what happens to a research without review of related literature

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 318 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our  mailing list  and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

• Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

• Phillips Library
• Library Guides

Literature Reviews

• What if There is No Literature on My Topic?
• What is a Literature Review?
• What does a Lit Review Look Like?
• Where do I Search for Literature?
• How do I Search for Literature?
• What if I Need More Help?

Out of Date

Some of this material is out of date! We are working to update it. In the meantime, check out these other resources if something doesn't seem right.

• Tutorials by Evangeline Reid Last Updated Dec 6, 2023 166 views this year
• A Guide to the Research Process by Evangeline Reid Last Updated Apr 8, 2024 658 views this year

Searching and Researching

You started searching in the Phillips Library databases or even with a free search engine (like Google) and you retrieve 0 results.

You are writing a dissertation, you want your topic to be unique, so you hope nobody has written on your exact topic . How are you supposed to find resources on your topic AND find a unique topic to write about?

Check Your Spelling:

Do Not Overuse Keywords and Subject Terms:

Circle the Wagons Around Your Topic

What aspects of your topic does have written research? Think about how research on each of the components of your topic would be valuable to your thesis. There may not be substantial research on your specific question, but there could be research on aspects of your topic.

• << Previous: How do I Search for Literature?
• Next: What if I Need More Help? >>

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Affiliations.

• 1 Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany. [email protected].
• 2 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected].
• 3 Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected].
• 4 College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
• 5 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
• 6 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
• 7 Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.
• 8 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
• 9 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
• 10 Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
• 11 Liljus ltd, London, UK.
• 12 Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
• 13 Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
• PMID: 33046871
• DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x
• Author Correction: Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, Pullin AS, Savilaakso S, Stewart GB. Haddaway NR, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Dec;4(12):1725. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01346-3. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020. PMID: 33077931

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nuñez MA, Amano T. Nuñez MA, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021 Mar;5(3):264. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01369-w. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021. PMID: 33398107 No abstract available.

Similar articles

• The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review. Uttley L, Quintana DS, Montgomery P, Carroll C, Page MJ, Falzon L, Sutton A, Moher D. Uttley L, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Apr;156:30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011. Epub 2023 Feb 14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023. PMID: 36796736 Review.
• Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis. Reeve J, Maden M, Hill R, Turk A, Mahtani K, Wong G, Lasserson D, Krska J, Mangin D, Byng R, Wallace E, Ranson E. Reeve J, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2022 Jul;26(32):1-148. doi: 10.3310/AAFO2475. Health Technol Assess. 2022. PMID: 35894932 Free PMC article. Review.
• Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty CM, Hempel S, Horsley T, Langlois EV, Lillie E, O'Brien KK, Tunçalp Ӧ, Wilson MG, Zarin W, Tricco AC. Peters MDJ, et al. Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 8;10(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3. Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34625095 Free PMC article.
• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
• "A little learning is a dangerous thing": A call for better understanding of the term 'systematic review'. Haddaway NR, Land M, Macura B. Haddaway NR, et al. Environ Int. 2017 Feb;99:356-360. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.020. Epub 2016 Dec 29. Environ Int. 2017. PMID: 28041639
• Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing. Döbbeling-Hildebrandt N, Miersch K, Khanna TM, Bachelet M, Bruns SB, Callaghan M, Edenhofer O, Flachsland C, Forster PM, Kalkuhl M, Koch N, Lamb WF, Ohlendorf N, Steckel JC, Minx JC. Döbbeling-Hildebrandt N, et al. Nat Commun. 2024 May 16;15(1):4147. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48512-w. Nat Commun. 2024. PMID: 38755167 Free PMC article.
• Sustainable coffee: A review of the diverse initiatives and governance dimensions of global coffee supply chains. Wright DR, Bekessy SA, Lentini PE, Garrard GE, Gordon A, Rodewald AD, Bennett RE, Selinske MJ. Wright DR, et al. Ambio. 2024 Jul;53(7):984-1001. doi: 10.1007/s13280-024-02003-w. Epub 2024 Apr 29. Ambio. 2024. PMID: 38684628 Free PMC article.
• Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base. Kadykalo AN, Haddaway NR, Rytwinski T, Cooke SJ. Kadykalo AN, et al. Ecol Solut Evid. 2021 Jan-Mar;2(1):e12041. doi: 10.1002/2688-8319.12041. Epub 2021 Feb 4. Ecol Solut Evid. 2021. PMID: 38607812 Free PMC article.
• Brain imaging studies of emotional well-being: a scoping review. Richter CG, Li CM, Turnbull A, Haft SL, Schneider D, Luo J, Lima DP, Lin FV, Davidson RJ, Hoeft F. Richter CG, et al. Front Psychol. 2024 Jan 5;14:1328523. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1328523. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2024. PMID: 38250108 Free PMC article.
• Parasitism in viviparous vertebrates: an overview. Palacios-Marquez JJ, Guevara-Fiore P. Palacios-Marquez JJ, et al. Parasitol Res. 2023 Dec 15;123(1):53. doi: 10.1007/s00436-023-08083-z. Parasitol Res. 2023. PMID: 38100003 Review.
• Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26, 91–108 (2009). - PubMed
• Haddaway, N. R. & Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 444–447 (2018).
• Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Science informing policy–a health warning for the environment. Environ. Evid. 1, 15 (2012).
• Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1596–1605 (2015). - PubMed
• Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018).
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Nature Publishing Group

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Eight common problems with science literature reviews and how to fix them

Research Fellow, Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg

Disclosure statement

Neal Robert Haddaway works for the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. He receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Mistra, Formas, and Vinnova. He is also an honorary Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence at the University of Johannesburg.

University of Johannesburg provides support as an endorsing partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

Researchers regularly review the literature that’s generated by others in their field. This is an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole.

However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably, comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called “evidence-informed decision-making” relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis. It is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in several fields including health , the environment and social policy . Rigorous systematic reviews are vital for decision-making because they help to provide the strongest evidence that a policy is likely to work (or not). They also help to avoid expensive or dangerous mistakes in the choice of policies.

But systematic review has not yet entirely replaced traditional methods of literature review. These traditional reviews may be susceptible to bias and so may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is especially worrying when reviews address key policy and practice questions.

The good news is that the limitations of traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures. Some of these are not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources. That’s particularly important in African contexts, where resource constraints are a daily reality, but should not compromise the continent’s need for rigorous, systematic and transparent evidence to inform policy.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlighted eight common problems with traditional literature review methods. We gave examples for each problem, drawing from the field of environmental management and ecology. Finally, we outlined practical solutions.

These are the eight problems we identified in our paper .

First, traditional literature reviews can lack relevance. This is because limited stakeholder engagement can lead to a review that is of limited practical use to decision-makers.

Second, reviews that don’t publish their methods in an a priori (meaning that it is published before the review work begins) protocol may suffer from mission creep. In our paper we give the example of a 2019 review that initially stated it was looking at all population trends among insects. Instead, it ended up focusing only on studies that showed insect population declines. This could have been prevented by publishing and sticking to methods outlined in a protocol.

Third, a lack of transparency and replicability in the review methods may mean that the review cannot be replicated . Replicability is a central tenet of the scientific method.

Selection bias is another common problem. Here, the studies that are included in a literature review are not representative of the evidence base. A lack of comprehensiveness, stemming from an inappropriate search method, can also mean that reviews end up with the wrong evidence for the question at hand.

Traditional reviews may also exclude grey literature . This is defined as any document

produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers, i.e., where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body.

It includes organisational reports and unpublished theses or other studies . Traditional reviews may also fail to test for evidence of publication bias; both these issues can result in incorrect or misleading conclusions. Another common error is to treat all evidence as equally valid. The reality is that some research studies are more valid than others. This needs to be accounted for in the synthesis.

Inappropriate synthesis is another common issue. This involves methods like vote-counting, which refers to tallying studies based on their statistical significance. Finally, a lack of consistency and error checking (as would happen when a reviewer works alone) can introduce errors and biases if a single reviewer makes decisions without consensus .

All of these common problems can be solved, though. Here’s how.

Stakeholders can be identified, mapped and contacted for feedback and inclusion without the need for extensive budgets. Best-practice guidelines for this process already exist .

Researchers can carefully design and publish an a priori protocol that outlines planned methods for searching, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal and synthesis in detail. Organisations like the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence have existing protocols from which people can draw.

Researchers also need to be explicit and use high-quality guidance and standards for review conduct and reporting . Several such standards already exist .

Another useful approach is to carefully design a search strategy with an info specialist; to trial the search strategy against a benchmark list; and to use multiple bibliographic databases, languages and sources of grey literature. Researchers should then publish their search methods in an a priori protocol for peer review.

Researchers should consider carefully planning and trialling a critical appraisal tool before starting the process in full, learning from existing robust critical appraisal tools . Critical appraisal is the carefully planned assessment of all possible risks of bias and possible confounders in a research study. Researchers should select their synthesis method carefully, based on the data analysed. Vote-counting should never be used instead of meta-analysis. Formal methods for narrative synthesis should be used to summarise and describe the evidence base.

Finally, at least two reviewers should screen a subset of the evidence base to ensure consistency and shared understanding of the methods before proceeding. Ideally, reviewers should conduct all decisions separately and then consolidate.

Collaboration

Collaboration is crucial to address the problems with traditional review processes. Authors need to conduct more rigorous reviews. Editors and peer reviewers need to gate-keep more strictly. The community of methodologists needs to better support the broader research community.

Working together, the academic and research community can build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management – and, ultimately, in other disciplines.

• Systematic reviews
• Evidence based policy
• Academic research

Research Fellow – Magnetic Refrigeration

Centre Director, Transformative Media Technologies

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Social Media Producer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 12 October 2020

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

• Neal R. Haddaway   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-2234 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Alison Bethel 4 ,
• Lynn V. Dicks 5 , 6 ,
• Julia Koricheva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-0171 7 ,
• Biljana Macura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4253-1390 2 ,
• Gillian Petrokofsky 8 ,
• Andrew S. Pullin 9 ,
• Sini Savilaakso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-8105 10 , 11 &
• Gavin B. Stewart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-1544 12  

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume  4 ,  pages 1582–1589 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

99 Citations

388 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Conservation biology
• Environmental impact

An Author Correction to this article was published on 19 October 2020

This article has been updated

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Change history, 19 october 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26 , 91–108 (2009).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R. & Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 444–447 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Science informing policy–a health warning for the environment. Environ. Evid. 1 , 15 (2012).

Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29 , 1596–1605 (2015).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018).

White, H. The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 47 (2019).

O’Leary, B. C. et al. The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 64 , 75–82 (2016).

Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S. & Kaiser, M. J. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol. Conserv. 176 , 54–62 (2014).

Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines (Campbell Collaboration, 2014).

Higgins, J. P. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).

Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358 , j4008 (2017).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. “A little learning is a dangerous thing”: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environ. Int. 99 , 356–360 (2017).

Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 6 , 11 (2017).

Land, M., Macura, B., Bernes, C. & Johansson, S. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ. Evid. 6 , 25 (2017).

Oliver, S. & Dickson, K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid. Policy 12 , 235–259 (2016).

Savilaakso, S. et al. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environ. Evid. 3 , 4 (2014).

Savilaakso, S., Laumonier, Y., Guariguata, M. R. & Nasi, R. Does production of oil palm, soybean, or jatropha change biodiversity and ecosystem functions in tropical forests. Environ. Evid. 2 , 17 (2013).

Haddaway, N. R. & Crowe, S. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environ. Evid. 7 , 11 (2018).

Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 8–27 (2019).

Agarwala, M. & Ginsberg, J. R. Untangling outcomes of de jure and de facto community-based management of natural resources. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 1232–1246 (2017).

Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S. & Jones, M. H. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res. 32 , 199–247 (2001).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7 , 7 (2018).

Lwasa, S. et al. A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 13 , 68–73 (2015).

Pacifici, M. et al. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 205–208 (2017).

Owen-Smith, N. Ramifying effects of the risk of predation on African multi-predator, multi-prey large-mammal assemblages and the conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 51–58 (2019).

Prugh, L. R. et al. Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 194–207 (2019).

Li, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: a review. J. Soil Sediment. 18 , 546–563 (2018).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 , e1000097 (2009).

Bernes, C. et al. What is the influence of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 4 , 7 (2015).

McDonagh, M., Peterson, K., Raina, P., Chang, S. & Shekelle, P. Avoiding bias in selecting studies. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet] (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013).

Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh, L. P., Garcia, C. & Putz, F. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 4–14 (2017).

Min-Venditti, A. A., Moore, G. W. & Fleischman, F. What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Glob. Environ. Change 47 , 21–27 (2017).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D. & Kramer, B. M. R. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 , 39 (2016).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M. R. & Anderson, P. F. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2 , 115 (2013).

Gusenbauer, M. & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 11 , 181–217 (2020).

Livoreil, B. et al. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ. Evid. 6 , 23 (2017).

Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. & Šupak Smolčić, V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. 27 , 447–452 (2017).

Lin, L. & Chu, H. Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 74 , 785–794 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. & Bayliss, H. R. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 191 , 827–829 (2015).

Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 , 1–48 (2010).

Bilotta, G. S., Milner, A. M. & Boyd, I. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 42 , 67–77 (2014).

Englund, G., Sarnelle, O. & Cooper, S. D. The importance of data‐selection criteria: meta‐analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80 , 1132–1141 (1999).

Burivalova, Z., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Koh, L. P. Thresholds of logging intensity to maintain tropical forest biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 24 , 1893–1898 (2014).

Bicknell, J. E., Struebig, M. J., Edwards, D. P. & Davies, Z. G. Improved timber harvest techniques maintain biodiversity in tropical forests. Curr. Biol. 24 , R1119–R1120 (2014).

Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 1211–1219 (2011).

Blomley, T. et al. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42 , 380–391 (2008).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 6 , 30 (2017).

Higgins, J. P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343 , d5928 (2011).

Stewart, G. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6 , 78–81 (2010).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102 , 828–844 (2014).

Vetter, D., Ruecker, G. & Storch, I. Meta‐analysis: a need for well‐defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4 , 1–24 (2013).

Stewart, G. B. & Schmid, C. H. Lessons from meta-analysis in ecology and evolution: the need for trans-disciplinary evidence synthesis methodologies. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 109–110 (2015).

Macura, B. et al. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8 , 24 (2019).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) Ch. 1 (Princeton Scholarship Online, 2013).

Britt, M., Haworth, S. E., Johnson, J. B., Martchenko, D. & Shafer, A. B. The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap. Biol. Conserv. 218 , 118–123 (2018).

Graham, L., Gaulton, R., Gerard, F. & Staley, J. T. The influence of hedgerow structural condition on wildlife habitat provision in farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 220 , 122–131 (2018).

Delaquis, E., de Haan, S. & Wyckhuys, K. A. On-farm diversity offsets environmental pressures in tropical agro-ecosystems: a synthetic review for cassava-based systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251 , 226–235 (2018).

Popay, J. et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version 1 (Lancaster Univ., 2006).

Pullin, A. S. et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2 , 19 (2013).

Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S. & Pieper, D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 , 132 (2019).

Rallo, A. & García-Arberas, L. Differences in abiotic water conditions between fluvial reaches and crayfish fauna in some northern rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Aquat. Living Resour. 15 , 119–128 (2002).

Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 363 , k4645 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environ. Evid. 7 , 26 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Shortall from Rothamstead Research for useful discussions on the topic.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany

Neal R. Haddaway

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Neal R. Haddaway & Biljana Macura

Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK

Alison Bethel

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Lynn V. Dicks

School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK

Julia Koricheva

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Gillian Petrokofsky

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

Andrew S. Pullin

Liljus ltd, London, UK

Sini Savilaakso

Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Gavin B. Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

N.R.H. developed the manuscript idea and a first draft. All authors contributed to examples and edited the text. All authors have read and approve of the final submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal R. Haddaway .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.S. is a co-founder of Liljus ltd, a firm that provides research services in sustainable finance as well as forest conservation and management. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary table.

Examples of literature reviews and common problems identified.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Haddaway, N.R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L.V. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 4 , 1582–1589 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 31 July 2020

Published : 12 October 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

What secondary research evidence exists on the effects of forest management after disturbances: a systematic map protocol.

• Moritz Baumeister
• Markus A. Meyer

Environmental Evidence (2024)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

• Niklas Döbbeling-Hildebrandt
• Klaas Miersch
• Jan C. Minx

Nature Communications (2024)

Facing the storm: Developing corporate adaptation and resilience action plans amid climate uncertainty

• Katharina Hennes
• David Bendig
• Andreas Löschel

npj Climate Action (2024)

A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning

• Hashem Dadashpoor
• Leyla Ghasempour

Landscape and Ecological Engineering (2024)

Synthesizing the relationships between environmental DNA concentration and freshwater macrophyte abundance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Toshiaki S. Jo

Hydrobiologia (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• my research
• contributions and comments

I can’t find anything written on my topic… really?

Sometimes people tell me that they can’t find any literature that is relevant to their research. They are doing something that nobody else has researched and written about and so there isn’t anything to read. What, they ask, can they do for their literature chapter.

A lack of literature is very rarely a real problem. The real problem is that the researcher with the nothing-written-on-my-topic question has drawn the boundary around their topic too tightly. They haven’t thought about the kinds of literatures that might be relevant, even if they are not written on exactly the same question.

Let me give an example. Say a researcher is doing a project on the use of whiteboards in science lectures. OK, I don’t know why, but let’s go with this for argument’s sake. Its just a hypothetical. The researcher has searched and searched through the literatures and they can only find one paper written on the use of whiteboards in science. Hooray, they say, I’ve found a gap. My research is needed. But there is nothing written on it. That’s a problem. What will go in my literature chapter?

Well, no. That’s not the case. Of course there’s something in print.  Even if it’s not directly on the exact same topic, it’s related. Let’s think of some of the other literatures that might be connected and relevant to our pretend inquiry. There’s probably research about the use of whiteboards in subject areas other than science. There is some research into the lecture as a form of teaching and learning (I know this to be the case!). And there is certainly material about general teaching and learning in science. So all of these different literatures have a connection with our imaginary topic.

But wait, there’s more. There is an enormous literature about the use of digital technologies in higher education, some of which quite specifically addresses the pedagogical strategies that they do and don’t afford – this is relevant to the way in which whiteboards are used in science lectures. And there’s material about students’ experiences of lectures and their own personal use of digital technologies. And of course all of this related research is framed within a broader scholarly conversation about learning and teaching – and our mythical researcher concerned about whiteboards in science lectures is certainly going to have to establish their work within a general pedagogical conceptual framework – so there’s more reading.

So it’s not that there is no literature for the pretend researcher on their topic, it’s rather that they have to think more broadly about what they might need and use. They have to map the possible areas that are linked to their question and then sort out, by skimming and noting, what’s most relevant and related. They must then bring these selected literatures together in a way that supports the research they are going to do.

The answer to the no literature question is always, always, always – what else is pertinent. The resulting strategy is to widen the boundaries of the search to include related and framing scholarship. Take off the blinkers and look further… There is another answer of course. It’s one that always lurks behind the nothing-written-on-my-topic question. And this answer is a scary one, but its always one worth asking. Nothing in your area? Maybe there is nothing specifically written on the topic because it just isn’t that interesting. The topic is too narrow and specialised, and studying it isn’t that important. There’s a good reason no-one has looked at the use of whiteboards in science lectures in any great depth… Asking why no-one has been here before is a scary proposition. But it’s one that’s very important to dare to consider if you do happen to find yourself asking the nothing-written-on-my-topic question.

For more on strategies for doing a review of literatures – see scoping , mapping ( here and here ) and focusing ( here and here ).

Share this:

About pat thomson

19 responses to i can’t find anything written on my topic… really.

Hello, I have answered similarly to colleagues saying there is not literature written about my context. How to write a chapter about my context? I had the same issue when I come to write about the context of language and policy in Syria. There are not standard classic books to use and copy when writing my context chapter I made my own, it is even better. I used history, politics, and economy books to map out what influenced education policy and philosophy from the time before independence till after independepceSo I draw the context and compared policies in the Middle East and in Assia regarding language, policy and identity.

And when it comes to defining one’s methodological (philosophical positions), some students feel insecure due to their lack of knowledge of the Western thinking development. Why worry? Even better, try to draw on your own philosophy using your own history in China and other parts of the world – decolonize yourself and take the best from both worlds.

Yes, great example, better to have a real case than my made up one!

Also–if there is absolutely nothing on your topic, it’s not a good topic for a thesis or article. Your thesis demonstrates your ability to contribute original work to an existing scholarly conversation. Radically new work is better saved for a scholarly monograph. I extended the scope of my PhD by 5 years to include the extensively researched 1930s and later 1950s, to frame my work on the mostly neglected 1940s in English poetry.

By saying “Radically new work is better saved for a scholarly monograph”, I wonder what role junior and upcoming scholars have to play in our time of science and knowledge production.

Its like saying lets not invent, rather lets keep polishing on the old inventions because there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Interesting. When I started, my topic was a candidate for the “no literature” complaint. I had to look at theories that might apply and write it as a test case of existing theories. I also had to face the “why?” topic. I disagree that the answer is necessarily “because it’s a bad area”. In newer disciplines, it could be more related to funding priorities, existing ideologies or even fashion. The important thing is still to find which conversations it relates to and then make the argument that this new case (or set of cases) has something important to add.

I was just suggesting you had to ask yourself if it was a dud area, not that it necessarily was. I was suggesting you need to face that possibility. That’s all.

No problem. I was hoping that was the case and just wanted to point out another possibility.

I remember feeling perplexed at the apparent lack of literatures when I started out on my project, which is located primarily in a social work context. After some fruitless weeks of searching social work and sociology databases, I happened upon an article in a nursing journal, and – ta da!!! – it was like opening the jammed door to a dragon’s treasure trove. The gold spilled out and now I’m busy trying to contain it all and regain my focus. Sometimes broadening your search is not only about looking for a wider set of related concepts, but searching more widely in general. The existing work in other disciplines, and in particular their epistemologies, led me to an exciting (well, I think it is) space for my own work. It just took some time and patience, and a willingness to think beyond my own discplinary assumptions.

Pingback: Unintentional Plagiarism - A Story

Hello, I’m currently trying to wrangle together articles for the literature review that will go into my masters thesis proposal. My thesis topic has no directly related literature. Your article has helped – I will attempt to look at closely related topics.

Hi Pat, thanks for some insights into writing a lit review in the apparent absence of any literature on a research topic. You are absolutely right about the tendency to have the parameters narrowed to such an absurd point that nothing else can fit in. Good point.

There will always be something relevant to write about if we can have fresh eyes to look at our research approach.

Awesome. Thank you

I needed to hear/read this. I have tried to go beyond my speciality and the existing parameters before, I guess l have been missing the mark somewhere.

I feel rejuvenated and eager to go back and dig out that bone

Hi, I am currently working on my doctorate in nursing and I am writing the first part of my systematic review. What is written in this blog is super helpful, but my question is when writing your literature review you have to have a research question, how do you then justify a ‘change’ of question when you cant find relevant research, I absolutely get changing the stance on your question as there will be research out there that is relevant, but is it appropriate to say this is my RQ and this is my literature review question and justify why they are different? Are there any good papers or texts out there that discuss this query? Thanks

I think if you are doing a systematic review, the review questions have to provide the basis for you to design your project and analyse your results.

Very resourceful. If there is no previous research how to write previous research part of the research process?

I would say this is difficult to defend in some areas. What about presenting a point that is based on public press releases, such as 5G deployment commitment by companies? Officially there would be little to no research published on press releases that suddenly appear within a short time frame, which can be the case for technology races. How can there be any research cited if something on the topic is to early to be available? How to go about this? Of course parallels could be drawn to other technology deployment races and their evaluation in research, none would be able to address the current one without citing news. And this ties in to the question, can sources such as press releases be considered viable sources? I do agree that there is always something somewhere, but I feel this heavily ties in to “informaiton freshness” and what can be considered a good source.

Even thought technological,advances are one of the areas which by definition has less published research, there would surely still be relevant literatures related to the problem framing, theorisation or literatures on adaptions to previous or similar innovations? The point is that what’s relevant is not necessarily on your exact topic.

What if your not researching for academic papers? I want to know more about a specific thing but can only find one article on it other than the news articles about the article i have read. I want to read research that doesn’t seem to exist. How do you tackle that? I do not have the qualifications to do the research myself but I need to know more about the topic. What does one do then?

For reference I want to understand more about the presentation and signs of abuse in affluent children. I have read much about presentation of abuse in children but it focuses on poorer disadvantaged children, or states emotional changes that I need to know more about and how that may present differently in private schools and boarding schools. I have found information on emotional neglect in affluent families but I want to know more about signs of physical, sexual and emotional abuse in these affluent families. I want to read research on why teachers in private schools seem to miss/overlook signs of abuse far more than there government school counterparts. I want to find papers on underreporting in these communities or even papers contradicting these presumptions. How do you find information that doesn’t seem to exist.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Search for:

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

patter on facebook

Recent Posts

• what do you do for your reader?
• on bad writing advice, again
• do you read – or talk – your conference paper?
• your conference paper – already published or work in progress?
• a musing on email signatures
• creativity and giving up on knowing it all
• white ants and research education
• Anticipation
• research as creative practice – possibility thinking
• research as – is – creative practice
• On MAL-attribution
• a brief word on academic mobility

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Top posts & pages.

• aims and objectives - what's the difference?
• what do you do for your reader?
• connecting chapters/chapter introductions
• I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
• writing a bio-note
• is public engagement just a nightmare?
• connecting chapters/chapter conclusions
• writing the thesis – the theoretical framework
• avoiding the laundry list literature review
• the personal narrative in the thesis introduction
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Translation

What to do when there is Little Existing Literature on your research topic

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 18 April, 2022

Our understanding of the world is ever evolving and constantly expanding. Our job as researchers is to contribute to this growth in understanding. However, you may well find yourself in a situation one day where you’re tasked with researching a topic about which there is little or no existing and available published literature . In this article, we discuss how to tackle this situation.

Looking deeper and beyond

1. gather and read all the publications you can .

To get an idea of how much actually is available to you in terms of published work, a good first step is to gather all the possible publications you can get your hands on. Start with established databases, such as PubMed and Web of Science , and make sure you do a thorough literature search by using any synonyms in your database search that apply to your field. Collate these into a list in a spreadsheet or reference manager , and start reading.

You will begin to get a feel for the overall attitudes towards your topic, and you may even be able to make and retain a mental identification of those who are prominent authors and publishers in the subject.

2. Use the references to determine what else you can look into

The next step is to use this initial list of references to find out more about what this body of work is based on. Look up the authors that crop up most often and see if you can find out about their research background and how they came to enter the field you are researching. This may give you clues as to what else to look into.

3. Expand your pool to non-peer-reviewed articles

You can then expand your research pool from peer-reviewed articles to other pieces these authors may have written, which are also valuable references. Just beware that as these aren’t peer-reviewed, they may include opinions and other assertions that were not subject to the usual peer review process.

You may also want to consider grey literature , which is another form of non-peer-reviewed documentation. If so, learn more about grey literature here: Understanding and using Grey Literature for your research paper

4. Look at the authors’ previous publications

Another important step is to look at the publications that a particular paper of interest is based on. Usually, authors will refer to their previous work, which may have laid the foundation for what they are currently publishing. These are valuable resources to help you understand the researchers’ processes.

Discovering that there is just not enough literature

Niche, new or emerging fields can often attract researchers as they can benefit from the potential for early breakthroughs. So, if you believe you can make an impact, this should encourage you to dive into it and give yourself over to this field.

However, there may be situations where you are merely adjacent to this topic or are simply tasked with preparing a review of the area. In these cases, it’s important to gauge whether sinking time and effort into this endeavour is appropriate when there is currently only very little published research available that deals with the area.

There could be many reasons why there are not many publications available, including a high bar to entry to the field owing to it being specific to a particular region or situation. In this case, allowing more time for the field to develop (discussed next) may be a better option as it will ultimately yield more for you to work with at a later time.

Deciding to not continue with the topic (for now)

It’s very possible for you to find yourself in a situation where the only option seems to be to move away from your topic. This option is fine but don’t be too discouraged or feel that changing your topic altogether is the only route you can take. For example…

• Consider the possibility of centering your final written work more heavily on opinion and speculation, and providing – in the form of recommendations – future directions that you expect the field might take.
• It can even be an opportunity for you (to wait) to be one of the first people to publish in the field. As it grows, you’ll gain plenty of citations as being ‘one of the first’ to publish in it, and be considered pioneering.

Finding yourself in the situation where little published work is available to you can be difficult, especially when you are trying to complete a piece of work that relies on publications. But don’t worry. There are ways of digging deeply into any topic, and reaching for more unconventional sources could be a way for you to find a reasonable body of work that you can base your own work on.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

What to do if there is no literature in your discipline

Jan 27, 2021

Have you checked out the rest of  The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students. 

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Master your lit review & theory framework.

Learn what goes where (and why), and how it all fit together with this free, interactive guide to the PhD literature review and theory framework.

Share this:

Submit a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Writing A Literature Review  

7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid ☠️.

By: David Phair (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Crafting a high-quality literature review is critical to earning marks and developing a strong dissertation, thesis or research project. But, it’s no simple task. Here at Grad Coach, we’ve reviewed thousands of literature reviews and seen a recurring set of mistakes and issues that drag students down.

In this post, we’ll unpack 7 common literature review mistakes , so that you can avoid these pitfalls and submit a literature review that impresses.

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

• Over-reliance on low-quality sources
• A lack of landmark/seminal literature
• A lack of current literature
• Description instead of integration and synthesis
• Irrelevant or unfocused content
• Poor chapter structure and layout
• Plagiarism and poor referencing

Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources . This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles.

Of course, just because a piece of content takes the form of a blog post doesn’t automatically mean it is low-quality . However, it’s (generally) unlikely to be as academically sound (i.e., well-researched, objective and scientific) as a journal article, so you need to be a lot more sceptical when considering this content and make sure that it has a strong, well-reasoned foundation. As a rule of thumb, your literature review shouldn’t rely heavily on these types of content – they should be used sparingly.

Ideally, your literature review should be built on a strong base of journal articles , ideally from well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals with a high H index . You can also draw on books written by well-established subject matter experts. When considering books, try to focus on those that are published by academic publishers , for example, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Routledge. You can also draw on government websites, provided they have a strong reputation for objectivity and data quality. As with any other source, be wary of any government website that seems to be pushing an agenda.

Source: UCCS

As I mentioned, this doesn’t mean that your literature review can’t include the occasional blog post or news article. These types of content have their place , especially when setting the context for your study. For example, you may want to cite a collection of newspaper articles to demonstrate the emergence of a recent trend. However, your core arguments and theoretical foundations shouldn’t rely on these. Build your foundation on credible academic literature to ensure that your study stands on the proverbial shoulders of giants.

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Another issue we see in weaker literature reviews is an absence of landmark literature for the research topic . Landmark literature (sometimes also referred to as seminal or pivotal work) refers to the articles that initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. In other words, the articles that put the specific area of research “on the map”, so to speak.

The reason for the absence of landmark literature in poor literature reviews is most commonly that either the student isn’t aware of the literature (because they haven’t sufficiently immersed themselves in the existing research), or that they feel that they should only present the most up to date studies. Whatever the cause, it’s a problem, as a good literature review should always acknowledge the seminal writing in the field.

But, how do you find landmark literature?

Well, you can usually spot these by searching for the topic in Google Scholar and identifying the handful of articles with high citation counts. They’ll also be the studies most commonly cited in textbooks and, of course, Wikipedia (but please don’t use Wikipedia as a source!).

So, when you’re piecing your literature review together, remember to pay homage to the classics , even if only briefly. Seminal works are the theoretical foundation of a strong literature review.

Mistake #3: A lack of current literature

As I mentioned, it’s incredibly important to acknowledge the landmark studies and research in your literature review. However, a strong literature review should also incorporate the current literature . It should, ideally, compare and contrast the “classics” with the more up to date research, and briefly comment on the evolution.

Of course, you don’t want to burn precious word count providing an in-depth history lesson regarding the evolution of the topic (unless that’s one of your research aims, of course), but you should at least acknowledge any key differences between the old and the new.

But, how do you find current literature?

To find current literature in your research area, you can once again use Google Scholar by simply selecting the “Since…” link on the left-hand side. Depending on your area of study, recent may mean the last year or two, or a fair deal longer.

So, as you develop your catalogue of literature, remember to incorporate both the classics and the more up to date research. By doing this, you’ll achieve a comprehensive literature base that is both well-rooted in tried and tested theory and current.

Mistake #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

This one is a big one. And, unfortunately, it’s a very common one. In fact, it’s probably the most common issue we encounter in literature reviews.

All too often, students think that a literature review is simply a summary of what each researcher has said. A lengthy, detailed “he said, she said”. This is incorrect . A good literature review needs to go beyond just describing all the relevant literature. It needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together.

A good literature review should also highlight what areas don’t fit together , and which pieces are missing . In other words, what do researchers disagree on and why might that be. It’s seldom the case that everyone agrees on everything because the “truth” is typically very nuanced and intricate in reality. A strong literature review is a balanced one , with a mix of different perspectives and findings that give the reader a clear view of the current state of knowledge.

A good analogy is that of a jigsaw puzzle. The various findings and arguments from each piece of literature form the individual puzzle pieces, and you then put these together to develop a picture of the current state of knowledge . Importantly, that puzzle will in all likelihood have pieces that don’t fit well together, and pieces that are missing. It’s seldom a pretty puzzle!

By the end of this process of critical review and synthesis of the existing literature , it should be clear what’s missing – in other words, the gaps that exist in the current research . These gaps then form the foundation for your proposed study. In other words, your study will attempt to contribute a missing puzzle piece (or get two pieces to fit together).

So, when you’re crafting your literature review chapter, remember that this chapter needs to go well beyond a basic description of the existing research – it needs to synthesise it (bring it all together) and form the foundation for your study.

Mistake #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Another common mistake we see in literature review chapters is quite simply the inclusion of irrelevant content . Some chapters can waffle on for pages and pages and leave the reader thinking, “so what?”

So, how do you decide what’s relevant?

Well, to ensure you stay on-topic and focus, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions . Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to build the theoretical foundation that will help you achieve your research aims and objectives, and answer your research questions . Therefore, relevant content is the relatively narrow body of content that relates directly to those three components .

Let’s look at an example.

If your research aims to identify factors that cultivate employee loyalty and commitment, your literature review needs to focus on existing research that identifies such factors. Simple enough, right? Well, during your review process, you will invariably come across plenty of research relating to employee loyalty and commitment, including things like:

• The benefits of high employee commitment
• The different types of commitment
• The impact of commitment on corporate culture
• The links between commitment and productivity

While all of these relate to employee commitment, they’re not focused on the research aims , objectives and questions, as they’re not identifying factors that foster employee commitment. Of course, they may still be useful in helping you justify your topic, so they’ll likely have a place somewhere in your dissertation or thesis. However, for your literature review, you need to keep things focused.

So, as you work through your literature review, always circle back to your research aims, objective and research questions and use them as a litmus test for article relevance.

Need a helping hand?

Mistake #6: Poor chapter structure and layout

Even the best content can fail to earn marks when the literature review chapter is poorly structured . Unfortunately, this is a fairly common issue, resulting in disjointed, poorly-flowing arguments that are difficult for the reader (the marker…) to follow.

The most common reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature review chapter without a plan or structure . Of course, as we’ve discussed before, writing is a form of thinking , so you don’t need to plan out every detail before you start writing. However, you should at least have an outline structure penned down before you hit the keyboard.

So, how should you structure your literature review?

We’ve covered literature review structure in detail previously , so I won’t go into it here. However, as a quick overview, your literature review should consist of three core sections :

• The introduction section – where you outline your topic, introduce any definitions and jargon and define the scope of your literature review.
• The body section – where you sink your teeth into the existing research. This can be arranged in various ways (e.g. thematically, chronologically or methodologically).
• The conclusion section – where you present the key takeaways and highlight the research gap (or gaps), which lays the foundation for your study.

Another reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature chapter prematurely . In other words, they start writing before they’ve finished digesting the literature. This is a costly mistake, as it always results in extensive rewriting , which takes a lot longer than just doing it one step at a time. Again, it’s completely natural to do a little extra reading as thoughts crop up during the writing process, but you should complete your core reading before you start writing.

Long story short – don’t start writing your literature review without some sort of structural plan. This structure can (and likely will) evolve as you write, but you need some sort of outline as a starting point. Pro tip – check out our free literature review template to fast-track your structural outline.

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

This one is by far the most unforgivable literature review mistake, as it carries one of the heaviest penalties , while it is so easily avoidable .

All too often, we encounter literature reviews that, at first glance, look pretty good. However, a quick run through a plagiarism checker and it quickly becomes apparent that the student has failed to fully digest the literature they’ve reviewed and put it into their own words.

“But, the original author said it perfectly…”

I get it – sometimes the way an author phrased something is “just perfect” and you can’t find a better way to say it. In those (pretty rare) cases, you can use direct quotes (and a citation, of course). However, for the vast majority of your literature review, you need to put things into your own words .

The good news is that if you focus on integrating and synthesising the literature (as I mentioned in point 3), you shouldn’t run into this issue too often, as you’ll naturally be writing about the relationships between studies , not just about the studies themselves. Remember, if you can’t explain something simply (in your own words), you don’t really understand it.

A related issue that we see quite often is plain old-fashioned poor referencing . This can include citation and reference formatting issues (for example, Harvard or APA style errors), or just a straight out lack of references . In academic writing, if you fail to reference a source, you are effectively claiming the work as your own, which equates to plagiarism. This might seem harmless, but plagiarism is a serious form of academic misconduct and could cost you a lot more than just a few marks.

So, when you’re writing up your literature review, remember that you need to digest the content and put everything into your own words. You also need to reference the sources of any and all ideas, theories, frameworks and models you draw on.

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Let’s quickly recap on the 7 most common literature review mistakes.

Now that you’re aware of these common mistakes, be sure to also check out our literature review walkthrough video , where to dissect an actual literature review chapter . This will give you a clear picture of what a high-quality literature review looks like and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

If you have any questions about these literature review mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. If you’re interested in private coaching, book an initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

Dear GradCoach,

Thank you for making our uni student lives better. Could you kindly do a video on how to use your literature review excel template? I am sure a lot of students would appreciate that.

Thank you so much for this inlightment concerning the mistakes that should be avoided while writing a literature review chapter. It is concise and precise. You have mentioned that this chapter include three main parts; introduction, body, and conclusion. Is the theoritical frameworke considered a part of the literature review chapter, or it should be written in a seperate chapter? If it is included in the literature review, should it take place at the beginning, the middle or at the end of the chapter? Thank you one again for “unpacking” things for us.

Hi I would enjoy the video on lit review. You mentioned cataloging references, I would like the template for excel. Would you please sent me this template.

on the plagiarism and referencing what is the correct way to cite the words said by the author . What are the different methods you can use

its clear, precise and understandable many thanks affectionately yours’ Godfrey

Thanks for this wonderful resource! I am final year student and will be commencing my dissertation work soon. This course has significantly improved my understanding of dissertation and has greater value in terms of its practical applicability compared to other literature works and articles out there on the internet. I will advice my colleague students more especially first time thesis writers to make good use of this course. It’s explained in simple, plain grammar and you will greatly appreciate it.

Thanks. A lot. This was excellent. I really enjoyed it. Again thank you.

The information in this article is very useful for students and very interesting I really like your article thanks for sharing this post!

Thank you for putting more knowledge in us. Thank you for using simple you’re bless.

This article is really useful. Thanks a lot for sharing this knowledge. Please continue the journey of sharing and facilitating the young researchers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Reply to Danette - Allessaysexpert - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]
• Reply to Danette - Academia Essays - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Communicative Sciences and Disorders

• Online Learners: Quick Links
• ASHA Journals
• Research Tip 1: Define the Research Question
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Drug Information
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images/Streaming Video
• Database Tutorials
• Crafting a Search
• Cited Reference Searching
• Research Tip 4: Find Grey Literature
• Research Tip 5: Save Your Work
• Cite and Manage Your Sources
• Critical Appraisal
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
• Point of Care Tools (Mobile Apps)

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

• "What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
• Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
• What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
• Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic.  While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.  

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.  

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

• A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
• Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
• Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
• Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
• Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
• Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
• Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
• Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would 
• May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

• Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
• Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews

• A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
• Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

• The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

• Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
• Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
• Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference? 

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews. 

• Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
• What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
• Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
• NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
• << Previous: Literature Reviews
• Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 3:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/speech

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Common Difficulties in Writing Review of Related Literature (RRL)

One of the biggest issues that PhD students and researchers might face while working on their research projects is the difficulties in writing review of related literature (also referred to as RRL). While the terms literature review and review of related literature are often used interchangeably, there is a slight difference. A literature review is an in-depth analysis of existing studies to identify gaps, which are then used to formulate a new hypothesis for your research. This review can either be a part of your main paper or a standalone paper. On the other hand, a review of related literature is a comprehensive analysis of existing studies that are relevant to a particular topic, but the primary purpose is to judge the soundness of the research methodology. While this process may also identify gaps in the existing database, these gaps need not necessarily be used to formulate a new research question. This is what makes it difficult to do a review of related literature.

In spite of knowing these basic differences, authors often face difficulties in writing a review of related literature. In this article, we have discussed a few of these issues, based upon most frequently asked 10 questions regarding the review of related literature.

Table of Contents

Difficulties in writing a review of related literature

• Circumventing Google Search barriers

Searching for relevant literature can often pose a problem, since not all the sources are immediately listed in the search pages. One way to overcome this challenge is to be as specific as possible, while opting for the ‘Google Scholar’ option. This will filter out the unnecessary sources and only link the scholarly texts available. You can use smart reading apps like R Discovery or even sign up for relevant scientific newsletters, which give you routine updates regarding the latest literature in the topic of your interest, and link you to the authentic sources.

• Organizing huge portions of data

One of the most common difficulties in writing review of related literature is organizing the huge amount of data that is generated, along with the redundancy in information. To make this process simpler, you can begin working on your review with the help of the most generic sources first, which have an overview of the topic, and then move on to the specific sources, which talk about a particular sub-topic in depth. Having this macro perspective will simplify how you sort your data and ensure you are thorough in collecting all the relevant information needed for your review.

• Maintaining an unbiased perspective

Most often, what makes it difficult to do a review of related literature is maintaining an unbiased perspective toward the entire process. Researchers inadvertently end up comparing their own results with the results that they read, leading them to form a personal opinion regarding the literature at hand. To circumvent this, researchers can have in-depth discussions regarding their review, with peers and mentors, especially with people who have not worked with them on the same topic.

• Maintaining a balance between old and new data

Researchers often struggle while trying to understand the different types of literature that should be included in the review. Maintaining a balance between including the most fundamental studies in the topic of interest, with the latest updates regarding the topic, is one of the common difficulties in writing review of related literature. To overcome this challenge, you can work with a predefined formula by deciding the amount of old v/s new data that you would like to have in your review. This can be figured out by knowing what your ultimate objective is, for that review. If you intend to use the review of related literature as a base for formulating new hypothesis, then it is essential to be thorough in including more of the latest studies, so the gap areas can be identified easily. On the other hand, if your review is simply a comprehensive write-up about the topic in general, you can include both old as well as new studies in similar proportions.

• Formatting a review of related literature

There is no recommended format for a review of related literature. However, it is essential to set a format before working on the review, which will help you save considerable time and energy later. You can either opt for a structured format, with relevant headings, or go for a free-flowing format. Sometimes, this decision depends upon your guide/mentor as well as the educational institute that you are a part of. If you intend to submit your review to a journal, there might be specific requirements that you must take into consideration when formatting your review of related literature.

We hope the points above were a good overview of the difficulties in writing a review of related literature and how to overcome these to deliver a comprehensive piece.

Related reading:

• Review of related literature: A vital tool for researchers. Life Blog https://researcher.life/blog/article/review-of-related-literature-a-vital-tool-for-researchers/ (2022)
• Literature Review Guide: 7 Tips to write a good literature review. Life Blog https://researcher.life/blog/article/literature-review-guide-tips-for-writing-a-good-literature-review/ (2022)
• How do I do a review of related literature (RRL)? Editage Insights https://www.editage.com/insights/samples-of-rrl (2020)

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Thesis Defense: How to Ace this Crucial Step

Article Processing Charges: Impact on Open Access Publishing

3 Quick Tips on How Researchers Can Handle Lack of Literature in Original Research

Many a times, I have heard fellow researchers saying that they were unable to find any literature relevant to their research topic. Interestingly, does that mean they are doing something so novel that nobody has thought about, attempted, and consequently never reported. Let me give an example. Let’s say a group of researchers are planning a project on evaluating the combined effectiveness of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and art therapy on children suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The researcher conducts an extensive search through the literature and finds only a handful articles reporting the effectiveness of CBT and art therapy. Eureka, they feel to have identified a gap! But hey, there’s hardly anything written about it! Now that’s a problem. There is not much to read or refer to! What will go in the literature chapter? Read ahead to find out how to deal with such situations!

Is Lack of Literature Real?

It is rather very unusual for a research problem to be absolutely unrelated to existing literature. In a normal setting, every research buds and grows from the edge of an existing sphere of knowledge. Yet, if, by some means, you come up with an idea that is absolutely novel and original and you have very limited literature available on your topic, how do you proceed? What does it mean when you cannot find any literature that is relevant to your research? Well, there could be three reasons for this.

• The topic is just not very interesting.
• The topic is too narrow and highly specific, and investigating it is not that important.
• The data/results are sensitive and therefore are hidden or kept confidential
• The outcomes of this research were negative and consequently not published
• Your search strategies were not robust enough

There is hardly anything one can do in the first four cases. The fifth case could definitely be given a second thought. Of course there has to be something in print or online.  Although it may not be directly on the exact same topic, there has to be something related. The answer to the “not enough literature” problem is always and most certainly, what else is pertinent.

Let’s think of some of the other literatures that might be relevant to our supposed research problem – “Evaluating the combined effectiveness of CBT and art therapy on children suffering from PTSD”. There’s probably research about the effectiveness of CBT and art therapies on children for a different disorder, different therapies used to treat PTSD, evaluation techniques for children suffering from PTSD, etc. You could ramp up your search protocols to capture all relevant literature specific to your research topic.

• Extend your search options by using the right keywords
• Use Boolean operators to broaden your search results

Researchers have to think more broadly about what they might need and could possibly use. Another way is to map the possible areas that are linked to the research question.

What If I Still Don’t Have Enough Literature?

If all these strategies prove futile, assume for a while that there is no prior literature and continue with your research. However, when you are working in the lab, experimenting and investigating, keep searching for relevant articles.

Set up alerts for new articles for key topics crucial to your research topic.

Several multidisciplinary databases such as Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus provide a feature to set up the following types of email alerts:

Topic email alerts: They help in finding the latest research on your topic of interest (based on the keywords that you’ve used).

Author alerts: They assist in identifying latest research published by a specific author(s).

Subscribe for table of content (TOC) alerts of popular journals in your field.

The most reliable and easiest way to get alerts for the most recently published tables of contents is to visit to the journal homepage. You could also use services available for selecting journals and setting up alerts. Most journals provide alerts in either RSS or e-mail format.

How do you make up for limited evidence?

1. go into details of what is available.

Having a limited number of resources can be an advantage as well! You could consider discussing relevant papers in greater detail. This is almost impossible when there are thousands of articles to screen from and you need to be much more selective).

2. Look at who has cited these articles

For the few relevant papers, find out who else has cited these articles. You may or may not be able to find pertinent or related information but you might find newer relevant articles. These articles could be the ones that you possibly missed finding using a keyword search. You could also follow what the authors of these papers have published to gain more insights.

3. Relate your work to the big picture

Is there a way you could connect your work to a broader research problem? Does it contribute to something greater? Suggest how the findings may be important for theory, practice, policy making, and subsequent research to increase its adoption.

Take home Message

A manuscript is never judged based on the number of references. References must be used to reflect the state of the field as it is! Even if there are fewer references, it does not matter. Researchers just need to ensure that they are relevant and important to develop a context and validate your findings. If you do not find many articles related to your topic, this in itself is a meaningful reflection about the status of research about the research problem under consideration. This lack of pre-existing literature gives you a chance to justify as to why your research question is important. Additionally, it’s another reason for other academics to show interest in your work. Furthermore, if much has not been done, it indeed means your research is original.

Let us know if this article helped you overcome challenges related to limited literature in the comments section below! You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to different aspects of research writing and publishing answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

It’s reaaly helpfull

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Need for Diversifying Academic Curricula: Embracing missing voices and marginalized perspectives

In classrooms worldwide, a single narrative often dominates, leaving many students feeling lost. These stories,…

• Career Corner
• Trending Now

Recognizing the Signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

As the sun set over the campus, casting long shadows through the library windows, Alex…

How to Effectively Structure an Opinion Article

Researcher Alert! 5 Ways to Deal With Null, Inconclusive, or Insignificant Results

5 Simple Tips on How to Patent Your Research

From Thesis to Journal Articles: Expert Tips on Publishing in PubMed

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What would be most effective in reducing research misconduct?

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.

Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.

Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.

Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.

Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics.  It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.

Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview