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.
Good Morning. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and emerging technologies are changing how researchers work. With those changes must come adjustments to how researchers consider questions of ethics and scientific integrity. The Université Paris-Saclay in France tackled the issue by organizing a council meant to train every Ph.D student and supervisor in research ethics.
Risk & Compliance Journal talked to Professor Sylvie Pommier, the university’s director of doctoral research, who said the council is a place for researchers to exchange views, share experiences and get advice on how to preserve the scientific integrity of their work.
“Most researchers in the life sciences are well-trained to have ethical protocols for the research they do with patients, but engineering or computer sciences people may not be as familiar with ethical protocols,” said Ms. Pommier. “We have to make sure we are not making any harm to anyone.”
The council will offer advisory ethics opinions on research protocols involving human subjects to any university researcher and will conduct its own research, she said. Training will engage researchers on management ethics and the ethics of systems and organizations.
Expanding training beyond life sciences researchers may help to encourage ethical behavior among scientists who are developing smart cities or creating products for the Internet of Things, to cite two examples, said Ms. Pommier. “International, world-class universities have a responsibility to train and advise researchers in projects that have an impact on people,” she said.
The U.S. National Institutes of Health earlier this month issued guidelines for how scientists can conduct research on humans. Scientists will have to make public more of their research and put more human research into the public online repository for clinical trials.
The new rules are part of a push for greater transparency and accountability for the NIH’s huge investment in biomedical research. Many organizations in the past failed to properly register studies and report their findings, lapses NIH officials say resulted in misspent funds, potential human harm and a lack of public trust in science.
EXCLUSIVE ON RISK AND COMPLIANCE JOURNAL
Airbus to pay to resolve German probe. European plane maker Airbus Group SE said Friday it agreed to pay €81.2 million ($99.4 million) to resolve a German bribery probe related to the sale of Eurofighter aircraft to Austria in 2003.
New charge for Barclays over ’08 fundraising.Barclays PLC was charged for a second time by U.K. authorities over a criminal case relating to an emergency fundraising in 2008 from Middle Eastern investors. Barclays said it would defend itself, the WSJ reports.
Novartis faces bribery allegations in Greece.Novartis is under investigation in Greece on allegations it paid bribes to fix drug prices and boost sales. A spokesman said Novartis will act promptly to prevent additional wrongdoing if misconduct is found, the WSJ reports.
Talks to sell Weinstein Co. collapse. A proposed sale of the movie studio Weinstein Co. fell apart after the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against the board and co-founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein. The suit added too much uncertainty for the deal to proceed, the WSJ reports.