My source is an academic article from a 2011 online journal called Forest Ecology and Management. I accessed the article on February 7, 2024 through the platform www.sciencedirect.com. The citation for the article is :
Lõhmus, A. & Remm, J. (2011). Tree cavities in forests – The broad distribution pattern of a keystone structure for biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 262, Issue 4. Pages 579-585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.028.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271100243X)
Listed below are several points outlining why I believe this article represents an “academic peer reviewed -review” paper.
- The paper was written by experts in the field. The authors are affiliated with the Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences at the University of Tartu in Estonia, Department of Zoology. Their paper has numerous references to academic literature and the reviewed studies, therefore it falls under the academic category.
- The paper is a review because the authors explore factors influencing global distribution of tree cavities, through a meta-analysis of 0f 103 already published studies. There is no documented field/lab study (ie. methodology/results). The paper communicates statistical analysis of other existing research, making it a review rather than research. The website platform also classifies it as “review” material.
- The article is peer reviewed as four anonymous reviewers were acknowledged after the conclusion. The article’s statistical analysis was also reviewed. The article was financially supported by grants from a science foundation and government agencies.