Clarifying Research Article Classifications: A Proposal for Defining Original Studies, Systematic, Scoping,...

The academic publishing landscape increasingly demands precision in research reporting and article classification. However, confusion persists over the distinctions between original studies and systematic, scoping, integrative, and narrative reviews, particularly when studies use secondary or aggregated data. This paper critically examines the defining features of each article type, highlights frequent misconceptions in peer review (e.g., the expectation for systematic data extraction in narrative reviews), and proposes a clear taxonomy based on methodological rigor and knowledge generation. We argue that originality should be defined by creating new knowledge, not by the exclusive use of primary data. Through literature examples and classification criteria, we call for harmonization across journals and editorial policies to improve clarity, transparency, and the integrity of scientific reporting.