Which to cite: Review and Survey papers or Research papers? Review papers are long papers gathering the results of various researches and have many conclusions. When I want to address an issue or a conclusion about something should I repeatedly cite a Review paper and use points in that paper or I'd better find important papers on that topic and cite them?
I want to add to the other answers that, it happens sometimes that researchers read the review papers and not the original papers that are referred to in the review papers; but when they want to cite the content in their papers, they cite the original papers which they have never read.

The point is that, you should cite exactly the source you read. If you are reading that content from a review paper, you should cite that review paper. If you are reading the original paper, cite that original paper. Look at this example:


In case you only have read the review paper, not the original one:


  In the review paper  we read that the method x is perfectly applied to examine that [...][1]

In case that you read the review paper and then read the original paper:


  In the review paper  we read that the method x is perfectly applied to examine that [...][1]. It is clearly indicated in the original paper [2] that the method x only discusses parts of the instances of the experience including; instance a, instance b and instance c [2].



In my opinion, review papers are not always so precise and it happens that some content is misunderstood or wrongly copied in quotation and rephrasing in the review papers; so, if you find some content interesting, go to the references of the review paper and try to find and read the original papers as well.