I was wondering, do reviews in scientific journals count for much? I mean, do people look at the reviews you've published or do they only focus on the original papers you've written? Cheers!

Hey! I think reviews can be just as highly regarded as original research if you get them published in a decent journal- you only have to look at how often review papers are cited to see how central they are to furthering research. There are even journals devoted purely to review papers. It might vary according to subject of course, but if you've written a good review which is novel and has implications for further research or practice, then I would definitely go for publication. Of course there are different types of reviews as well, such as systematic reviews and reviews based on meta-analysis etc- some might be considered to be more valuable than others. And of course if you are planning to apply for funding at some point then you need to be skilled at reviewing existing literature, so learning to write a quality review paper can stand you in good stead! Best, KB

My supervisor built his entire career on the back of a review he wrote, in 1984 - and he is right at the top of his field. I quote the review in my stuff, and it has been much quoted by many others. He basically pulled apart key concepts of his chosen topic area by chewing up and spitting out two books. He had no PhD at the time and the books were written by established figures, but he got it in a top journal, and it caused a major stir. However, as I'm humanities I can't comment on the specifics of the sciences.

I guess it depends what you say in the review and the profile of the journal.