go by other terms altogether, like essay .

By this definition, not all articles are papers, and not all papers are articles, but all scientific (research) articles are also scientific (research) papers.

• Just to mention that in my consideration of experimental sciences I present the opposite conclusion from that you draw from the OED. Please don't think I am saying you are wrong, but as I explain, that your assertions only hold for certain areas of science. –  David Commented Jul 15, 2017 at 22:27
• @David The key distinction I make is that articles are published . That would, indeed, include things like (literature) review articles, commentary, and possibly book reviews. It does not exclude original research in any field of which I am aware (which includes "experimental science"). It is certainly possible that certain disciplines or specific journals have non-standard usages, but I don't believe it breaks down along "experimental" and "non-experimental" lines. –  1006a Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 16:38
• I agree about there being a difference in relation to publication. The whole background of "reading a paper" implies it can exist without being published, and even in the experimental sciences one might say "I wrote a paper about 'whatever' and sent it to such-and-such a Journal, but they rejected it because the referees were too stupid to understand it". You might feasibly say that about an article (I once had a solicited mini-review rejected because it was thought to be in bad taste) but it would be unusual. But a very popular program for storing PDFs of publications is called... "Papers". –  David Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 16:53

Your Answer

Sign up or log in, post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

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

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• 2 in 1: Twin Puzzle
• If inflation/cost of living is such a complex difficult problem, then why has the price of drugs been absoultly perfectly stable my whole life?
• Is there a phrase for someone who's really bad at cooking?
• Could someone tell me what this part of an A320 is called in English?
• What are some refutations to the etymological fallacy?
• Can the SLS's mobile launch platform be rotated at the launch complex to keep the rocket on the leeward side of the tower in case of high winds?
• How did Oswald Mosley escape treason charges?
• Suitable Category in which Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem Arises Naturally as Canonical Decomposition
• Determining Error Rate of Phase Shift Keying via Monte Carlo Simulation
• How can judicial independence be jeopardised by politicians' criticism?
• Is there a difference between these two layouts?
• magnetic boots inverted
• Maximizing the common value of both sides of an equation
• How do eradicated diseases make a comeback?
• How do we reconcile the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 and the man stoned for picking up sticks on Sabbath in Numbers 15?
• How specific does the GDPR require you to be when providing personal information to the police?
• Does Vexing Bauble counter taxed 0 mana spells?
• How to remove obligation to run as administrator in Windows?
• How much easier/harder would it be to colonize space if humans found a method of giving ourselves bodies that could survive in almost anything?
• Why are complex coordinates outlawed in physics?
• How would you say a couple of letters (as in mail) if they're not necessarily letters?
• Why was this lighting fixture smoking? What do I do about it?
• How is it possible to know a proposed perpetual motion machine won't work without even looking at it?
• How is message waiting conveyed to home POTS phone

• Insights blog

Different types of research articles

A guide for early career researchers.

In scholarly literature, there are many different kinds of articles published every year. Original research articles are often the first thing you think of when you hear the words ‘journal article’. In reality, research work often results in a whole mixture of different outputs and it’s not just the final research article that can be published.

Finding a home to publish supporting work in different formats can help you start publishing sooner, allowing you to build your publication record and research profile.

But before you do, it’s very important that you check the  instructions for authors  and the  aims and scope  of the journal(s) you’d like to submit to. These will tell you whether they accept the type of article you’re thinking of writing and what requirements they have around it.

Understanding the different kind of articles

There’s a huge variety of different types of articles – some unique to individual journals – so it’s important to explore your options carefully. While it would be impossible to cover every single article type here, below you’ll find a guide to the most common research articles and outputs you could consider submitting for publication.

Book review

Many academic journals publish book reviews, which aim to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Writing book reviews is often a good way to begin academic writing. It can help you get your name known in your field and give you valuable experience of publishing before you write a full-length article.

If you’re keen to write a book review, a good place to start is looking for journals that publish or advertise the books they have available for review. Then it’s just a matter of putting yourself forward for one of them.

You can check whether a journal publishes book reviews by browsing previous issues or by seeing if a book review editor is listed on the editorial board. In addition, some journals publish other types of reviews, such as film, product, or exhibition reviews, so it’s worth bearing those in mind as options as well.

Get familiar with instructions for authors

Be prepared, speed up your submission, and make sure nothing is forgotten by understanding a journal’s individual requirements.

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

Case report

A medical case report – also sometimes called a clinical case study – is an original short report that provides details of a single patient case.

Case reports include detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. They remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress and provide many new ideas in medicine.

Depending on the journal, a case report doesn’t necessarily need to describe an especially novel or unusual case as there is benefit from collecting details of many standard cases.

Take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance on case reports , to understand more about what’s required in them. And don’t forget that for all studies involving human participants, informed written consent to take part in the research must be obtained from the participants –  find out more about consent to publish.

Clinical study

In medicine, a clinical study report is a type of article that provides in-depth detail on the methods and results of a clinical trial. They’re typically similar in length and format to original research articles.

Most journals now require that you register protocols for clinical trials you’re involved with in a publicly accessible registry. A list of eligible registries can be found on the  WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) . Trials can also be registered at  clinicaltrials.gov  or the  EU Clinical Trials Register . Once registered, your trial will be assigned a clinical trial number (CTN).

Before you submit a clinical study, you’ll need to include clinical trial numbers and registration dates in the manuscript, usually in the abstract and methods sections.

Commentaries and letters to editors

Letters to editors, as well as ‘replies’ and ‘discussions’, are usually brief comments on topical issues of public and political interest (related to the research field of the journal), anecdotal material, or readers’ reactions to material published in the journal.

Commentaries are similar, though they may be slightly more in-depth, responding to articles recently published in the journal. There may be a ‘target article’ which various commentators are invited to respond to.

You’ll need to look through previous issues of any journal you’re interested in writing for and review the instructions for authors to see which types of these articles (if any) they accept.

Conference materials

Many of our medical journals  accept conference material supplements. These are open access peer-reviewed, permanent, and citable publications within the journal. Conference material supplements record research around a common thread, as presented at a workshop, congress, or conference, for the scientific record. They can include the following types of articles:

Poster extracts

Conference abstracts

Presentation extracts

Find out more about submitting conference materials.

Data notes  are a short peer-reviewed article type that concisely describe research data stored in a repository. Publishing a data note can help you to maximize the impact of your data and gain appropriate credit for your research.

Data notes promote the potential reuse of research data and include details of why and how the data were created. They do not include any analysis but they can be linked to a research article incorporating analysis of the published dataset, as well as the results and conclusions.

F1000Research  enables you to publish your data note rapidly and openly via an author-centric platform. There is also a growing range of options for publishing data notes in Taylor & Francis journals, including in  All Life  and  Big Earth Data .

Read our guide to data notes to find out more.

Letters or short reports

Letters or short reports (sometimes known as brief communications or rapid communications) are brief reports of data from original research.

Editors publish these reports where they believe the data will be interesting to many researchers and could stimulate further research in the field. There are even entire journals dedicated to publishing letters.

As they’re relatively short, the format is useful for researchers with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full original research article.

Brief reports  (previously called Research Notes) are a type of short report published by  F1000Research  – part of the Taylor & Francis Group. To find out more about the requirements for a brief report, take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance .

Method article

A method article is a medium length peer-reviewed, research-focused article type that aims to answer a specific question. It also describes an advancement or development of current methodological approaches and research procedures (akin to a research article), following the standard layout for research articles. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions. These should include adequate and appropriate validation to be considered, and any datasets associated with the paper must publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available.  

Posters and slides

With F1000Research, you can publish scholarly posters and slides covering basic scientific, translational, and clinical research within the life sciences and medicine. You can find out more about how to publish posters and slides  on the F1000Research website .

Registered report

A  Registered Report  consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article.

This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full published study as an original research article, including results and interpretation.

Taking this approach, you can get an in-principle acceptance of your research article before you start collecting data. We’ve got  further guidance on Registered Reports here , and you can also  read F1000Research’s guidance on preparing a Registered Report .

Research article

Original research articles are the most common type of journal article. They’re detailed studies reporting new work and are classified as primary literature.

You may find them referred to as original articles, research articles, research, or even just articles, depending on the journal.

Typically, especially in STEM subjects, these articles will include Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. However, you should always check the instructions for authors of your chosen journal to see whether it specifies how your article should be structured. If you’re planning to write an original research article, take a look at our guidance on  writing a journal article .

Review article

Review articles provide critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field. They’re usually structured to provide a summary of existing literature, analysis, and comparison. Often, they identify specific gaps or problems and provide recommendations for future research.

Unlike original research articles, review articles are considered as secondary literature. This means that they generally don’t present new data from the author’s experimental work, but instead provide analysis or interpretation of a body of primary research on a specific topic. Secondary literature is an important part of the academic ecosystem because it can help explain new or different positions and ideas about primary research, identify gaps in research around a topic, or spot important trends that one individual research article may not.

There are 3 main types of review article

Literature review

Presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic.

Systematic review

Identifies, appraises and synthesizes all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making.

Meta-analysis

A quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess the results of previous research to derive conclusions about that body of research. Typically, but not necessarily, a meta-analysis study is based on randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Take a look at our guide to  writing a review article  for more guidance on what’s required.

Software tool articles

A  software tool article  – published by  F1000Research  – describes the rationale for the development of a new software tool and details of the code used for its construction.

The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include an example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted. Software tool articles submitted to F1000Research should be written in open access programming languages. Take a look at  their guidance  for more details on what’s required of a software tool article.

Further resources

Ready to write your article, but not sure where to start?

For more guidance on how to prepare and write an article for a journal you can download the  Writing your paper eBook .

Journal vs conference papers: Key differences & advice

Journal and conference papers are not the same, and both formats have advantages and disadvantages. A good understanding of the key differences between journal and conference papers avoid s pitfalls, such as copyright issues when wanting to turn a conference into a journal paper at a later stage.

What is a journal paper?

A journal paper is a written piece of academic work – presenting empirical research, a theoretical discussion, or both – published in an academic journal. Most journal papers or articles are peer-reviewed , meaning they undergo a rigorous review process involving several stages and rounds of revisions before they are published.

Therefore, authors of journal papers tend to target journals with a high impact factor to publish their work. There are other criteria that play a role when selecting a journal to publish research . However, the impact factor remains a crucial one, as publications in high-impact factor journals strongly influence academic promotions.

What is a conference paper?

Conference papers are usually submitted several weeks before the actual conference, and circulated among conference participants in preparation for the actual presentations. However, not all conferences require conference papers. And some conferences make the submission of a conference paper optional.

Advantages and disadvantages of journal and conference papers

The choice between a journal or a conference paper should be a careful one. Both formats fulfill important but different roles in academia. Therefore, a good understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of both formats can help to make an informed decision.

Advantages of journal papers

Disadvantages of journal papers, advantages of conference papers, disadvantages of conference papers, differences between journal and conference papers, questions to ask yourself before submitting a conference paper.

Even though journal papers are more important for academic promotions, submitting a conference paper is not per se the wrong choice. A ‘best conference paper’ award, for instance, can make you stand out when applying for academic jobs.

When embarking on writing a conference paper, it is better to be safe than sorry: At times, it may require reaching out to conference organisers or target journals to make sure that you will not run into copyright or plagiarism issues at a later point.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is conference paper better than journal paper.

In academia, journal papers are considered ‘better’ than conference papers because they have a stronger positive impact on academic careers. Reasons for this are the more rigorous peer-review process that journal papers tend to undergo before publication, the higher standards of journals compared to conference proceedings, and the impact factor of journals.

Can you use a conference paper in a journal?

Are all conference papers automatically published in conference proceedings, do conference papers count as publications.

Conference papers often do not count as academic publications. Therefore, on academic CVs, conference papers tend to be listed under ‘Conferences’ instead of ‘Publications’. Alternatively, they are listed as a separate sub-category under ‘Publications’, but in a way that they are clearly differentiated from other (peer-reviewed) publications.

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans after graduation", how many people have a phd data from oecd countries, related articles, how to properly use ai in academic research, how to write a good research proposal (in 9 steps), why and how to conduct a systematic literature review, the best ai tools for academic paraphrasing: tested and ranked.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What is the difference between letter, communication and journal paper?

Scientific literature has items called letters, communications and journal papers. They all seem quite similar in terms of format and content. What are the differences between them?

• publications

• 1 This may depend heavily on the specific journal (eg in some 'letters' are a short paper, in others, just an editorial leyter...) –  Andrew is gone Commented Nov 15, 2015 at 9:49

2 Answers 2

In physics, each category has a different length limit. Often "paper" has no limit. Typically the shorter the length limit, the more prestigious it is and the tougher the acceptance criteria. The subject matter covered by the journal is the same for all categories. Some journals also have a "review" category which includes papers which are not original research. Often a review is by invitation only.

• 1 short publications such as "letters" are also peer reviewed? –  Sparkler Commented Nov 14, 2015 at 20:56
• 1 Yes, they are: see for example link.springer.com/journal/11005 . –  gented Commented Nov 14, 2015 at 21:52

This will depend wildly on the field and journal in question. In my experience, the main differentiators are the allowable length and the amount of peer review. For example, in my field (Epidemiology):

• Journal Article (of which there are several categories): Word limit in the several thousands of words, full on peer review.
• Communication (often also called 'Brief Report'): A smaller <2000 word word limit with further restrictions on the number of tables and figures. Goes out for full peer review. This is intended to report a single, small finding that may not warrant a full publication.
• Letters: This is a very ambiguous category, primarily defined by being short, often <1000 words. They may be used to report a single piece of information, often from part of a larger study, or may be used to respond to another paper. These may or may not go out for peer review - for example, I recently had a paper accepted where the decision was made entirely by the editor.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• 2 in 1: Twin Puzzle
• Suitable Category in which Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem Arises Naturally as Canonical Decomposition
• Parse Minecraft's VarInt
• How to export a list of Datasets in separate sheets in XLSX?
• If inflation/cost of living is such a complex difficult problem, then why has the price of drugs been absoultly perfectly stable my whole life?
• Which version of Netscape, on which OS, appears in the movie “Cut” (2000)?
• Ramification at particular level of a tower of extensions of local field
• How much of a discount do you get when buying cards on sale?
• What explanations can be offered for the extreme see-sawing in Montana's senate race polling?
• Encode a VarInt
• Memory-optimizing arduino code to be able to print all files from SD card
• Does Vexing Bauble counter taxed 0 mana spells?
• In Top, *how* do conjugate homorphisms of groups induce homotopies of classifying maps?
• Is 3 Ohm resistance value of a PCB fuse reasonable?
• How to reply to reviewers who ask for more work by responding that the paper is complete as it stands?
• Add colored points to QGIS from CSV file of latitude and longitude
• Trying to install MediaInfo Python 3.13 (Ubuntu) and it is not working out as expected
• Is the spectrum of Hawking radiation identical to that of thermal radiation?
• ESTA is not letting me pay
• What's the meaning of "running us off an embankment"?
• Could someone tell me what this part of an A320 is called in English?
• How much easier/harder would it be to colonize space if humans found a method of giving ourselves bodies that could survive in almost anything?
• How is it possible to know a proposed perpetual motion machine won't work without even looking at it?
• What prevents a browser from saving and tracking passwords entered to a site?

Difference between Research Paper and Research Article

Research paper and research articles are bits of composing that require inquiry, critical analysis, demonstration and insight of few special abilities from understudies and researchers. This article endeavors to see whether the two terms are synonymous or there is any contrast between the two.

Research paper

Research can be said as activity which is specified much significance in scholastics. Be that as it may, research papers are not only these task papers composed by understudies as those composed by scholars and researchers and also published in different journals are additionally alluded to as research papers.

Research Article

Research article is a bit of composing that have original research thought with the pertinent data and discoveries. A research article is a composing or paper that advises individuals of a way breaking a finding or research with data to bolster the finding.

Research Paper VS Research Article

 There is a pattern to allude to academic papers and term papers composed by understudies in schools as a research paper

The articles presented by researchers and scholars with their noteworthy examination are known as research articles.

Research papers composed by the students mostly not take in journals.

Research articles composed by researchers or scholars mostly published in prestigious scientific journals.

A research paper depends on the original research. The sort of research may fluctuate, contingent upon your field or topics that include survey, experiments, questionnaire, interview and so on; yet authors require gathering and investigating raw data and make an original and real study. The research paper will be founded on the investigation and understanding of this raw data.

A research article depends on other different published articles. It is usually not depend on original study. Research articles for the most part condense the current writing on a point trying to clarify the present condition of comprehension on topic.

A research paper can be said as the primary source that means, it studies the techniques and consequences of original study performed by the writers.

A research article can be said as secondary source that means it is composed about different articles, and does not studies actual research of its own.

• Importance:

In research paper, every part of this has its own importance. A concise is important in light of the fact that it shows that the writers know about existing literature, and want to add to this presented research definitively. A methods part is usually detailed and it is important in a way that different analysts have the capacity to check and/or duplicate these strategies. A result segment depicts the results of the analysis.

Research articles can be considered very important because they describe upon different articles that they analyze to propose new research bearings, to give powerful support for presented theories or distinguish designs among presented research studies. For understudy analysts, these research articles give an excellent review of presented literature on that topic. In the event that you discover a literature review that can be fit in study, investigate its references/works referred to list for guide on other articles.

From the above article we can conclude that research paper is the primary source whereas research articles are secondary.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

17 Comments Already

good article but which of them is more useful when we conduct a research

both. but research paper is more useful.

Nice explanation

There is a little difference but both are different.

Nice but i have a confusion that can a guys of Bachelors level can write Research Papers?

YEs they can if they do research project instead of development project and do something new in their project.

Thank you 😊

do you have something in your mind then please share with us. We will appreciate that.

Though it may be fairly easy to learn to speak English well enough to be understood, learning to write English correctly is very difficult, as this article so clearly illustrates. Though I greatly admire all those who are making an effort to learn another language, like English, as a non-native speaker, it is wrong for these same individuals to assume they can write English well enough to publish articles.

This article is so poorly written that I cannot understand most of it. For instance, the following phrases are utter nonsense: “A research paper can be said as the primary source that means,” — “A concise is important in light of the fact that it shows that . . .” — “A methods part is usually detailed” — “A result segment depicts the results . . .” — “they describe upon different articles that they analyze to propose new research bearings . . . or distinguish designs among presented . .. studies” — “to clarify the present condition of comprehension” — “Research papers and . . . articles require inquiry, critical analysis, demonstration and insight of few special abilities from . . .”

This article also states that “[a] research article . . . is usually not depend (sic) on original study,” then contradicts that in the next sentence with “[r]esearch articles . . . condense the current writing on a point . . .” Most studies these days are current. But, even if a study was conducted 50 years ago, it’s a cardinal rule that one should always use the original source of information rather than relying on the articles of other authors who may have misquoted something from the original study.

Articles like this one do a grave disservice to the viewing and researching public. To present this article as informative is disingenuous. To ask people who are seeking useful information to struggle with reading and trying to make sense of this poor English is so unkind and inconsiderate that I feel compelled to bring it to the author’s and publisher’s attention.

I would be honored to help anyone with their efforts to write English, but, please, be honest with yourselves about your lack of knowledge, so you will cease and desist the writing of anything online until your English skills have improved significantly. Thank you.

Thanks for such a detail input. Best wishes.

Yes you are saying right. So if you have the skills to deliver the answer in an efficient manner so kindly type it for me. Because I really want to know the difference between research paper and research article

Yes I agree with Martha. I myself found difficulty in going through the article. Although the topic is very important to be discussed because being the student of graduate, I must know the difference. But the way of delivering has dispirited me that now what other website should I visit to get accurate answer.

we need Published example of a scientific research article and another for a scientific research

how can I cite this?

“Difference between Research Paper and Research Article”, Reserachpedia.info, https://researchpedia.info/difference-between-research-paper-and-research-article/ , [27 December 2021].

I don’t understand anything. I am confused more than i came. Otehrwise, thank you for a trial. Simplify this communication.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.