Senator Paul Claims to Have Written Scientific Papers....

[HereSince1628]

25. PubMed should work as should Science Citation Index

I'm not sure what you mean by review article. In science, book reviews don't carry much esteem.

It's my experience that value on publications is a practice usually associated with things like tenure and promotion. That varies from institution to institution.

Large circulation journals with high rejection rates often have a "Wow!" factor. It's typical to see smaller journals (state academy of science for instance) as carrying less prestige.

But the smaller journals are a lot easier to get published in and they may serve exactly the audience who would be most interested...so if you are working on a treatise...say The Pentatomidae (Stinkbugs) of Illinois, and you want to only want to include documented/published records of occurrences you may produce dozens of little state journal publications along the way to working them all into the broader framework of a book that considers all that are known.

The scientific value of a publication is really how important it is to understanding, generally the more important a paper is, the more often people will cite it. Some of the top schools use that criterion rather than number of publications as an indication of faculty reseach quality.

Reviews of areas of study can be important and very helpful...especially to grad students catching up with the advancing front of the field. In my experience, good reviews often also make attempts at summarizing/theoretically framing of what's known. The hypotheses that are generated from such work can be tremendously valuable.