terms to use in literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

17 strong academic phrases to write your literature review (+ real examples)

A well-written academic literature review not only builds upon existing knowledge and publications but also involves critical reflection, comparison, contrast, and identifying research gaps. The following 17 strong academic key phrases can assist you in writing a critical and reflective literature review.

Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you make a purchase using the links below at no additional cost to you . I only recommend products or services that I truly believe can benefit my audience. As always, my opinions are my own.

Academic key phrases to present existing knowledge in a literature review

Academic key phrases to contrast and compare findings in a literature review, academic key phrases to highlight research gaps in a literature review, the topic has received significant interest within the wider literature..

Example: “ The topic of big data and its integration with AI has received significant interest within the wider literature .” ( Dwivedi et al. 2021, p. 4 )

The topic gained considerable attention in the academic literature in…

Example:  “ The relationship between BITs and FDI gained considerable attention in the academic literature in the last two decades .” ( Amendolagine and Prota, 2021, p. 173 )

Studies have identified…

Example: “ Studies have identified the complexities of implementing AI based systems within government and the public sector .” ( Dwivedi et al. 2021, p. 6 )

Researchers have discussed…

Example: “ Researchers have discussed the ethical dimensions of AI and implications for greater use of the technology. ” ( Dwivedi et al. 2021, p. 6)

Recent work demonstrated that…

Example: “Recent work demonstrated that dune grasses with similar morphological traits can build contrasting landscapes due to differences in their spatial shoot organization.” ( Van de Ven, 2022 et al., p. 1339 )

Existing research frequently attributes…

Example:  “Existing research frequently attributes these challenges to AI’s technical complexity, demand for data, and unpredictable interactions.” ( Yang et al., 2020, p. 174 )

Prior research has hypothesized that…

Example:  “Prior research has hypothesized that racial and ethnic disparities may be mitigated if the patient and provider share the same race due to improved communication and increased trust” ( Otte, 2022, p. 1 )

Prior studies have found that…

Example:  “ Prior studies have found that court-referred individuals are more likely to complete relationship violence intervention programs (RVIP) than self-referred individuals. ” ( Evans et al. 2022, p. 1 )

You may also like: 26 powerful academic phrases to write your introduction (+ real examples)

While some scholars…, others…

Example: “On the sustainable development of microcredit, some scholars emphasize the effect of its poverty alleviation, while some scholars emphasize the factors such as institutional innovation and government support.” ( Huang et al., 2021, p. 2117 )

The findings of Scholar A showcase that… . Scholar B , on the other hand, found…

Example: “ The findings of Arinto (2016) call for administrators concerning the design of faculty development programs, provision of faculty support, and strategic planning for online distance learning implementation across the institution. Francisco and Nuqui (2020) on the other hand found that the new normal leadership is an adaptive one while staying strong on their commitment. ” ( Asio and Bayucca, 2021, p. 20 )

Interestingly, all the arguments refer to…

Example:  “Interestingly, all the arguments above refer to daily role transitions—more specifically: role transitions on teleworking days—as an important explanatory mechanism for both the possible conflict-reducing effect and the potential conflict enhancing effects of telework.”  ( Delanoeije et al., 2019, p. 1845 )

This argument is similar to…

Example: “The third argument against physician involvement in lethal injection is that physicians are prohibited from deliberately harming patients or the argument from nonmaleficence. This argument is similar to the argument from healing but has different implications and must therefore be considered independently.” ( Sawicki, 2022, p. 22 )

If you are looking to elevate your writing and editing skills, I highly recommend enrolling in the course “ Good with Words: Writing and Editing Specialization “, which is a 4 course series offered by the University of Michigan. This comprehensive program is conveniently available as an online course on Coursera, allowing you to learn at your own pace. Plus, upon successful completion, you’ll have the opportunity to earn a valuable certificate to showcase your newfound expertise!

Yet, it remains unknown how…

Example: “Yet, it remains unknown how findings from aeolian landscapes translate to aquatic systems and how young clonally expanding plants in hydrodynamically exposed conditions overcome these establishment thresholds by optimizing shoot placement.” ( Van de Ven, 2022 et al., p. 1339 )

There is, however, still little research on…

Example:  “There is, however, still little research on what integrated STEM approaches require from schools and teachers, and on the potential obstacles that may prevent teachers from running this kind of teaching.”  ( Bungum and Mogstad, 2022, p. 2 )

Existing studies have failed to address…

Example: “ University–industry relations (UIR) are usually analysed by the knowledge transfer channels, but existing studies have failed to address what knowledge content is being transferred – impacting the technology output aimed by the partnership.”  (Dalmarco et al. 2019, p. 1314 )

Several scholars have recommended to move away…

Example: “Several scholars have recommended to move away from such a stable-level approach (i.e. using a global judgment of work-home conflict) to a dynamic episodes approach ” ( Delanoeije et al., 2019, p. 1847 )

New approaches are needed to address…

Example:  “ Accurate computational approaches are needed to address this gap and to enable large-scale structural bioinformatics. ” ( Jumper et al. 2021,p. 583 )

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

26 powerful academic phrases to write your introduction (+ real examples)

13 awesome academic phrases to write your methodology (+ real examples), related articles.

10 key skills of successful master’s students

The best Coursera courses for PhD researchers in 2023

Clever strategies to keep up with the latest academic research

Introduce yourself in a PhD interview (4 simple steps + examples)

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

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 collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses 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 than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon 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 identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

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: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content, word choice problems: how to use the right..., how to avoid plagiarism when using generative ai..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., types of plagiarism and 6 tips to avoid..., how to write an essay introduction (with examples)....

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

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 primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the 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 a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded 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 make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

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 or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus 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 [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon 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. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own 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 analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . 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?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to 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.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Press ESC to close

Building a Strong Literature Review: Words and Phrases to Include

• backlinkworks
• Writing Articles & Reviews
• December 27, 2023

A literature review is an essential part of any academic paper or research project. IT provides a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on a specific topic, identifies gaps in the current knowledge, and sets the context for the research to be conducted. Building a strong literature review requires careful selection of words and phrases to ensure that IT is well-structured, informative, and persuasive. In this article, we will discuss the words and phrases that are crucial for building a strong literature review.

Words and Phrases to Include in a Literature Review

1. “According to” – This phrase is commonly used to introduce evidence from scholarly sources. For example, “According to Smith (2016), the impact of climate change on biodiversity is a pressing concern.”

2. “ IT has been argued that” – This phrase is useful for presenting different viewpoints on a topic. For example, “ IT has been argued that technological advancements have both positive and negative effects on societal well-being.”

3. “Previous research has shown” – This phrase is effective for referencing existing studies that are relevant to the research topic. For example, “Previous research has shown a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer.”

4. “A significant body of literature” – This phrase is used to indicate the volume and depth of existing research on a particular topic. For example, “A significant body of literature exists on the psychological impact of social media use.”

5. “In line with previous studies” – This phrase is used to establish continuity with existing research findings. For example, “In line with previous studies, our results indicate a positive association between exercise and mental health.”

6. “Key findings suggest” – This phrase is useful for summarizing the main conclusions of the literature review. For example, “Key findings suggest that mindfulness meditation can improve attention and cognitive performance.”

7. “ IT is evident that” – This phrase is used to emphasize the clarity or strength of evidence supporting a particular argument. For example, “ IT is evident that socioeconomic status has a profound impact on educational outcomes.”

8. “This is consistent with the findings of” – This phrase is used to demonstrate the alignment of the current research with existing literature. For example, “This is consistent with the findings of prior studies that have highlighted the importance of early childhood education.”

9. “Existing literature has identified” – This phrase is useful for highlighting specific issues or phenomena that have been documented in prior research. For example, “Existing literature has identified a range of factors that influence consumer purchasing behavior.”

10. “This study builds upon previous research by” – This phrase is used to emphasize the novelty or contribution of the current research. For example, “This study builds upon previous research by examining the long-term effects of climate change on coastal ecosystems.”

A strong literature review is essential for providing a solid foundation for any research endeavor. By incorporating the words and phrases discussed in this article, researchers can effectively convey the relevance, scope, and depth of the existing literature on their chosen topic. Careful selection and deployment of these words and phrases can enhance the clarity, coherence, and persuasiveness of the literature review, ultimately contributing to the overall strength and quality of the research project.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review serves several purposes, including providing an overview of existing research on a specific topic, identifying gaps in the current knowledge, and setting the context for a new research study. IT also helps to demonstrate the researcher’s familiarity with and understanding of the relevant literature in their field.

How do I structure a literature review?

A literature review typically follows a structured format, including an introduction, the body of the review (organized by themes or topics), and a conclusion. IT should present a coherent and logical argument, synthesizing and critically analyzing the existing literature on the chosen topic.

What are some common mistakes to avoid in a literature review?

Common mistakes in a literature review include focusing too much on summarizing individual studies without providing critical analysis, failing to clearly articulate the relevance of the literature to the research topic, and not including a sufficient variety of sources to support the argument being made. IT is also important to avoid presenting personal opinions without backing them up with evidence from the literature.

Why the Mac Mini M1 with 16GB RAM is a Game-Changer

What to expect from a wordpress developer service.

Recent Posts

• Driving Organic Growth: How a Digital SEO Agency Can Drive Traffic to Your Website
• Mastering Local SEO for Web Agencies: Reaching Your Target Market
• The Ultimate Guide to Unlocking Powerful Backlinks for Your Website
• SEO vs. Paid Advertising: Finding the Right Balance for Your Web Marketing Strategy
• Discover the Secret Weapon for Local SEO Success: Local Link Building Services

Popular Posts

Shocking Secret Revealed: How Article PHP ID Can Transform Your Website!

Uncovering the Top Secret Tricks for Mastering SPIP PHP – You Won’t Believe What You’re Missing Out On!

Discover the Shocking Truth About Your Website’s Ranking – You Won’t Believe What This Checker Reveals!

Unlocking the Secrets to Boosting Your Alexa Rank, Google Pagerank, and Domain Age – See How You Can Dominate the Web!

10 Tips for Creating a Stunning WordPress Theme

Explore topics.

• Backlinks (2,425)
• Blog (2,744)
• Computers (5,318)
• Digital Marketing (7,741)
• Internet (6,340)
• Website (4,705)
• Wordpress (4,705)
• Writing Articles & Reviews (4,208)

Training videos   |   Faqs

Academic Phrases for Writing Literature Review Section of a Research Paper

Overview |   Abstract   | Introduction | Literature Review | Materials & Methods | Results & Discussion | Conclusion & Future Work | Acknowledgements & Appendix

The literature review should clearly demonstrate that the author has a good knowledge of the research area. Literature review typically occupies one or two passages in the introduction section. A well-written literature review should provide a critical appraisal of previous studies related to the current research area rather than a simple summary of prior works. The author shouldn’t shy away from pointing out the shortcomings of previous works. However, criticising other’s work without any basis can weaken your paper. This is a perfect place to coin your research question and justify the need for such a study. It is also worth pointing out towards the end of the review that your study is unique and there is no direct literature addressing this issue. Add a few sentences about the significance of your research and how this will add value to the body of knowledge.

The literature review section of your research paper should include the following:

• Previous literature
• Limitations of previous research
• Research questions
• Research to be explored

1. Previous literature

The literature review shows that __ Previous research showed __ Seminal contributions have been made by __ A series of recent studies has indicated that __ Several theories have been proposed to __, some focusing on __, others on __ There has been numerous studies to investigate __ This has been used in several studies to assess __ Previous studies have shown __ Several studies suggest that __ This has also been explored in prior studies by __ Prior research suggests that __ Previous studies have emphasized __ The majority of prior research has applied __ Most early studies as well as current work focus on __ For instance, the following studies were conducted on __ Studies of __are well documented, it is also well acknowledged that __ A number of authors have recognized __ Some authors have also suggested that  __ Some authors have driven the further development of __ This has been discussed by a great number of authors in literature. For example, research has provided evidence for __ The authors bring some information about the background of the problem, __ As has been previously reported in the literature, __ A large number of existing studies in the broader literature have examined __ The literature review shows that __ There exists a considerable body of literature on  __ In short, the literature pertaining to __ strongly suggests that __ Over time, an extensive literature has developed on __ This section presents a review of recent literature on __ This paper begins with a short review of the literature regarding the __ Several methods are reported in the literature to address this issue. There is a wide choice of __ available in the literature. This section reviews the literature related to __ It was reported in literature that __ A recent study by __ concluded that __ In the light of reported __ it is conceivable that __ The method introduced by __ has the advantage that __ One method employed by __ is __ A more comprehensive description can be found in __ For example, recent research suggests that __ This was successfully established as described by __ The author employed a __ methodology which prescribes the use of __

2. Limitations of previous research

A number of questions regarding __ remain to be addressed. A closer look to the literature on __, however, reveals a number of gaps and shortcomings. This question has previously never been addressed because__ Most studies have relied on __ Previous studies by __ cannot be considered as conclusive because __ Previous studies have almost exclusively focused on __ This has been previously assessed only to a very limited extent because __ In the present studies __ were constrained to __ In previous studies were limited to __ Although results appear consistent with prior research, they appear inconsistent with __ These are previously unstudied because __ As far as we know, no previous research has investigated __ Moreover, although research has illuminated __ no study to date has examined __ Despite decades of research, this continues to be debated among __ This section points out some of the problems encountered in the extant research. Although there are many studies, the research in __ remains limited. However, the existing research has many problems in representing __ The literature on __ is less consistent Historically, there has been a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding __ This approach remains briefly addressed in the literature. These are rarely analyzed in the literature as __ There are key questions and notions that are still not discussed in the literature __ This is not clearly presented in the literature because __ This paper addresses the need for __, so far lacking in the scientific literature. To fill this literature gap, this paper identifies __ Only a few works in literature demonstrate __ Although studies have been conducted by many authors, this problem is still insufficiently explored. To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined __ However, the existing research has many problems in __ Therefore, important issue in the literature is __ However, we argue that previous literature suffers from certain weaknesses: __ Previous research can only be considered a first step towards a more profound understanding of __ The previous studies reveal that __ are usually the most problematic to __

3. Research questions

More specific research questions will be introduced and investigated in __ A further question is whether __ Finally, another promising line of research would be __ The study addresses several further questions on __ Some of the interesting questions in this context are __ In order to address the questions outlined above, we report here __ These questions are of central interest as much recent research in __ Furthermore, __ is arguably an important question to be addressed. The question now is how __ can be used to explain __ Study addresses the research question __ In order to properly address this question, we __ An important question associated with __ is __ A critical open question is whether __ A still unsolved question is whether __ This remains an open question as __ This question has previously never been addressed because __ This study offers a test of __ research question Study addresses the research question __ Even in general __ research strategies is needed to explain __ The researcher should be interested here in __ Many questions remain unanswered __ There are some potentially open questions about the validity of __ The question that then naturally arises is __ The question then becomes how best to define__ This was an important question to study as __

4. Research to be explored

A more systematic and theoretical analysis is required for __ As the authors note earlier, more work is necessary to__ Additional studies to understand more completely the key tenets of __ are required. The unexpected findings signal the need for additional studies to understand more about __ This paper addresses __, so far lacking in the scientific literature. A new approach is therefore needed for __ One of the tough challenges for all researchers in this domain is __

Similar Posts

Academic Phrases for Writing Acknowledgements & Appendix Sections of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to thanking colleagues, acknowledging funders and writing the appendix section.

Academic Phrases for Writing Conclusion Section of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to conclusion section such as summary of results and future work.

Critical Literature Review : How to Critique a Research Article?

In this blog, we will look at how to use constructive language when critiquing other’s work in your research paper.

Academic Writing Resources – Academic PhraseBank | Academic Vocabulary & Word Lists

In this blog, we review various academic writing resources such as academic phrasebank, academic wordlists, academic vocabulary training sites.

Academic Phrases for Writing Methods Section of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to materials and methods such as experimental setup, data collection & analysis, and statistical testing.

Academic Phrases for Writing Abstract Section of a Research Paper

In this blog, we discuss phrases related to the abstract section. An abstract is a self-contained and short synopsis that describes a larger work.

26 Comments

this helps and appreciate it. !

Thank you so much. This is very helpful

thanks mate

I have read and appreciated the content,very useful and academically well outlined.

Thank you! It’s very helpful!

Thank you. I find this helpful.

Thanks. it is very helpful

can such phrases be tracked as plagiarism? if yes, then what is left for the researchers to put on their paper?

Very helpful..Thanks

Good on you

Very useful! With this, I will improve my writing style!

Thanks a lot. God bless you.

Very useful

Thank you for this site, it helps me a lot when writing my literature reviews for my Research Module

Valuable information, thank you.

l appreciate it. it is very helpfull academically

very very good propositions

Thanks! This is what I was looking for

really appreciate

how to purchase a premium version

Thank you Sir,

This is invaluable. I will study it closely and incorporate as per guidance.

Amazing contents and great help. Thank you!

Could I copy your free academic phrases handbook for my research? Thank you

Helpful, Thanks

Thank you for this great assistance

Veery Helpful

Leave a Reply 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.

• 0.1K Share Facebook
• 68 Share Twitter
• 83 Share LinkedIn
• 0.1K Share Email

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

Academic Phrasebank

Referring to sources.

• GENERAL LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS
• Being cautious
• Being critical
• Classifying and listing
• Compare and contrast
• Defining terms
• Describing trends
• Describing quantities
• Explaining causality
• Giving examples
• Signalling transition
• Writing about the past

One of the distinguishing features of academic writing is that it is informed by what is already known, what work has been done before, and/or what ideas and models have already been developed. Thus, in academic texts, writers frequently make reference to other studies and to the work of other authors. It is important that writers guide their readers through this literature. This section of  Academic Phrasebank  lists some of the phrases that writers may use for this purpose.

A note on the literature review: It is the purpose of the literature review section of a paper or dissertation to show the reader, in a systematic way, what is already known about the research topic as a whole, and to outline the key ideas and theories that help us to understand this. As well as being systematic, the review should be evaluative and critical of the studies or ideas which are relevant to the current work. For example, you may think a particular study did not investigate some important aspect of the area you are researching, that the author(s) failed to notice a weakness in their methods, or that their conclusion is not well-supported (refer to  Being Critical ).

A note on referencing style: The way a writer refers to other sources varies somewhat across different disciplines. In some cases, where the individual author is important, the author’s name will be the main subject of the sentence; in other cases, the author’s name may only be mentioned in brackets ( … ) or via a number notation system (e.g. footnotes and endnotes). The ‘author as subject’ style is less common in the empirical disciplines (sciences) and more commonly used in the humanities. Different referencing systems are used in different disciplines. In the majority of the examples given here, the Harvard in-text referencing system has been used.

A note on verb tenses: For general reference to the literature, the present perfect tense (have/has + verb participle) tends to be used. For reference to specific studies carried out in the past, the simple past tense is most commonly used. This is normally the case where a specific date or point in time in the past forms a part of the sentence. When referring to the words or ideas of writers, the present tense is often used if the ideas are still relevant, even if the author is no longer alive. The examples given below reflect these general patterns, but these are by no means rigid.

General comments on the relevant literature

The literature on X has highlighted several … Different theories exist in the literature regarding … More recent attention has focused on the provision of … There are relatively few historical studies in the area of … A large and growing body of literature has investigated … Much of the literature since the mid-1990s emphasises the … Much of the current literature on X pays particular attention to … There is a large volume of published studies describing the role of … The existing literature on X is extensive and focuses particularly on … There is a relatively small body of literature that is concerned with … The generalisability of much published research on this issue is problematic. A considerable amount of literature has been published on X. These studies … The academic literature on X has revealed the emergence of several contrasting themes. Previous research findings into X have been inconsistent and contradictory (Smith, 1996; …).

Previous research: a historical perspective

Research into X has a long history. For many years, this phenomenon was surprisingly neglected by … Only in the past ten years have studies of X directly addressed how … Prior to the work of Smith (1983), the role of X was largely unknown. Over the past decade, most research in X has emphasized the use of … In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on … Early examples of research into X include … (Smith, 1962; Jones, 1974). During the past 30 years, much more information has become available on … The first serious discussions and analyses of X emerged during the 1970s with … Over the past two decades, major advances in molecular biology have allowed … Historically, research investigating the factors associated with X has focused on … It is only since the work of Smith (2001) that the study of X has gained momentum. The construct of X was first articulated by Smith (1977) and popularised in his book: … Around the early 1960s, small-scale research and case studies began to emerge linking … It was not until the late 1960s that historians considered X worthy of scholarly attention. Awareness of X is not recent, having possibly first been described in the 5th century BCE by …

Previous research: methodological approaches taken

Most research on X has been carried out in … Most researchers investigating X have utilised … Using this approach, researchers have been able to … Several systematic reviews of X have been undertaken. The vast majority of studies on X have been quantitative. What we know about X is largely based on observational studies. There are a number of large cross-sectional studies which suggest … Much of the previous research on X has been exploratory in nature. Much of the X research has focused on identifying and evaluating the … What we know about X is largely based upon empirical studies that investigate … Publications that concentrate on X more frequently adopt a historical or chronological approach …

Previous research: area investigated

To date, several studies have investigated … A number of studies have begun to examine … Various studies have assessed the efficacy of … Researchers attempted to evaluate the impact of … A great deal of previous research into X has focused on … Several studies have used longitudinal data to examine … Previous studies have explored the relationships between X and Y. Twenty cohort study analyses have examined the relationship between … A number of authors have considered the effects of … (Smith, 2003; Jones, 2004). At least 120 case-control studies worldwide have examined the relationship between … Numerous studies have attempted to explain … (for example, Smith, 1996; Jones, 1998; …).

Previous research: what has been established or proposed

Several lines of evidence suggest that … Previous research has established that … Data from several studies suggest that … Recent evidence suggests that … (Smith, 2020; …). It is now well established from a variety of studies that … New findings amongst X provides further evidence that …

A number of studies have postulated a convergence between … Recently, considerable evidence has accumulated to show that … Surveys such as that conducted by Smith (2015) have shown that … Many recent studies (e.g. Smith, 2019; Jones, 2020) have shown that … Traditionally, it has been argued that … (e.g. Smith, 1960; Jones, 1972). Several biographies of Brown have been published. Smith (2016) presents …

In previous studies on X, different variables have been found to be related to … Many historians have argued that … (e.g. Jones, 1997; Brown, 1999; Smith, 2019). There is a consensus among social scientists that … (e.g. Smith, 2019; Jones, 2020; … Data from several sources have identified the increased X and Y associated with obesity. Recently, in vitro studies have shown that X can … (Smith et al. , 2018; Jones et al. , 2021). It has been demonstrated that a high intake of X results in damage to … (Smith, 2015; …).

Stating what is currently known about the topic

X increases when … (Smith, 2015) X is able to affect Y (Smith, 2015; Jones, 2020). X is positively related to Y (Smith, 2015; Jones, 2020). X is proportional to Y as expressed by the… (Smith, 2015). X is one of the most important … (Smith, 2015; Jones, 2020). X is one of the most intense reactions following Y (Jones, 2020). A relationship exists between X and Y (Smith, 2015; Jones, 2020). X is a principal determining factor of Y (Smith, 2015; Jones, 2020). There is an unambiguous relationship between X and Y (Smith, 2015). X is significantly reduced during the first months of … (Smith, 2015; Jones, 2020). X has been found to oppose the anti-inflammatory actions of Y on Z (Smith, 2020).

Reference to a previous investigation: researcher prominent

Smith’s comparative study (2017) found that … Jones’s comprehensive review concluded that … Brown’s (1998) model of X assumes three main … Smith’s cross-country analysis (2017) showed that … Jones’s (2010) review of the literature concluded that … Brown’s (2022) recent analysis of X provides a strong critique of …

Reference to a previous investigation: time prominent

In 1959, a seminal article was published entitled … Following this period, Smith actively searched for X. In the 1950s, Smith pointed to some of the ways in which … Thirty years later, Smith (1974) reported three cases of X which … Almost 20 years ago, Jones (1995) formulated his X theory, centred around …

Reference to a previous investigation: investigation prominent

One longitudinal study found that … A seminal study in this area is the work of … One study by Smith (2014) examined the trend in … A recent study by Smith and Jones (2012) involved … A qualitative study by Smith (2003) described how … A recent systematic literature review concluded that … Preliminary work on X was undertaken by Jones (1992). A longitudinal study of X by Smith (2012) reports that … A key study comparing X and Y is that of Smith (2010), in which … The first systematic study of X was reported by Smith  et al.  in 1986. Detailed examination of X by Smith and Jones (1961) showed that … Analysis of the genes involved in X was first carried out by Smith  et al.  (1983). A significant analysis and discussion on the subject was presented by Smith (1988). The study of the structural behaviour of X was first carried out by Jones  et al.  (1986). A small scale study by Smith (2015) reached different conclusions, finding no increase in … The study by Jones (1990) offers probably the most comprehensive empirical analysis of …

Reference to a previous investigation: topic prominent

To determine the effects of X, Jones  et al . (2005) compared … X was originally isolated from Y in a soil sample from … (Jones  et al. , 1952). The electronic spectroscopy of X was first studied by Smith and Jones in 1970. X formed the central focus of a study by Smith (2002) in which the author found … To better understand the mechanisms of X and its effects, Jones (2013) analysed the … X was first demonstrated experimentally by Pavlov (Smith, 2002). In his seminal study … The acid-catalyzed condensation reaction between X and Y was first reported by Smith in 1872. The way in which X is regulated was studied extensively by Smith and colleagues (Smith  et al.  1995 and 1998).

Reference to what other writers do in their published work

In Chapter 2, Smith provides us with a number of important … In the subsequent chapter, Smith examines the extent to which … By drawing on the concept of X, Smith has been able to show that … Some analysts (e.g. Smith, 2015) have attempted to draw fine distinctions between … Drawing on an extensive range of sources, the authors set out the different ways in which … Other authors (see Smith, 2010; Jones, 2014) question the usefulness of such an approach.  

Reference to another writer's idea or position

As noted by Smith (2003) X is far more cost effective, and therefore … According to Smith (2003), preventative medicine is far more cost effective, and therefore … 

Synthesising material: supporting evidence or ideas

Similarly, Jones (2015) found that X … This is consistent with the data obtained by … Smith (1995) makes a similar point in his study of X … In the same vein, Smith (1995) in his book XYZ notes This view is supported by Jones (2015) who writes that Along the same lines, Smith (1995) subsequently argued that … Smith argues that her data support Jones’s (1995) view that Jones’s (1986) work on X is complemented by Smith’s (2009) study of Almost every paper that has been written on X includes a section relating to A broadly similar point has also recently been made by Johnson (2019), who …

Synthesising material: contrasting evidence or ideas

Other writers have argued that … Other studies have concluded that … Unlike Smith, Jones (2013) argues that In contrast to Smith, Jones (2013) argues that Smith (2010) presents an X account, whilst Jones (2011) While Smith (2008) focuses on X, Jones (2009) is more concerned with A broader perspective has been adopted by Smith (213) who argues that Contrary to previously published studies, Jones et al. demonstrated the efficacy of… This result conflicts with Smith’s (1965) previously mentioned study which found that … Conversely, Smith (2010) reported no significant difference in mortality between X and Y.

Some ways of introducing quotations

Commenting on X, Smith (2003) argues: ‘… …’ As Smith (2004: 215) states: ‘there are many good reasons to be sceptical’. As Smith argues: ‘In the past, the purpose of education was to …’ (Smith, 2000:150). In the final part of the  Theses on Feuerbach , Marx writes: ‘Philosophers have hitherto only …’ Smith concludes: ‘The idea of development stands today like a ruin in …’ (Smith, 1992: 156).

Summarising the review or parts of the review

Together, these studies indicate that … Overall, these studies highlight the need for … Considering all of this evidence, it seems that … Collectively, these studies outline a critical role for… In all the studies reviewed here, X is recognised as … The evidence presented in this section suggests that … The studies presented thus far provide evidence that … Taken together, these studies support the notion that … Overall, there seems to be some evidence to indicate that … Together these studies provide important insights into the … All of the studies reviewed here support the hypothesis that … Two important themes emerge from the studies discussed so far: However, such studies remain narrow in focus dealing only with … The evidence reviewed here seems to suggest a pertinent role for … These studies clearly indicate that there is a relationship between … In view of all that has been mentioned so far, one may suppose that … There remain several aspects of X about which relatively little is known.

+44 (0) 161 306 6000

The University of Manchester Oxford Rd Manchester M13 9PL UK

Connect With Us

The University of Manchester

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Library Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Choosing a Type of Review

Literature Reviews: Choosing a Type of Review

Selecting a review type.

You'll want to think about the kind of review you are doing. Is it a selective or comprehensive review? Is the review part of a larger work or a stand-alone work ?

For example, if you're writing the Literature Review section of a journal article, that's a selective review which is part of a larger work. Alternatively, if you're writing a review article, that's a comprehensive review which is a stand-alone work. Thinking about this will help you develop the scope of the review.

Defining the Scope of Your Review

This exercise will help define the scope of your Literature Review, setting the boundaries for which literature to include and which to exclude.

A FEW GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DEFINING SCOPE

• Which populations to investigate — this can include gender, age, socio-economic status, race, geographic location, etc., if the research area includes humans.
• What years to include — if researching the legalization of medicinal cannabis, you might only look at the previous 20 years; but if researching dolphin mating practices, you might extend many more decades.
• Which subject areas — if researching artificial intelligence, subject areas could be computer science, robotics, or health sciences
• How many sources  — a selective review for a class assignment might only need ten, while a comprehensive review for a dissertation might include hundreds. There is no one right answer.
• There will be many other considerations that are more specific to your topic. 

Most databases will allow you to limit years and subject areas, so look for those tools while searching. See the Searching Tips tab for information on how use these tools.

Four Common Types of Reviews

Literature review.

• Often used as a generic term to describe any type of review
• More precise definition:  Published materials that provide an examination of published literature . Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness.
• Identifies gaps in research, explains importance of topic, hypothesizes future work, etc.
• Usually written as part of a larger work like a journal article or dissertation

SCOPING REVIEW

• Conducted to address broad research questions with the goal of understanding the extent of research that has been conducted.
• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) 
• Doesn't assess the quality of the literature gathered (i.e. presence of literature on a topic shouldn’t be conflated w/ the quality of that literature)

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

• Common in the health sciences
• Goal: collect all literature that meets specific criteria (methodology, population, treatment, etc.) and then appraise its quality and synthesize it
• Follows strict protocol for literature collection, appraisal and synthesis
• Typically performed by research teams 
• Takes 12-18 months to complete
• Often written as a stand alone work

META-ANALYSIS

• Goes one step further than a systematic review by statistically combining the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. 
• Evidence Synthesis Guide Learn more about Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Umbrella Reviews, Meta-Analyses

Attribution

Thanks to Librarian Jamie Niehof at the University of Michigan for providing permission to reuse and remix this Literature Reviews guide.

Evidence Synthesis Guide

• Evidence Synthesis Guide Learn more about Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Umbrella Reviews, and Meta-Analyses

Which Review is Right for You?

The  Right Review tool  has questions about your lit review process and plans. It offers a qualitative and quantitative option. At completion, you are given a lit review type recommendation.

More Review Types

This article by Sutton & Booth (2019) explores 48 distinct types of Literature Reviews:

• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 3:50 PM
• URL: https://info.library.okstate.edu/literaturereviews

A Systematic Literature Review of Substance-Use Prevention Programs Amongst Refugee Youth

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 09 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elijah Aleer 1 ,
• Khorshed Alam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2232-0745 2 &
• Afzalur Rashid   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-1757 1  

This paper aims at exploring existing literature on substance use prevention programs, focusing on refugee youth. A comprehensive search for relevant articles was conducted on Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCOhost Megafile databases including Academic Search Ultimate, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL with Full Text, E-Journals, Humanities Source Ultimate, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, and Sociology Source Ultimate. Initially, a total of 485 studies were retrieved; nine papers were retained for quality assessment after removing duplicates. Of the nine studies that met the inclusion criteria, only three are found to partially addressed substance use prevention programs. The two substance use prevention programs that emerge from the study are Adelante Social and Marketing Campaign (ASMC), and Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI). Six others explored protective factors and strategies for preventing substance use. The study findings show that refugee youth held negative attitudes toward institutions that provide substance use prevention programs. This review concluded that refugee youth often experience persistent substance use as they are not aware of prevention programs that may reduce the prevalence and/or severity of such misuse.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Increasingly, literature suggests that refugee youth face a heightened vulnerability to substance use, coupled with a limited awareness of substance use prevention programs. Refugees’ susceptibility to substance use is linked to adverse living conditions and maladaptive coping mechanisms (Posselt et al., 2015 ; Ramachandran et al., 2019 ; Roberts et al., 2011 ). As a result, research suggests that the prevalence of substance use amongst refugees ranges from 17 to 37% in camps and 4% to7% in the community setting (Horyniak et al., 2016a ). Another study revealed that 14.9% of men and 0.7% of women from refugee background exhibited substance use (Ramachandran et al., 2019 ). The concerning aspect of this situation lies in the fact that substance use and its associated risks are well-documented within refugee setting (Gire et al., 2019 ; Luitel et al., 2013 ), with a growing call to integrate substance use prevention programs into refugee services due to the prevalence of the phenomenon (Horyniak et al., 2016a ). Such recommendation emphasises the importance of addressing the knowledge gap on substance use prevention programs amongst the refugee youth. Research indicates that if the substance use prevention programs are not made known to those at risk individuals, it could have detrimental effects on such individuals (Bauman and Phongsavan,  1999 ). Failure to address the knowledge gap of substance use prevention programs could place, refugee youth at an increasing risk of various negative outcomes such as disorder, higher mortality, accidental injury, liver diseases, violence, dysfunctional work, and school dropout due to substance use (Ji et al., 2021 ; Kuntsche et al., 2017 ; Li et al., 2017 ; Momeñe et al., 2021 ). Hence, it is important to document the knowledge of substance use prevention programs amongst refugee youth in the literature to ensure that the groups are informed about the negative consequences.

As per this study, substance use prevention programs refer to a myriad of substance-free and medication treatments administered to assist individuals to reduce substance use (Alayan et al., 2021 ). While substance use refers to as a prolonged harmful use of any substance, which can result in problems such as non-fulfilling social roles, withdrawal and tolerance symptoms, substance use disorders and attributable to burden of disease and mortality (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ; Rehm et al., 2013 ). In this case, substances can include alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamine and other stimulants drugs, non-medical use of pharmaceutical drugs, illicit opioids including heroin, tobacco and other emerging psychoactive substances (AIHW, 2020 ). In Australia, youth refers to a person aged between 12 and 24 years (AIHW, 2021 ). Accordingly, refugee youth in this study are those between the ages of 12 and 24.

Substance Use Prevention Programs

There are several substance use prevention programs in the literature, the aim of which are to reduce harms of substance use. The last two decades have witnessed a surge in studies conducted on substance use prevention programs for different socio-demographic groups that produced information about the initiation, prevalence and associated behavioural, social, and educational outcomes (Fishbein et al., 2006 ; Gau et al., 2012 ; Gruenewald et al., 2009 ; Springer et al., 2004 ). The surge in research reaffirms that substance use prevention programs play an important role in reducing the consequences of substance use. Notably, there are several factors which permit individuals to engage in use substance. These include peer pressure, poor neighbourhood, inability to cope with difficulties, cultural norms, family history of drug use and lower level of education. Family structure and mental disorder play a vital role in initiation and maintenance of substance use (Gattamorta et al., 2017 ; Peloso et al., 2021 ). The knowledge of various factors, that induce individuals to use substances is vital as they play a significant role when designing substance use prevention programs.

Some of the known substance use prevention programs include individual and group counselling, alternative programs, and family and community interventions (Barrett et al., 1988 ; Foss-Kelly et al., 2021 ; Radoi, 2014 ). These programs are designed to influence social and psychological factors associated with the initiation and maintenance of substance use (Barrett et al., 1988 ). The social factors include peer pressure, a deviation from conventional values. Including those of one’s family, school, and religion, while the psychological characteristics include low self-esteem and an attitude of tolerance towards deviancy (Barrett et al., 1988 ; Hater et al., 1984 ; Radoi, 2014 ). Substance use prevention programs aim to approach social and psychological factors in a unique way depending on their goal and outcome. Each of the factors requires a different approach when designing a substance use prevention program. For example, the primary objective of providing counselling to young individuals who engage in substance use is to assist them in overcoming their low self-esteem and embracing the positive societal norms that are linked to such behaviour (Barrett et al., 1988 ). The effectiveness of an individual program depends on the participants’ attitude toward intervention and their outcomes (Espada et al., 2015 ). For instance, participants sometimes refuse to join the prevention program due to fear of being reported to authorities (Kvillemo et al., 2021 ).

Peer pressure is widely acknowledged as a significant source of the initiation and maintenance of substance use amongst youth. According to social learning theory, youth substance use is a consequence of peer pressures originating from their reference groups (Watkins, 2016 ). To address the substance use where such pressure is deemed to be the initiation and maintenance factor, group counselling is believed to be a key prevention program (Barrett et al., 1988 ). This is because peer relations play a powerful influence, and therefore, researchers often use group counselling rather than individual counselling to promote healthy and acceptable relationships, foster social skills, and thus to develop healthy forms of recreational activities amongst peers.

Apart from counselling, adopting alternative programs such as substance-free strategies reduce the initiation and maintenance factors of substance use. Behavioural economic theory suggests that an increase in rewarding substance-free activities can lead to a reduction in substance use (Murphy et al., 2019 ). The structured substance-free activities approach is based on the relationship between the reinforcement derived from substance-related activities to the reinforcement derived from substance-free activities (Correia et al., 2005 ). Research shows that substance use programs that are supplemented with either relaxation training or a behavioural economic session focused on increasing substance-free activities are associated with reductions in substance use (Murphy et al., 2019 ). Notably, increasing substance-free activities is suggested to be useful in substance use prevention in vulnerable youth (Andrabi et al., 2017 ).

Community, family, academic engagements, work, and religious activities play a significant role in reducing the initiation and maintenance of substance use and its related consequences. Similarly, individual and group counselling, alternative programs, and family and community interventions have also led to a reduction in the initiation and maintenance of substance use amongst youth. Research demonstrated a negative relationship between commitment to conventional values such as family, religion, and education, and substance use amongst the youth (Sussman et al., 2006 ). This evidence is supported by social bond theory, which postulates that commitment to conventional values of one’s family, religion, and school act to prevent deviant responses (Nijdam-Jones et al., 2015 ). Similarly, the Family Interaction Theory suggests that social learning, parent attachment, and intrapersonal characteristics equally discourage youth risk-taking behaviours (Ismayilova et al., 2019 ). The evidence appeared in several substance use prevention programs (Huang et al., 2014 ; Ishaak et al., 2015 ; Liddle et al., 2006 ). For instance, the Adolescent Day Treatment Program (ADTP) in Canada implements a social learning approach stressing positive support for appropriate substance, anti-social coping behaviour, and social skills (Liddle et al., 2006 ).

Some substance use prevention programs are designed to assist individuals with the development of skills and attitudes through a community approach. The approach has seen youth cessation of substance use and helped them make changes leading to substance-free lifestyles (Wade-Mdivanian et al., 2016 ). One of the substance use prevention programs, which adopts a community approach is Multidimensional Family Treatment (DFT). DFT targets the initiation and maintenance of youth substance use by addressing coping strategies, parenting practices, other family members, and interactional patterns that contribute to the continuation of substance use and related consequences (Liddle et al., 2006 ). DFT also addresses the functioning of youth and family using the social systems influencing the youth’s life such as school, work, peer networks, and the juvenile justice system (Liddle et al., 2006 ; Valente et al., 2007 ). In support of the community approach, researchers argue for the inclusion of the perspectives of community members in substance use prevention programs because they understand the unique needs of the people with whom they share a bond (Bermea et al., 2019 ). Researchers also focus the interconnected nature of their socio-environmental relationships that can facilitate advocacy for change at the community level (Bermea et al., 2019 ).

Research Gap

Despite the vast knowledge of substance use prevention programs in the literature, research on the refugee youth remains scarce. The lack of research on substance use prevention programs for refugee youth may be due to many factors. First, scholars might have ignored the severity of the issues amongst the groups. Secondly, the socio-economic benefits of the prevention programs might have been underestimated in the literature. Thirdly, the political aspect of substance use prevention programs for refugee youth might have not been thoroughly evaluated in the policy frameworks. The socio-economic benefit of substance use prevention programs underscores a pressing need to begin synthesizing evidence given the deleterious nature of substance use if it is left unmitigated. The knowledge of substance use prevention programs is significant to vulnerable groups like refugee youth because they seek assistance whenever they succumb to substance use. As a result, they will avoid the negative consequences of substance use and subsequently exploit the social benefit. Furthermore, the knowledge of substance use prevention programs can assist organisations and advocacy groups assisting refugee youth to provide them with better services.

This study aims at contributing to substance use prevention programs literature by conducting a systematic literature review to synthesize evidence on such programs, their attitudes towards the program, and amongst refugee youth to fill the gaps in knowledge and provide directions for future research.

Research Questions

The following questions are designed to achieve the aims and objectives of the systematic literature review:

What different substance use prevention programs are used to assist refugee youth with substance use?

What is the refugee youth’s attitude toward substance use prevention programs?

What are the outcomes of a substance use prevention program?

To ensure the validity and reliability of this study, systematic review guidelines are followed (Toews, 2017 ). This is because the systematic review is useful in mapping out areas of uncertainty, identifying the lack of research on a particular topic, and pointing out an area where research is needed (Rethlefsen et al., 2021 ). The systematic review method provides complete and accurate reporting, which facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted (Toews, 2017 ).

Unlike a traditional review, a systematic review uses a transparent, replicable, and scientific steps purposely to mitigate the risk of bias by conducting a comprehensive literature search and providing an audit trail of procedures, decisions, and conclusions (Caldwell and Bennett,  2020 ). The systematic review reports a reproducible search strategy that increases the reliability and validity of the study.

By following systematic review guidelines, this study will mitigate bias and increase its validity and reliability. The following steps are adopted to conduct the systematic review:

Step 1: Identifying Keywords

To synthesize the evidence of substance use prevention programs available in the literature amongst refugee youth, a database search began with a simple string of “substance use AND Prevention AND Refugee AND youth” in the library. Then other search terms were obtained using a permutation of the keywords in EBSCOhost Megafile Ultimate (Table  1 ).

Step 2: Search Strategy

In the next step, a comprehensive search for relevant articles was conducted on 12th of October 2021 on three major databases: Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCOhost Megafile databases including Academic Search Ultimate, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL with Full Text, E-Journals, Humanities Source Ultimate, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, and Sociology Source Ultimate. A total of 485 studies were retrieved following the comprehensive search of the databases (Table  2 ).

Study Selection

All the retrieved studies were exported to Endnote X9, and 199 duplicates were removed. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 286 studies were reviewed and 253 studies were excluded for not focusing on substance use prevention programs. A total of 33 studies were further screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. As a result of the exercise, 24 studies were excluded and nine were included for quality assessment. The PRISMA workflow diagram below shows the process of identifying and selecting eligible studies for this systematic review (Fig.  1 ). The data visualisation displays identified, included, and excluded papers and their explanations.

PRISMA of workflow

Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria

This systematic literature review on substance use prevention programs amongst refugee youth was conducted after adopting exclusion and inclusion criteria. To assist in the process of selecting relevant studies in this systematic literature review, studies were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the English language. Unpublished articles were excluded, and no restriction was placed on the date of publication of the studies.

Furthermore, the selection of articles was restricted to the following eligibility criteria:

Inclusion Criteria

Studies that explored substance use and prevention/reduction/treatment/intervention programs amongst refugee youth.

Studies that explored substance use amongst refugee youth included another perspective of substance use prevention programs.

Studies that investigated and reported motivation for substance use refugee youth.

Exclusion Criteria

Studies that addressed substance use but did not include any intervention.

Studies that addressed substance use prevention and never mentioned refugee youth.

Studies that addressed substance use prevention programs amongst refugees in general.

Studies that addressed immigrant youth but did not mention refugees.

Quality Assessment

The quality of studies included in the systematic literature review was evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement checklist (von Elm et al., 2007 ). This quality assessment tool is chosen for this study because to its usefulness and applicability to all studies (Vandenbroucke et al., 2014 ; von Elm et al., 2007 ). The explanation and elaboration of the different components of the STROBE provide readers with a clear understanding of the study (Vandenbroucke et al., 2014 ).

A total of twenty STROBE items from the checklist were used to assess the quality of the studies. These include 1 A. title, 1B. abstract, 2. background/rationale, 3. objective, 4. design, 5. setting, 6. eligibility of the participants, 7. variables, 8. data source/measurement, 10. study size, 13a. participant number, 14a. descriptive data, 15. outcome data, 16a. main result, 16b. Category of Continuous variable, 19. limitation, 20. interpretation, 21. generalisation, and 22. funding (items 1 A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13a, 14a, 15, 16a, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22). Each item was coded as: Y = present, N = not present, P = partially present, N/A = not applicable, and finally, the percentage of the positive judgement’s total calculation (Table  3 ). If an article’s total percentage of positive judgement is less than 50%, then it is deemed poor quality and excluded from the study.

Table  3 : Quality Assessment .

Data Extraction

Systematic reviews conduct data extraction to minimise human error and bias (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). The purpose of the data extraction is to directly link to the formulated review question and the planned assessment of the incorporated studies, providing as a visual representation and historical record of decisions made during the process, and as the data-repository for the analysis (Tranfield et al., 2003 ). Below is the data extraction table developed for this systematic literature review (Table  4 ). Data extractions contain valuable information such as title, author, findings, concepts, journal, study design, setting, population, and emerging themes.

Study Characteristics

Study objectives and designs.

The study designs include four qualitative, one ethnographic, two mixed methods, one random controlled trial, and one two-cluster sample. The studies were published in nine different journals (Table  5 ).

Study Setting and Participants

Nine peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic literature review. They were published from 2009 to 2020. Four studies were conducted in the USA, two in Australia, two in the Middle East, and one in Kenya. Participants in these studies are refugees youth from these host countries.

The findings revealed a gap in the literature about substance use prevention programs amongst refugee youth. In the nine articles that met the inclusion criteria for this study, only two substance use prevention programs emerged. The substance use prevention programs identified in the study included Adelante Social and Marketing Campaign (ASMC) and Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI).

ASMC is a community-based intervention program offered by the Advance Centre for the Advancement of Immigrant/Refugee Health in Washington, DC, USA. This is a well-known primary prevention program, which addresses risk factors for substance use and other co-occurrences amongst Latino adolescents aged 12 to 19 years in a suburb of Washington, DC (Andrade et al., 2018 ; Edberg et al., 2015 ). The study employed the 4-year Adelante primary prevention program to address risk factors for substance use and other issues amongst Latino adolescents, aged 12 to 19 years (Andrade et al., 2018 ). In the two studies, ASMC was used to investigate two distinct scenarios. Firstly, it was used to identify post contents and features that resulted in greater user engagement (Andrade et al., 2018 ). Secondly, Edberg et al. ( 2015 ) used ASMC to provide a brief description of the background for community-level health disparities intervention that aims to help close the gap. The intervention is organised in a group of one to five short psychotherapeutic sessions for substance users (Karno et al., 2021 ; Widmann et al., 2017 ). Participants engage in a standardized screening for substance use problems, receive systematic feedback on substance-related risks, and participate in a motivational intervention to reduce substance use (Saitz, 2014 ).

On the other hand, SBI is used by non-psychiatric healthcare providers for substance use prevention. The approach relies on motivational interviewing focusing on empowering patients during the intervention (Karno et al., 2021 ; Widmann et al., 2017 ). SBI was successfully used to assist refugee youth in addressing substance use issues.

Six studies explore the strategies and protective factors for substance use prevention. Giuliani et al. ( 2010 ) and McCann et al. ( 2016 ) identified protective factors that influence the cessation of substance use amongst refugee youth, including strong community support systems, family, and friends. Protective factors such as trustworthiness, confidentiality of help sources, perceived expertise of formal help sources, and increasing young people’s and parents’ substance use literacy play a vital role in reducing the initiation and maintenance of substance use. Research has shown that providing refugee youth woth counselling, ongoing case management coordination, residential detoxification programmes, and individual strategies such as self-imposed physical isolation can mitigate substance use amongst them (Horyniak et al., 2016a ; McCleary et al., 2016 ). Moreover, researchers identified protective factors including academic success, and participation in voluntary activities can assist in reducing substance use (Massad et al., 2016 ).

The findings highlight protective factors that shield refugee youth from substance-use. These protective factors included religion, positive peer pressure, health, relief, and social services (Giuliani et al., 2010 ; Khader et al., 2009 ; McCann et al., 2016 ). More importantly, connecting with substance use treatment is suggested to be one way refugee youth can reduce substance use (McCann et al., 2016 ; McCleary et al., 2016 ).

Participants’ Attitudes toward Substance use Prevention Programs

The studies that attempt to investigate the attitude of refugee youth towards substance use prevention programs have revealed mixed results. First and foremost, refugee youth demonstrated a lack of confidence in the institution that provides substance use prevention programs (Massad et al., 2016 ; McCann et al., 2016 ). For instance, refugee youth in substance use treatment expressed a sense of scepticism towards the institution that provides counselling and rehabilitation (McCann et al., 2016 ; McCleary et al., 2016 ). Other researchers found out that refugee youth’s participation in substance use treatments is not motivated and therefore they are too reluctant to seek treatment (McCann et al., 2016 ; McCleary et al., 2016 ). While other research shows that refugee youth are unaware of any local institutions to support youth with substance use problems (Massad et al., 2016 ). The refugee youth who participated in the Adelante intervention and utilise social media demonstrated a positive propensity towards engaging in more passive forms of social media usage (Andrade et al., 2018 ).

Outcomes of Substance Use Prevention Programs

ASMC showed that prevention topics were significantly associated with post-engagement behaviour, such as substance use (Andrade et al., 2018 ). ASMC also identified the inequalities that promote substance use amongst the refugee youth such as a lack of community attachment, social support and social space, isolation rather than connection, and a racialized identity (Andrade et al., 2018 ; Edberg et al., 2015 ). The study indicated lack of social space leading to refugee youth finding sanctuary in gang activities (Edberg et al., 2015 ). ASMC also indicated that the most engaging topic discussed in social media posts was substance use prevention, which accounted for 8.4% of the posts with the p-value < 0.001 (Andrade et al., 2018 ).

The outcome for SBI was significant. The findings indicate that there was a decline in the amount of time that refugee youth spent using substances as their functional time increased among refugee youth (Widmann et al., 2017 ). As a result, SBIs appear to reduce substance use to some extent.

Overview of the Findings

The study aimed to explore different substance use prevention programs, summarise refugee youth’s attitudes towards these programs and outline the outcomes of the prevention programs. This systematic literature review appeared to be the first of its kind to systematically synthesis substance use prevention programs amongst refugee youth. The findings from this study supported the hypothesis that research on substance use prevention programs amongst refugee youth is scarce. Only two substance use prevention programs were identified in the study: SBI and ASMC. Although ASMC was included in only one study on substance use prevention programs, its main objectives were to identify the activities in which refugee youth participate and to outline potential areas for intervention. ASMC did not employ strategies to reduce substance use. Moreover, most studies included in this context outlined strategies and protective factors that assist in reducing substance use and related consequences amongst refugee youth. If refugee youth adhere to protective factors such as family attachment, religion, and commitment to social norms, then there is a likelihood that they can avoid the initiation and maintenance factors of substance use. Another important strategy that emerges from this study is the need to increase refugee youth and parents’ substance use literacy. Increasing literacy can help refugee youth to understand the risk substance use can have on their health, social interactions, and economic wellbeing.

Previous studies asserted that the efficacy of substance use prevention program depends on the participants’ attitude towards intervention and its outcomes (Espada et al., 2015 ). However, what is alarming is refugee youth have a negative attitude about institutions providing substance reduction services. Although the ASMC and SBI demonstrated positive outcome, such an approach can be associated with high dropout rates and subsequently, poor outcomes in substance use prevention programs. Individuals who have confidence in professional services are more likely to seek assistance and therefore, reduce substance use.

Implication

The dearth of research on substance use prevention programs programmes may have significant ramifications, considering the substantial body of literature indicating the widespread occurrence of substance use amongst refugee youth. There exists convincing evidence that the refugee youth cohort could be at risk of substance use disorders but are not seeking help. Substance use has a debilitating impact on an individual’s health, social and economic well-being. For refugee youth not seeking assistance to reduce substance use may indicate they are suffering significant consequences on top of their challenges before and after migration.

Previous studies conducted on youth in general has identified many substance use prevention programs in the literature that can mitigate the prevalence of substance use and related consequences (Barrett et al., 1988 ). However, little is known in the literature about the extent and effectiveness of substance use prevention programs including individual and group counselling, alternative programs, and family and community interventions, applicable for refugee youth (Barrett et al., 1988 ; Foss-Kelly et al., 2021 ; Radoi, 2014 ). Researchers only indicated that refugees are aware of some substance use treatment services. There are substantial differences between being aware of a service and actively interacting and engaging with it. Therefore, it is significant for refugee youth to be aware of substance use prevention programs and seek assistance to reduce substance dependence.

Refugee youth’s lack understanding of substance use prevention programs might be compounded by their inability to seek professional help. Scholarly literature suggest that refugee youth do not seek professional help because of barriers including lack of understanding of the new health system, poor mental literacy, language problem, limited transportation and cultural differences (Posselt et al., 2014 ; Shaw et al., 2019 ). Additionally, young refugees, particularly those who are forced to flee their countries due to persecution or violence, frequently encounter substantial trauma and stress without adequate access to mental health services. The pressures encompass a dearth of livelihood opportunities, familial separation, risky journeys, and vulnerability to assault and abuse. Despite managing to escape life-threatening situations in their native countries, these youth individuals often face further prejudice and become targets of in their host countries. They frequently encounter challenges accessing appropriate services, especially when it comes to disparities in mental healthcare services caused by socio-cultural factors. While additional resources and support are necessary, it is crucial to provide culturally sensitive and customised interventions to refugee youth.

Conclusion and Future Research

In conclusion, prevention programs for substance use remain obscure despite the prevalence of substance use amongst refugee youth. The prominent finding of this review is that the majority of the investigations failed to address substance use prevention programs, as their focus was primarily on protective factors and strategies to reduce substance-use. While the study does make an attempt to address substance use prevention programs, it also incorporates other risk behaviours as well. In such investigations, it is difficult to deduce the outcome and attitudes of the participants. Future research is warranted regarding the implementation of substance use prevention programs amongst refugee youth. The findings are an indication of the need to conduct a robust substance use prevention program such as individual and group counselling, alternative programs, and family and community interventions tailored specifically to refugee youth. Furthermore, research should demonstrate the efficacy of each substance use prevention program by exploring participants’ attitudes towards intervention and measuring the outcome of the study. This can fill the gap in the literature with empirical evidence on how refugee youth participate in substance use prevention programs and maximise the benefits by reducing substance use.

It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The primary constraint lies in the study’s narrow focus on refugee youth, restricting the search to this specific keyword. Consequently, fewer articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. The study may have overlooked relevant articles that employ alternative terms such as ‘immigrant’, ‘migrant’, or ‘cultural linguistic diverse individuals’. Using broader and more inclusive terms can improve the quality of future research by redesigning the search strategy. .

AIHW (2020). Australian Institute Of Health And Welfare Retrieved from  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/alcohol/alcohol-tobacco-other-drugs-australia/contents/summary .

AIHW (2021). Australian’s Youth Retrieved from June 2022.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cws/81/australias-youth .

Alayan, N., Naal, H., Makhoul, M., Avedissian, T., Assaf, G., Talih, F., et al. (2021). Primary care screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for adolescent substance use in lebanon: A National Cross-Sectional Study. Substance Abuse: Research & Treatment, 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221821994608

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychiatric Association (2013). American psychiatric association, arlington, Va: diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Dsm–5) Retrieved from https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm .

Andrade, L., Evans, D., Barrett, N., Edberg, C., & Cleary, D. (2018). Strategies to increase latino immigrant youth engagement in health promotion using social media: Mixed-methods study. Jmir Public Health Surveill, 4 (4), E71. https://doi.org/10.2196/Publichealth.9332

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Andrabi, N., Khoddam, R., & Leventhal, A. M. (2017). Socioeconomic disparities in adolescent substance use: Role of enjoyable alternative substance-free activities. Social Science & Medicine (1982) , 176 , 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Socscimed.2016.12.032 .

Barrett, E., Simpson, D., & Lehman, K. (1988). Behavioral changes of adolescents in drug abuse intervention programs. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 44 (3), 461–473.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bauman, A., & Phongsavan, P. (1999). Epidemiology of substance use in adolescence: Prevalence, trends and policy implications. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 55 (3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00016-2

Bermea, M., Lardier, T., Forenza, B., Garcia-Reid, P., & Reid, J. (2019). Communitarianism and youth empowerment: Motivation for participation in A Community‐based substance abuse Prevention Coalition. Journal of Community Psychology , 47 (1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/Jcop.22098 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Caldwell, Y., & Bennett, T. (2020). Easy Guide to conducting a systematic review. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health , 56 (6), 853–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/Jpc.14853 .

Correia, J., Benson, T. A., & Carey, B. (2005). Decreased substance use following increases in alternative behaviors: A preliminary investigation. Addictive Behaviors, 30 (1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Addbeh.2004.04.006

Edberg, M., Cleary, S., Simmons, B., Cubilla-Batista, I., Andrade, L., & Gudger, G. (2015). Defining the ‘Community’: Applying ethnographic methods for a latino immigrant health intervention. Human Organization, 74 (1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.17730/Humo.74.1.6561p4u727582850

Espada, P., Gonzálvez, T., Lloret, D., Guillén-Riquelme, A., & Orgilés, M. (2015). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of school substance abuse prevention programs in Spain. Meta-Análisis De La Eficacia De Los Programas De Prevención Escolares Del Abuso De Sustancias En España, 27 (1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.7334/Psicothema2014.106

Fishbein, H., Hyde, C., Eldreth, D., Paschall, J., Hubal, R., & Das, A. (2006). Neurocognitive skills moderate urban male adolescents’ responses to preventive intervention materials. Drug & Alcohol Dependence , 82 (1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Drugalcdep.2005.08.008 .

Foss-Kelly, L., Generali, M., & Crowley, M. J. (2021). Making choices and reducing risk (Mcarr): School counseling primary prevention of substance use. Professional Counselor, 11 (3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.15241/Llfk.11.3.352

Gattamorta, A., Varela, A., Mccabe, E., Mena, P., & Santisteban, D. A. (2017). Psychiatric symptoms, parental attachment, and reasons for Use as correlates of heavy substance use among treatment-seeking hispanic adolescents. Substance Use & Misuse, 52 (3), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1229338

Gau, J., Stice, E., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J. (2012). Negative life events and substance use moderate cognitive behavioral adolescent depression prevention intervention. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41 (3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2011.649781

Gire, T., & Ibaishwa, R. L. (2019). Patterns of substance Use among internally displaced persons in Borno State, Nigeria. African Journal of Drug and Alcohol Studies, 18 (1), 17–30.

Google Scholar  

Giuliani, W., Mire, O., Ehrlich, C., Stigler, H., & Dubois, K. (2010). Characteristics and prevalence of Tobacco use among Somali Youth in Minnesota. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39 (6, Suppl 1), S48–S55. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Amepre.2010.09.009

Gruenewald, J., Johnson, K., Shamblen, R., Ogilvie, A., & Collins, D. (2009). Reducing adolescent use of harmful legal products: Intermediate effects of a community prevention intervention. Substance Use & Misuse, 44 (14), 2080–2098. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080902855223

Hater, J., Singh, K., & Simpson, D. (1984). Influence of family and religion on long-term outcomes among opioid addicts. Advances in Alcohol & Substance Abuse, 4 (1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1300/J251v04n01_04

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Horyniak, D., Melo, S., Farrell, M., Ojeda, D., & Strathdee, A. (2016a). Epidemiology of substance use among forced migrants: A global systematic review. Plos One, 11 (7), E0159134–E0159134. https://doi.org/10.1371/Journal.Pone.0159134

Horyniak, D., Higgs, P., Cogger, S., Dietze, P., & Bofu, T. (2016b). Heavy alcohol consumption among marginalised African Refugee Young people in Melbourne, Australia: Motivations for drinking, experiences of alcohol-related problems and strategies for managing drinking. Ethnicity & Health, 21 (3), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2015.1061105

Huang, S., Cordova, D., Estrada, Y., Brincks, M., Asfour, S., & Prado, G. (2014). An application of the complier average causal effect analysis to examine the effects of a family intervention in reducing illicit drug use among high-risk hispanic adolescents. Family Process, 53 (2), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/Famp.12068

Ishaak, F., De Vries, K., & Van Der Wolf, K. (2015). Design of study without drugs–A surinamese school-based drug-prevention program for adolescents. Bmc Public Health, 15 (1), 1046–1057. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-015-2374-1

Ismayilova, L., Terlikbayeva, A., & Rozental, Y. (2019). Computerized intervention to prevent drug use among at-risk adolescents in Central Asia: Preliminary family-level findings from a pilot mixed methods trial. International Journal of Drug Policy, 68 , 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Drugpo.2019.03.022

Ji, X., Cummings, R., Mertens, C., Wen, H., & Effinger, E. (2021). Substance use, substance use disorders, and treatment in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors—results from a national survey. Cancer (0008543x), 127 (17), 3223–3231. https://doi.org/10.1002/Cncr.33634

Karno, P., Rawson, R., Rogers, B., Spear, S., Grella, C., & Mooney, J. (2021). Effect of screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use in mental health treatment settings: A randomized controlled trial. Addiction (Abingdon England), 116 (1), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/Add.15114

Khader, A., Shaheen, Y., Turki, Y., El Awa, F., Fouad, H., & Warren, W. (2009). Tobacco use among palestine refugee students (Unrwa) aged 13–15. Preventive Medicine, 49 (1), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ypmed.2009.06.001

Kuntsche, E., Kuntsche, S., Thrul, J., & Gmel, G. (2017). Binge drinking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & Health, 32 (8), 976–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1325889

Kvillemo, P., Hiltunen, L., Demetry, Y., Carlander, K., Hansson, T., & Gripenberg, J. (2021). How to prevent alcohol and illicit drug use among students in affluent areas: A qualitative study on motivation and attitudes towards prevention. Substance Abuse Treatment Prevention & Policy, 16 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13011-021-00420-8

Li, J., Cho, B., Salvatore, E., Edenberg, J., Agrawal, A., & Chorlian, B. (2017). The impact of peer substance use and polygenic risk on trajectories of Heavy Episodic drinking across adolescence and emerging adulthood. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 41 (1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/Acer.13282

Liddle, A., Rowe, L., Gonzalez, A., Henderson, E., Dakof, A., & Greenbaum, E. (2006). ChangiNg provider practices, program environment, and improving outcomes by transporting multidimensional family therapy to an adolescent drug treatment setting. American Journal on Addictions, 15 , 102-S112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550490601003698

Luitel, P., Jordans, M., Murphy, A., Roberts, B., & Mccambridge, J. (2013). Prevalence and patterns of hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption assessed using the audit among Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. Alcohol and Alcoholism , 48 (3), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/Alcalc/Agt009 .

Massad, S. G., Shaheen, M., Karam, R., Brown, R., Glick, P., & Linnemay, S. (2016). Substance use among palestinian youth in the West Bank, Palestine: A qualitative investigation. Bmc Public Health, 16 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-016-3472-4

Mccann, V., Mugavin, J., Renzaho, A., & Lubman, I. (2016). Sub-Saharan African Migrant Youths’ help-seeking barriers and facilitators for mental health and substance use problems: A qualitative study. Bmc Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1186/S12888-016-0984-5

Mccleary, S., Shannon, J., & Cook, L. (2016). Connecting refugees to substance use treatment: A qualitative study. Social Work in Public Health, 31 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2015.1087906

Momeñe, J., Estévez, A., Pérez-García, A. M., Jiménez, J., Dolores Chávez-Vera, M., Olave, L., & Iruarrizaga, I. (2021). Substance abuse and its relationship to emotional dependence, attachment and emotional regulation in adolescents. El Consumo De Sustancias Y Su Relación Con La Dependencia Emocional El Apego Y La Regulación Emocional En Adolescentes, 37 (1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.6018/Analesps.404671

Murphy, G., Dennhardt, A., Martens, P., Borsari, B., Witkiewitz, K., & Meshesha, Z. (2019). A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention supplemented with a substance-free activity session or relaxation training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87 (7), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/Ccp0000412

Nijdam-Jones, A., Livingston, D., Verdun-Jones, S., & Brink, J. (2015). Using social bonding theory to examine ‘recovery’ in a forensic mental health hospital: A qualitative study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 25 (3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/Cbm.1918

Peloso, M., De Freitas, C., Henriques, D., De Souza Magalhães, B., Marques, S., & Lima, M. (2021). Factors associated with drug use among adolescents. Revista Ciência E Natura, 43 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460x43556

Posselt, M., Galletly, C., De Crespigny, C., & Procter, N. (2014). Mental health and drug and alcohol comorbidity in young people of refugee background: A review of the literature. Mental Health & Substance Use: Dual Diagnosis, 7 (1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17523281.2013.772914

Posselt, M., Procter, N., Galletly, C., & De Crespigny, C. (2015). Aetiology of coexisting mental health and alcohol and other drug disorders: Perspectives of refugee youth and service providers. Australian Psychologist, 50 (2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/Ap.12096

Radoi, M. (2014). Preventing drug abuse - from explanatory theories to intervention models. Scientific Annals of the ‘Al I Cuza’ University Iasi Sociology & Social Work / Analele Stiintifice Ale Universitatii ‘Al I Cuza’ Iasi Sociologie Si Asistenta Sociala , 7 (1), 116–128.

Ramachandran, A., Makhashvili, N., Javakhishvili, J., Karachevskyy, A., Kharchenko, N., Shpiker, M., Ezard, M., Fuhr, N., & Roberts, B. (2019). Alcohol use among conflict-affected persons in Ukraine: Risk factors, coping and access to mental health services. European Journal of Public Health, 29 (6), 1141–1146. https://doi.org/10.1093/Eurpub/Ckz117

Rehm, J., Marmet, S., Anderson, P., Gual, A., Kraus, L., & Nutt, J. (2013). Defining substance use disorders: Do we really need more than heavy use? Alcohol and Alcoholism, 48 (6), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/Alcalc/Agt127

Rethlefsen, L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, P., Moher, D., & Page, J. (2021). Prisma-S: An extension to the prisma statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10 (1), 39–39. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13643-020-01542-Z

Roberts, B., Felix Ocaka, K., Browne, J., Oyok, T., & Sondorp, E. (2011). Alcohol disorder amongst forcibly displaced persons in Northern Uganda. Addictive Behaviors , 36 (8), 870–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Addbeh.2011.03.006 .

Saitz, R. (2014). Screening and brief intervention for unhealthy drug use: Little or no efficacy. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5 , 121–121. https://doi.org/10.3389/Fpsyt.2014.00121

Shaw, A., Ward, P., & Pillai, V. (2019). Assessing mental health and service needs among refugees in Malaysia. International Journal of Social Welfare, 28 (1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/Ijsw.12313

Springer, F., Sale, E., Hermann, J., Sambrano, S., Kasim, R., & Nistler, M. (2004). Characteristics of effective substance abuse prevention programs for high-risk youth. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 25 (2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:Jopp.0000042388.63695.3f

Sussman, S., Skara, S., Rodriguez, Y., & Pokhrel, P. (2006). Non drug use- and drug use-specific spirituality as one-year predictors of drug use among high-risk youth. Substance Use & Misuse, 41 (13), 1801–1816. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080601006508

Toews, C. (2017). Compliance of systematic reviews in Veterinary journals with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (prisma) literature search reporting guidelines. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105 (3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.5195/Jmla.2017.246

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management , 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 .

Valente, W., Ritt-Olson, A., Stacy, A., Unger, B., Okamoto, J., & Sussman, S. (2007). Peer acceleration: Effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high-risk adolescents. Addiction (Abingdon England), 102 (11), 1804–1815. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1360-0443.2007.01992.X

Vandenbroucke, P., Von Elm, E., Altman, G., Gøtzsche, C., Mulrow, D., & Pocock, S. J. (2014). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (Strobe): Explanation and elaboration. International Journal of Surgery (London England), 12 (12), 1500–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ijsu.2014.07.014

Von Elm, D., Altman, P., Egger, P., Pocock, P., Gøtzsche, D., & Vandenbroucke, P. (2007). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (Strobe) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet (British Edition), 370 (9596), 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

Wade-Mdivanian, R., Anderson-Butcher, D., Newman, J., Ruderman, E., Smock, J., & Christie, S. (2016). Exploring the long-term impact of a positive youth development-based alcohol, tobacco and other drug prevention program. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 60 (3), 67–90.

Watkins, C. (2016). A social learning approach to prescription drug misuse among college students. Deviant Behavior, 37 (6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060799

Widmann, M., Apondi, B., Musau, A., Warsame, A. H., Isse, M., Mutiso, V., Veltrup, V., Ndetei, D., & Odenwald, M. (2017). Comorbid psychopathology and everyday functioning in a brief intervention study to reduce Khat use among somalis living in Kenya: Description of baseline multimorbidity, its effects of intervention and its moderation effects on substance use. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology: The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services, 52 (11), 1425–1434. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00127-017-1368-Y

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, School of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

Elijah Aleer & Afzalur Rashid

Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, School of Business, Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

Khorshed Alam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Elijah Aleer: study concept, developed review protocol and conceptual framework for study classification, data acquisition, extraction, analysis and interpretation of data, initial draft and critical revision of manuscript, and characteristics of studies tables. Khorshed Alam: review supervision, study concept, review protocol and conceptual framework for study classification, data acquisition, extraction, analysis and interpretation of data, draft and critical revision of manuscript. Afzalur Rashid: review supervision, peer reviewed of search strategies, data acquisition, extraction and interpretation, critical revision of protocol and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Afzalur Rashid .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical standards were followed with this research and a formal human ethics approval were not required as the data were collected from the secondary available sources.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aleer, E., Alam, K. & Rashid, A. A Systematic Literature Review of Substance-Use Prevention Programs Amongst Refugee Youth. Community Ment Health J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01267-6

Download citation

Received : 18 September 2023

Accepted : 09 March 2024

Published : 09 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01267-6

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

• Refugee youth
• Systematic literature review
• Substance use prevention programs
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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
• 10 April 2024

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

• Dalmeet Singh Chawla

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

A study suggests that researchers are using chatbots to assist with peer review. Credit: Rmedia7/Shutterstock

A study that identified buzzword adjectives that could be hallmarks of AI-written text in peer-review reports suggests that researchers are turning to ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) tools to evaluate others’ work.

The authors of the study 1 , posted on the arXiv preprint server on 11 March, examined the extent to which AI chatbots could have modified the peer reviews of conference proceedings submitted to four major computer-science meetings since the release of ChatGPT.

Their analysis suggests that up to 17% of the peer-review reports have been substantially modified by chatbots — although it’s unclear whether researchers used the tools to construct reviews from scratch or just to edit and improve written drafts.

How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing

The idea of chatbots writing referee reports for unpublished work is “very shocking” given that the tools often generate misleading or fabricated information, says Debora Weber-Wulff, a computer scientist at the HTW Berlin–University of Applied Sciences in Germany. “It’s the expectation that a human researcher looks at it,” she adds. “AI systems ‘hallucinate’, and we can’t know when they’re hallucinating and when they’re not.”

The meetings included in the study are the Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, due to be held in Vienna next month, 2023’s Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, the 2023 Conference on Robot Learning in Atlanta, Georgia, and the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing in Singapore.

Nature reached out to the organizers of all four conferences for comment, but none responded.

Buzzword search

Since its release in November 2022, ChatGPT has been used to write a number of scientific papers , in some cases even being listed as an author . Out of more than 1,600 scientists who responded to a 2023 Nature survey , nearly 30% said they had used generative AI to write papers and around 15% said they had used it for their own literature reviews and to write grant applications.

In the arXiv study, a team led by Weixin Liang, a computer scientist at Stanford University in California, developed a technique to search for AI-written text by identifying adjectives that are used more often by AI than by humans.

By comparing the use of adjectives in a total of more than 146,000 peer reviews submitted to the same conferences before and after the release of ChatGPT, the analysis found that the frequency of certain positive adjectives, such as ‘commendable’, ‘innovative’, ‘meticulous’, ‘intricate’, ‘notable’ and ‘versatile’, had increased significantly since the chatbot’s use became mainstream. The study flagged the 100 most disproportionately used adjectives.

Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers

Reviews that gave a lower rating to conference proceedings or were submitted close to the deadline, and those whose authors were least likely to respond to rebuttals from authors, were most likely to contain these adjectives, and therefore most likely to have been written by chatbots at least to some extent, the study found.

“It seems like when people have a lack of time, they tend to use ChatGPT,” says Liang.

The study also examined more than 25,000 peer reviews associated with around 10,000 manuscripts that had been accepted for publication across 15 Nature portfolio journals between 2019 and 2023, but didn’t find a spike in usage of the same adjectives since the release of ChatGPT.

A spokesperson for Springer Nature said the publisher asks peer reviewers not to upload manuscripts into generative AI tools , noting that these still have “considerable limitations” and that reviews might include sensitive or proprietary information. ( Nature’s news team is independent of its publisher.)

Springer Nature is exploring the idea of providing peer reviewers with safe AI tools to guide their evaluation, the spokesperson said.

Transparency issue

The increased prevalence of the buzzwords Liang’s study identified in post-ChatGPT reviews is “really striking”, says Andrew Gray, a bibliometrics support officer at University College London. The work inspired him to analyse the extent to which some of the same adjectives, as well as a selection of adverbs, crop up in peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2023. His findings, described in an arXiv preprint published on 25 March, show a significant increase in the use of certain terms, including ‘commendable’, ‘meticulous’ and ‘intricate’, since ChatGPT surfaced 2 . The study estimates that the authors of at least 60,000 papers published in 2023 — just over 1% of all scholarly studies published that year — used chatbots to some extent.

Gray says it’s possible peer reviewers are using chatbots only for copyediting or translation, but that a lack of transparency from authors makes it difficult to tell. “We have the signs that these things are being used,” he says, “but we don’t really understand how they’re being used.”

‘Obviously ChatGPT’ — how reviewers accused me of scientific fraud

“We do not wish to pass a value judgement or claim that the use of AI tools for reviewing papers is necessarily bad or good,” Liang says. “But we do think that for transparency and accountability, it’s important to estimate how much of that final text might be generated or modified by AI.”

Weber-Wulff doesn’t think tools such as ChatGPT should be used to any extent during peer review, and worries that the use of chatbots might be even higher in cases in which referee reports are not published. (The reviews of papers published by Nature portfolio journals used in Liang’s study were available online as part of a transparent peer-review scheme .) “Peer review has been corrupted by AI systems,” she says.

Using chatbots for peer review could also have copyright implications, Weber-Wulff adds, because it could involve giving the tools access to confidential, unpublished material. She notes that the approach of using telltale adjectives to detect potential AI activity might work well in English, but could be less effective for other languages.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01051-2

Liang, W. et al. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183 (2024).

Gray, A. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16887 (2024).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

ChatGPT can write a paper in an hour — but there are downsides

• Machine learning
• Peer review

How to break big tech’s stranglehold on AI in academia

Correspondence 09 APR 24

AI can help to tailor drugs for Africa — but Africans should lead the way

Comment 09 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Career Column 08 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Peer-replication model aims to address science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Equipment Service Technician

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Supv-Environmental Services

Biomedical technician, maintenance assistant - liquid nitrogen handling, building automation systems engineer (hvac and lighting).

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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