A reader opening an academic archive should not have to guess whether a piece appeared in a journal or was written for this site. The distinction affects how the work can be cited, where its authoritative version lives, and what a reader should expect to find. I keep published research and original writing visibly separate for that reason.
Status is part of the record
A published article has a publication history: authorship, journal, date, and, where available, a DOI and publisher page. An original essay or research reflection may have none of those details, and should not be made to look as if it does. Naming the content type near the title gives readers useful context before they begin.
Give each kind of work its route
For published research, a full citation and a link to the publisher help readers locate the version of record. When the full text is available here, that can be stated plainly without replacing the citation details. Original writing can be presented as full text on the site, with its own date and category.
Make the distinction consistent
A label only helps if it appears reliably—in the archive, on the article page, and in search results where possible. I use clear content types rather than relying on readers to infer status from a category or a link. That small editorial choice makes the archive easier to browse and makes each citation more dependable.