how to do a literature review engineering

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

NIH pay raise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

News 25 APR 24

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Career Feature 23 APR 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Editorial 24 APR 24

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Early Diagnosis and Precision Oncology of Gastrointestinal Cancers

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions within the multidisciplinary research team headed by Dr. Ajay Goel, professor and foun...

Monrovia, California

Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Goel Lab

Postdoctoral Associate- Computational Spatial Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Staff Scientist - Genetics and Genomics

Technician - senior technician in cell and molecular biology.

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 24.05.2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and supported by the Italian ...

Human Technopole

Postdoctoral Fellow

The Dubal Laboratory of Neuroscience and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) seeks postdoctoral fellows to investigate the ...

San Francisco, California

University of California, San Francsico

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

Mechanical Engineering

• Find Background Info and Properties
• Find In-depth research articles
• How to Cite
• Doing a lit review
• Biomedical Engineering
• Finding research off-campus

Tips on reading articles better

Reading a lot of articles in short period of time is tough! It's important to take breaks, and to take quick notes after each article. Otherwise it will all blend together.

See this article for advice from different STEM researchers on how they read articles: https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper

Guides to writing articles and literature reviews in STEM

For individual help with your writing, it's best to book an appointment with the Academic Help Writing Centre on campus .

• How to Write a good technical paper Short article from Concrete International magazine.

• Ten Simple Rules for writing a literature review, by Marco Pautasso (2013) A popular article published in PLoS Computational Biology.

Examples of literature reviews

If you're writing a published article or a thesis, it's always good to read different examples in your field. In a research database like Scopus or Web of Science, you can search for review articles on your topic - see the Find Articles tab. You can also see previous theses in your program. Follow this link, and modify the search to find ones from your department.

Here is an example of a review paper written by a uOttawa PhD student in civil engineering, which is structured by analytical approach.

• Example journal article with highlights This is a journal article written by two members of the School of EECS here. I have highlighted key phrases in their lit review in which they synthesize and summarize the previous literature.

Science and Engineering Librarian | Bibliothécaire spécialisé en sciences et génie

Doing a systematic review?

If you've been asked to do a systematic review , we have a guide for doing them . But another type of review might actually be better suited to your project! This chart describes different types of reviews and why you might use them.

What do your professors want in a literature review?

Whether you are doing a topic summary for a term paper, a state-of-the-art survey, or a full literature review for a thesis or article, there are some common expectations that your professors have for graduate student work. They are not looking for you to simply describe some papers that you have read on the topic, one after the other. What they do expect is:

• That you have found and thoroughly read enough papers to have a solid grasp of the particular topic. This is where it's very important to properly define your topic so you can do a good job, and do a structured database search! You should start to encounter some of the same authors and papers repeatedly as you read, indicating that you are finding the major works in this topic. For searching advice, see the Find Articles tab. You should use at least two search tools (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, etc).
• That you have understood them enough to identify major trends, methods, approaches, and differences . This takes work! You do not want to just re-phrase the abstract. See below for some tips on doing this.
• That you can communicate your own perspective and informed opinion on what is truly important - including where the current research is lacking (where there is a gap). If you are doing your own research, this is a very important part of the literature review as it justifies the rest of your project.

The process of doing a literature review

Source: North Carolina State University. (n.d.). Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students . https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Reading and note-taking efficiently

Getting started.

You want to be organized from the start when doing a literature review, especially for a project that will take a long time. 

• In a Word or Excel file, keep track of your searching - which search databases and tools you use, and paste in all the search queries you run that are useful, with parameters. In Scopus, for example, this might be ' TITLE-ABS-KEY   (   anaerobic   AND  digestion   AND  feedstock   )   AND   PUBYEAR   >   2013'. This will help you avoid duplicating work later.
• Use a citation manager program like Zotero or Mendeley, to keep track of your papers as you find them, and format citations later. See this guide for details on the programs. Save the PDFs to your computer, and attach them to the entries in your citation manager if it isn't added automatically.

Reading and Note-taking on Individual papers

When you actually read the papers that you find, most people take a staged approach to save time:

• Read the abstract fully to determine if it's actually on topic.
• If so, read the discussion and conclusion, and the figures and graphs, to figure out if the results were significant or produced interesting results.
• If so, make sure it is saved. Then read the full article, and annotate the article right away.

What does annotating mean? Take very short notes (on paper or digital) of the most important findings and/or highlight important lines in the paper. You can highlight and annotate the PDF file if you want, or in your citation manager. You don't usually need to summarize the whole article - instead focus on what is important for your research or review, and write it in your own words. This could be the

• whether the study was theoretical, experimental, numerical simulation, etc
• main theoretical approach, model, algorithms, etc
• number of test specimens or subjects
• key assumptions made that might impact its general validity
• key outcome measured, statistical significance of it, etc
• Your own comments - for example, strengths and weaknesses

Synthesizing the papers and structuring your review

Concept mapping.

One technique is to create a concept map or 'mind map' showing the relationships or groupings of the key papers on your topic, with short labels. This way, you can try out different options for how to structure your paper and see which one makes the most sense. You can do this on paper:

You can also do this digitally, using a mind-mapping website. There are some easy-to-use, free tools that are available now. Two that I have used are Coggle and Miro. You can also just sketch on paper.

Created using  Coggle.it, based on a chart in Huang, H. (2018). Methods for Rolling Element Bearing Fault Diagnosis under Constant and Time-varying Rotational Speed Conditions (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ottawa). http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-21835

Image: Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016, June 15). How to do a literature review: Citation tracing, concept saturation and results’ mind-mapping. Retrieved from http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/how-to-do-a-literature-review-citation-tracing-concept-saturation-and-results-mind-mapping/

After you have taken notes on individual articles, it can be very helpful to create a chart with key variables that seem important. Not every article will cover the same material. But there should be some common factors, and some differences between them. This chart is called a synthesis matrix.

Example of a 'synthesis matrix'

Source: University of Western Ontario Library (n.d.). “Writing your literature review”. https://guides.lib.uwo.ca/mme9642/litreview

See this blog post by researcher Raul Pacheco-Vega for another example of how he does this.

This chart can help you decide how to organize your review. If it's a very short review, some people write it chronologically - they describe how the topic evolved, one paper at a time. But if you have more than 10 papers, this is not a good approach. Instead, it is best to organize your review thematically . In this approach, you group the papers into several groups or themes, and discuss each theme in a separate section. Usually the groups are major methods of tackling the problem, or concepts, or techniques.

In each section of your paper, you introduce the theme, and then discuss and compare the papers in the group. Using this approach lets you show that you have not just read the papers, but have understood the topic as a whole, and can synthesize the literature.

For example, this paper co-authored by Ping Li , a Civil Engineering PhD graduate of uOttawa, organizes the papers into three categories: ones that used a 'traditional' approach; ones based on characterization of the soil microstructure, and ones that also incorporate soil mechanics. The strengths and weaknesses of category are discussed, and in the conclusion, the authors recommend approaches for future studies. 

You can often include a form of a synthesis chart in your paper or thesis, as a visual summary of your lit review. This is part of a chart included in a Masters' thesis in Computer Science from uOttawa.

From Le Page, S. (2019). Understanding the Phishing Ecosystem (M.Sc. Thesis, University of Ottawa). http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-23629

• << Previous: How to Cite
• Next: Biomedical Engineering >>
• Last Updated: Apr 23, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://uottawa.libguides.com/MechanicalEngineering-en

• Kelvin Smith Library
• Engineering Literature Review
• Research Guides
• Literature Search
• Record your Search
• Literature Evaluation and Analysis
• Synthesize the Literature
• Getting help

Get Online Help

• KSL Ask A Librarian Information on how to get help by email, phone, & chat.

Reminder: Online Access

• Library resources require going through CWRU Single Sign-On.
• The best method is to follow links from the library website.
• When logged in and a browser window is not closed, access should continue from resource to resource.
• Remember to close your browser when done.
• CWRU Libraries Discovery & Authentication by Brian Gray Last Updated Jan 28, 2022 139 views this year

Writing the review

As you write your review, consider these ways of expressing your ideas:

• Compare and contrast views of different authors.
• Criticize previous work.
• Highlight gaps in existing research.
• Show how your work relates to previous work.
• Identify problems, conflicts, debates, gaps.
• Define a research area in a new way.
• Question previous results.

Content of a literature review

There are two primary ways to organize and structure a literature review: chronologically or thematically.

A chronological literature review presents sources in the order of their publication.

The thematic literature review groups sources based on themes, theoretical concepts, and topics that the author consider important to their research.

A literature review should include:

• an overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration
• group sources into categories and concepts (in support or against a particular position)
• present connections between the sources
• draw conclusions about those works that make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of your subject

CWRU Libraries Discovery

• << Previous: Synthesize the Literature
• Next: Getting help >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 4:47 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.case.edu/englitreview

The Sheridan Libraries

• Engineering
• Sheridan Libraries

Literature Reviews

• How to Access Full Text
• Background: Books and Review Articles
• Articles, Conferences, Who Cited This?
• Google Scholar and Google Books
• Biomedical Engineering and Design This link opens in a new window
• Chemical Engineering This link opens in a new window
• Information Security
• LaTeX, MATLAB, Open Source, Overleaf, More
• Material Properties
• Patents and Trademarks
• Problems and Solutions
• 1. Getting a Standard -- From the Library
• 2. Getting a Standard -- From Somewhere Else
• Statistics and Data
• Technical Reports
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• Copyright This link opens in a new window
• Evaluating Information This link opens in a new window
• RefWorks Guide and Help This link opens in a new window
• Intro to Renewable Energy Engineering, EN 520.370, Fall 2023
• Organizing/Synthesizing
• Peer Review
• Ulrich's -- One More Way To Find Peer-reviewed Papers

"Literature review," "systematic literature review," "integrative literature review" -- these are terms used in different disciplines for basically the same thing -- a rigorous examination of the scholarly literature about a topic (at different levels of rigor, and with some different emphases).  

1. Our library's guide to Writing a Literature Review

2. Other helpful sites

• Writing Center at UNC (Chapel Hill) -- A very good guide about lit reviews and how to write them
• Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources (LSU, June 2011 but good; PDF) -- Planning, writing, and tips for revising your paper

3. Welch Library's list of the types of expert reviews

Doing a good job of organizing your information makes writing about it a lot easier.

You can organize your sources using a citation manager, such as refworks , or use a matrix (if you only have a few references):.

• Use Google Sheets, Word, Excel, or whatever you prefer to create a table
• The column headings should include the citation information, and the main points that you want to track, as shown

Synthesizing your information is not just summarizing it. Here are processes and examples about how to combine your sources into a good piece of writing:

• Purdue OWL's Synthesizing Sources
• Synthesizing Sources (California State University, Northridge)

Annotated Bibliography  

An "annotation" is a note or comment. An "annotated bibliography" is a "list of citations to books, articles, and [other items]. Each citation is followed by a brief...descriptive and evaluative paragraph, [whose purpose is] to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited."*

• Sage Research Methods (database) --> Empirical Research and Writing (ebook) -- Chapter 3: Doing Pre-research  
• Purdue's OWL (Online Writing Lab) includes definitions and samples of annotations  
• Cornell's guide * to writing annotated bibliographies  

* Thank you to Olin Library Reference, Research & Learning Services, Cornell University Library, Ithaca, NY, USA https://guides.library.cornell.edu/annotatedbibliography

What does "peer-reviewed" mean?

• If an article has been peer-reviewed before being published, it means that the article has been read by other people in the same field of study ("peers").
• The author's reviewers have commented on the article, not only noting typos and possible errors, but also giving a judgment about whether or not the article should be published by the journal to which it was submitted.

How do I find "peer-reviewed" materials?

• Most of the the research articles in scholarly journals are peer-reviewed.
• Many databases allow you to check a box that says "peer-reviewed," or to see which results in your list of results are from peer-reviewed sources. Some of the databases that provide this are Academic Search Ultimate, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts.

What kinds of materials are *not* peer-reviewed?

• open web pages
• most newspapers, newsletters, and news items in journals
• letters to the editor
• press releases
• columns and blogs
• book reviews
• anything in a popular magazine (e.g., Time, Newsweek, Glamour, Men's Health)

If a piece of information wasn't peer-reviewed, does that mean that I can't trust it at all?

No; sometimes you can. For example, the preprints submitted to well-known sites such as  arXiv  (mainly covering physics) and  CiteSeerX (mainly covering computer science) are probably trustworthy, as are the databases and web pages produced by entities such as the National Library of Medicine, the Smithsonian Institution, and the American Cancer Society.

Is this paper peer-reviewed? Ulrichsweb will tell you.

1) On the library home page , choose "Articles and Databases" --> "Databases" --> Ulrichsweb

2) Put in the title of the JOURNAL (not the article), in quotation marks so all the words are next to each other

3) Mouse over the black icon, and you'll see that it means "refereed" (which means peer-reviewed, because it's been looked at by referees or reviewers). This journal is not peer-reviewed, because none of the formats have a black icon next to it:

• << Previous: Evaluating Information
• Next: RefWorks Guide and Help >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 2:06 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/engineering

Engineering -- Literature Reviews: Getting Started

• Types of literature review
• Developing a research question
• Why is a literature Review Important?
• Developing your search strategy
• Finding Information
• Citing your sources

Aditi Gupta

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a study of existing published information on a specific topic. Literature reviews:

• identify key information relevant to a topic
• assess the status or quality of existing research
• critically examine support for alternative theories or arguments
• evaluate research methods used in previous studies.

A good literature review will consist of a summary of key sources, and is analytical and synthesizes information. Usually a literature review is organized, not however a chronological description of discoveries in your field, and explains how your research will address gaps in existing literature on a particular topic.

Doing a literature review. (2010). In Thomas, D. R., & Hodges, I. D. Designing and managing your research project: Core skills for social and health research (pp. 105-130). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446289044

Steps involved in taking a literature review

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.

Steps to writing a review

• Steps to writing a literature review This handy Infographic from Emerald publishing provides an overview to the various steps involved in writing a literature review.

Writing a literature review

• Next: Types of literature review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 3, 2023 2:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uvic.ca/engineering_literature_reviews

Engineering Management

• The Engineering Literature Review
• UNL Libraries Engineering Databases
• Business Sources
• Books and journals
• Project Management
• Structural Engineering
• Technical Reports, Association Papers, Directories
• Dissertations, patents and technical reports
• Tutorials and other Videos
• Certification

Planning and Completing your Research

• Building your Research Confidence This guide contains information concerning the research process including completing a literature review.

What is a Literature Review?

The literature review surveys and evaluates the relevant and related scholarship on a particular area of research or issue. It summarizes and evaluates the discussions and debate surrounding the topic, noting limitations, interpretations and approaches that support and establish the significance of your argument, research or methodology.  

• Presents a justification for your paper/research: show how your work fills a gap, or fulfills a need that has been identified by other researchers in the field.
• Informs your methodology
• Provides data that can be used to test your theories or results.
• Helps generate a new theory.

The Process

Engineering: The Literature Research Process (Arizona State University)

Literature Review Process (Case Western)

Types of Research (MBA Knowledge Base)

Types of Literature Reviews  (Univ. of Alabama Libraries)

Choosing a topic (Eastern University)

5 Quick Tips- Writing a Literature Review

How to search

Database Searching Guide: Basic Search Tools (Columbia University)

Internet and Database Searching (Excelsior College Online Writing Lab)

Boolean (and,or,not) Searching MIT Libraries

Evaluate what you find

Literature evaluation and analysis (Case Western)

Evaluating Information tip sheet (University of Wisconsin)

Synthesizing the literature (Case Western)

• Literature Review Process: Question Prompts to Gide Graduate Research Projects/ Farooq, Omer

Online Tutorials

Searching the literature:

There are many online videos and other sources which discuss conducting an effective literature review.  The following links are to selected sources.  

• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (North Carolina State University)
• Writing the Literature Review (University of Maryland) [video]
• Writing a Literature Review (UNL)
• Construction Dissertation Guide
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It (University of Toronto)
• Writing a Literature Review (Boston College)
• T hesis Writing - Reviewing the Literature (University of Wollongong)
• Writing Engineering Reports (Purdue)
• << Previous: Home
• Next: UNL Libraries Engineering Databases >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 12:45 PM
• URL: https://unl.libguides.com/c.php?g=971371

Engineering

• Find Articles
• Organizations
• Research Process
• Interactive Tutorials This link opens in a new window
• Cite Your Work
• Plagiarism This link opens in a new window
• Literature reviews
• Presenting Your Research This link opens in a new window
• Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright This link opens in a new window
• Library Use and COVID-19 This link opens in a new window

Literature Reviews in Engineering

What is a literature review.

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment ... but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries."

--Written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre and available at  http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review  (Accessed August 27th, 2019)

What is the purpose of a literature review?

Not to be confused with a book review, a  literature review  surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings, reports) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory.  Literature reviews provide a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of and background on significant literature published on a topic, as well as your own critical thinking on how these works comprise this background, and what questions remain unaddressed by the existing literature.  A literature review's purpose is to:

Place each work in the context of its contribution

Describe the relationship of each work to others under consideration

Identify new ways to interpret and shed light on any gaps in previous research

Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies

Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort (or retest previous effort to confirm or dispute it)

Point the way forward for further research

Place one's original work in the context of existing literature

The Literature Review Process:

Writing a literature review is a non-linear process. You may decide to revise your research question, find more resources and discard resources you've already found, change the way you want to structure your literature review, or how you want to address theories and ideas. Also, as you find resources on your topic, you will find that what you're writing is part of a larger conversation. There are already leading theories and a history on the topic you're pursuing and leaders who are already publishing their ideas. You'll become part of that conversation.

• Choose a topic to explore and develop a research question to focus your research. You may revise this as you go.
• Research and collect information from a variety of sources - books, journal articles, patents, conference proceedings, theses and dissertations, etc.
• Make note of those who are leading the conversation and the main theories in this field of research.
• Make a brief note for each source of information. How do your sources support or contradict your theories?
• Keep track of citations. You may want to use a citation manager such as EndNote or Zotero.
• Organize your thoughts. What do you want to say and how do you want to say it?
• Read sources more completely that fit within the scope of your research question.
• Write, revise, proof-read, and add a bibliography.

Elements of a literature review:

An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review

Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)

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, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research  

The literature review does not present new  primary  scholarship.  That comes in the section of your research that describes your experimentation (see the Research Process tab under Getting Started With Research).

• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students Created by the North Caroline State University Libraries
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It Written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto
• Tips & Tools on Literature Reviews Created by The Writing Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• "Learn How" from University of Wisconsin Clear definitions for each section of the lit review

What is a Literature Review and Why is it important?

A literature review not only summarizes the knowledge of a particular area or field of study, it also evaluates what has been done, what still needs to be done and why all of this is important to the subject.  , the stand-alone literature review:.

When a literature review stands alone, it is reviewing what is known about the topic, analyzed for trends, controversial issues, and what still needs to be studied to better understand the topic at hand. A stand-alone literature review can be as short as a few pages or may be more extensive with long bibliographies for in-depth reviews. 

• Three-dimensional display technologies for anatomical education: a literature review
• A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions
• From Bitcoin to cybersecurity: A comparative study of blockchain application and security issues

The Literature Review as a Section:

Literature reviews can be used as part of dissertations, theses, research reports, and scholarly journal articles. They generally discuss what has been done before and how the research being introduced in this document fills a gap in the field's knowledge and why it is an important.  

• Ghost driver: A field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles
• An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare

Annotated bibliographies

• What is an annotated bibliography?
• Writing an annotated bibliography
• Example annotations

WHAT IS AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY?

An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to books, articles, and documents. Each citation is followed by a brief (usually about 150 words) descriptive and evaluative paragraph, the annotation. The purpose of the annotation is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited.

ANNOTATIONS VS. ABSTRACTS

Abstracts are the purely descriptive summaries often found at the beginning of scholarly journal articles or in periodical indexes. Annotations are descriptive and critical; they may describe the author's point of view, authority, or clarity and appropriateness of expression.

Permission to use all content in the tabs on this page granted from: Olin Library Reference Research & Learning Services Cornell University Library Ithaca, NY, USA

This guide shared under a Creative Commons Commons Deed, version 2.0 regarding attribution, noncommercial use, and "Share Alike" reuse.

WRITING AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Creating an annotated bibliography calls for the application of a variety of intellectual skills: concise exposition, succinct analysis, and informed library research.

• First, locate and record citations to books, periodicals, and documents that may contain useful information and ideas on your topic. Briefly examine and review the actual items. Then choose those works that provide a variety of perspectives on your topic.
• Cite the book, article, or document using the appropriate style -- here is a page explaining and offering examples of the different major citation styles.
• Write a concise annotation that summarizes the central theme and scope of the book or article. Include one or more sentences that (a) evaluate the authority or background of the author, (b) comment on the intended audience, (c) compare or contrast this work with another you have cited, or (d) explain how this work illuminates your bibliography topic.

SAMPLE ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ENTRY FOR A JOURNAL ARTICLE

The following example uses APA style ( Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th edition, 2010)  for the journal citation:

Waite, L. J., Goldschneider, F. K., & Witsberger, C. (1986). Nonfamily living and the erosion of traditional family orientations among young adults.  American Sociological Review,   51 , 541-554. The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males. Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self-sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living.

This example uses MLA style ( MLA Handbook , 8th edition, 2016)  for the journal citation:

Waite, Linda J., et al. "Nonfamily Living and the Erosion of Traditional Family Orientations Among Young Adults."  American Sociological Review,  vol. 51, no. 4, 1986, pp. 541-554. The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males. Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self-sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living.

• Additional examples from Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab)
• << Previous: Plagiarism
• Next: Presenting Your Research >>
• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 12:10 PM
• URL: https://libraries.wichita.edu/engineering

• UWF Libraries

Electrical Engineering

• Literature Review
• Types of Sources
• Evaluating Sources

What Is A Literature Review?

Steps for conducting a lit review.

• IEEE Explore
• Other Resources
• Open Education Resources
• After Graduation

Ask A Librarian

More about the Literature Review...

Did you know the library has an entire guide to help you write a literature review?  Click the link below to learn more!

• Literature Review: Conducting & Writing by Britt McGowan Last Updated Mar 22, 2024 82268 views this year

Get Writing Help

The UWF Writing Lab can help you with grammar, proofreading, and answer questions about your paper.  For a full list of their services, look at the Lab Hours and Resources menue.

A Literature Review Is Not:

• just a summary of sources
• a grouping of broad, unrelated sources
• a compilation of  everything  that has been written on a particular topic
• literature criticism (think English) or a book review

So, what is it then?

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

1. Choose your topic, define your question

• Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you.

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? 

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

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

• Review the abstracts and conclusions carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the keywords you used and where you found them
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your citations.

5. Review the literature! This is the most time consuming part.

• 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?
• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Next: IEEE Explore >>
• Last Updated: Dec 7, 2023 9:19 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/engineering

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.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

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,

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] .

• 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.

Funding Statement

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.

Civil & Environmental Engineering

• Literature Reviews
• Citation Management
• Documenting and LaTeX
• Navigating Publishing
• Impact & Metrics
• Government, Standards & Codes
• Patents & Trademarks
• Open Resources
• Course Guides

Starting a Literature Review

If you have never completed a literature review, it can be daunting at first, or tempting to rush through without taking the steps needed to complete the review.  The main point to remember is that you are trying to summarize the current state of research in a specific area/field.  This is done by looking through different sources from different authors/research groups and then putting that information into a single document.

What can be confusing is that literature reviews will vary in length and number of references depending on the topic, field, and depth of research.  For example, a basic literature review for a graduate class might have 15-20 references while a literature review conducted for a dissertation may have 100 or more references.  It is the researcher's job to assess what is needed for their application like any other engineering project.

Finally, be sure to check out the UMD Libraries' Ethical Use of Information Guide to help you through this process!

Literature Review Steps

The basic steps of a literature review include: Search - Record - Evaluate & Analyze - Synthesize.  These can be more explicitly put into the following six steps:

1. Define your topic/research question

2. Search relevant databases, journals, and more (Search)

3. Document references found applicable to topic in a citation manager or similar (Evaluate)

4. Organize references into sub-topics (Analyze)

5. Document results through a summary of the state of research discovered via the steps above (Synthesize)

6. (Recommended) Publish your results!

Examples & Further Information

Literature Review Tips:

• Ten Simple Rules for Literature Reviews
• Avoiding Common Errors
• Case Western Reserve University Engineering Literature Reviews Overview of literature review process for engineers from another engineering school.
• Literature Reviews for Harvard Engineering Graduate Students Library resource for engineering graduate students.

Finally, check out information on systematic reviews - a growing type of scholarly review that contains more analysis as part of the review process:

• Systematic Review by Nedelina Tchangalova Last Updated Mar 4, 2024 15764 views this year
• << Previous: Research Tips & Tools
• Next: Citation Management >>
• Last Updated: Mar 11, 2024 2:38 PM
• URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/civilengineering

Engineering: The Literature Review Process

• How to Use This Guide
• 1. What is a Literature Review?
• 2. Precision vs Retrieval
• 3. Equip Your Tool Box
• 4. What to look for
• 5. Where to Look for it
• 6. How to Look for it
• 7. Keeping Current

Your TBR (To Be Read) Pile

Tips for getting through that tbr pile, how to read a research article, using a literature matrix.

• 9. Writing Tips
• 10. Checklist

You've been searching the literature gathering documents  -- lots of documents.  Your file in a citation manager for this project is bulging and if you've printed out those documents, the pile is huge.   

Here's some advice on how to manage all this reading material.  

• Tips For Getting Through Your TBR Pile
• Using a Literature Matrix 
• Set Goals Decide the date when you need to complete your reading list.   How many days away is that from today?   How many documents are in your list?  If you've got 200 articles to read and you want to accomplish that within a month, you'll need to be reading 6-7  articles each day or  about 50 each week.  
• Schedule Reading "Appointments" on Your Calendar Don't leave this up to chance. Make an appointment with yourself as often as needed - an hour or two each day, several times a week - whatever you need.   And then stick to it; don't cancel your reading time for other activities.   
• Always Have Your Reading Available You never know when you might get the "gift of time" so whether you prefer digital or print, carry the items you need to read with you.   Whether riding the bus, waiting for someone to arrive for an appointment, standing in line, or riding that exercise bike, take advantage of these short breaks to pull out the next item in your reading pile.

The following articles recommend ways to read and digest a research article ...

• Keshav, S.   How to Read a Paper .  University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada)  August 2, 2013. "The key idea is that you should read the paper in up to three passes, instead of starting at the beginning and plowing your way to the end. Each pass accomplishes specific goals and builds upon the previous pass: The first pass gives you a general idea about the paper. The second pass lets you grasp the paper’s content, but not its details. The third pass helps you understand the paper in depth."  
• Ling, Charles X. and Yang, Qiang.  Crafting Your Research Future: A guide to Successful Master’s and Ph.D. Degrees in Science & engineering . Morgan & Claypool, 2012. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering #18. Section 3.3: How to Read Papers presents advice on what parts of a journal article to read and what concepts to look for.   
• Purugganan, Mary and Hewitt, Jan.   How to Read a Scientific Article .  Rice University, Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication. 2004. "Reading a scientific article is a complex task. The worst way to approach this task is to treat it like the reading of a textbook ..."

In your review you will need to "group" the literature that you've found. As you'll see in the next section, you can group by theme, method, topic, chronology, and other issues.   To keep track of what each document says and which ones have similar information, create a literature matrix.  The matrix will consist of a table, with each row representing a specific document.  Each column in the table will represent different issues, topics, themes, etc.   Once the table is filled out and you re-sort by the different columns, the patterns in the literature will stand out.  

Here's some articles that show how to do a matrix. 

• Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix.  VCU/NCSU  
• Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources . VCU/IUPUI See the literature review grid on page 2. 
• << Previous: 7. Keeping Current
• Next: 9. Writing Tips >>
• Last updated: Jan 2, 2024 8:27 AM
• URL: https://libguides.asu.edu/engineeringlitreview

The ASU Library acknowledges the twenty-three Native Nations that have inhabited this land for centuries. Arizona State University's four campuses are located in the Salt River Valley on ancestral territories of Indigenous peoples, including the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pee Posh (Maricopa) Indian Communities, whose care and keeping of these lands allows us to be here today. ASU Library acknowledges the sovereignty of these nations and seeks to foster an environment of success and possibility for Native American students and patrons. We are advocates for the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems and research methodologies within contemporary library practice. ASU Library welcomes members of the Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh, and all Native nations to the Library.

Should I do a synthesis (i.e. literature review)?

• Questions & Quandaries
• Published: 18 April 2024

Cite this article

• H. Carrie Chen 1 ,
• Ayelet Kuper 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Jennifer Cleland 5 &
• Patricia O’Sullivan 6  

229 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of whether one should conduct a literature review or knowledge synthesis, considering the why, when, and how, as well as its potential pitfalls. The goal is to guide supervisors and students who are considering whether to embark on a literature review in education research.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Two junior colleagues come to you to ask your advice about carrying out a literature review on a particular topic. “Should they?” immediately pops into your mind, followed closely by, if yes, then what kind of literature review is appropriate? Our experience is that colleagues often come to suggest a literature review to “kick start” their research (in fact, some academic programs require them as part of degree requirements), without a full understanding of the work involved, the different types of literature review, and what type of literature review might be most suitable for their research question. In this Questions and Quandaries, we address the question of literature reviews in education research, considering the why, when, and how, as well as potential pitfalls.

First, what is meant by literature review? The term literature review has been used to refer to both a review of the literature and a knowledge synthesis (Maggio et al., 2018 ; Siddaway et al., 2019 ). For our purposes, we employ the term as commonly used to refer to a knowledge synthesis , which is a formal comprehensive review of the existing body of literature on a topic. It is a research approach that critically integrates and synthesizes available evidence from multiple studies to provide insight and allow the drawing of conclusions. It is an example of Boyer’s scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990 ). In contrast, a review of the literature is a relatively casual and expedient method for attaining a general overview of the state of knowledge on a given topic to make the argument that a new study is needed. In this interpretation, a literature review serves as a key starting point for anyone conducting research by identifying gaps in the literature, informing the study question, and situating one’s study in the field.

Whether a formal knowledge synthesis should be done depends on if a review is needed and what the rationale is for the review. The first question to consider is whether a literature review already exists. If no, is there enough literature published on the topic to warrant a review? If yes, does the previous review need updating? How long has it been since the last review and has the literature expanded so much or are there important new studies that need integrating to justify an updated review? Or were there flaws in the previous review that one intends to address with a new review? Or does one intend to address a different question than the focus of the previous review?

If the knowledge synthesis is to be done, it should be driven by a research question. What is the research question? Can it be answered by a review? What is the purpose of the synthesis? There are two main purposes for knowledge synthesis– knowledge support and decision support. Knowledge support summarizes the evidence while decision support takes additional analytical steps to allow for decision-making in particular contexts (Mays et al., 2005 ).

If the purpose is to provide knowledge support, then the question is how or what will the knowledge synthesis add to the literature? Will it establish the state of knowledge in an area, identify gaps in the literature/knowledge base, and/or map opportunities for future research? Cornett et al., performed a scoping review of the literature on professional identity, focusing on how professional identity is described, why the studies where done, and what constructs of identity were used. Their findings advanced understanding of the state of knowledge by indicating that professional identity studies were driven primarily by the desire to examine the impact of political, social and healthcare reforms and advances, and that the various constructs of professional identity across the literature could be categorized into five themes (Cornett et al., 2023 ).

If, on the other hand, the purpose of the knowledge synthesis is to provide decision support, for whom will the synthesis be relevant and how will it improve practice? Will the synthesis result in tools such as guidelines or recommendations for practitioners and policymakers? An example of a knowledge synthesis for decision support is a systematic review conducted by Spencer and colleagues to examine the validity evidence for use of the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (OSCORE) assessment tool. The authors summarized their findings with recommendations for educational practice– namely supporting the use of the OSCORE for in-the-moment entrustment decisions by frontline supervisors in surgical fields but cautioning about the limited evidence for support of its use in summative promotions decisions or non-surgical contexts (Spencer et al., 2022 ).

If a knowledge synthesis is indeed appropriate, its methodology should be informed by its research question and purpose. We do not have the space to discuss the various types of knowledge synthesis except to say that several types have been described in the literature. The five most common types in health professions education are narrative reviews, systematic reviews, umbrella reviews (meta-syntheses), scoping reviews, and realist reviews (Maggio et al., 2018 ). These represent different epistemologies, serve different review purposes, use different methods, and result in different review outcomes (Gordon, 2016 ).

Each type of review lends itself best to answering a certain type of research question. For instance, narrative reviews generally describe what is known about a topic without necessarily answering a specific empirical question (Maggio et al., 2018 ). A recent example of a narrative review focused on schoolwide wellbeing programs, describing what is known about the key characteristics and mediating factors that influence student support and identifying critical tensions around confidentiality that could make or break programs (Tan et al., 2023 ). Umbrella reviews, on the other hand, synthesize evidence from multiple reviews or meta-analyses and can illuminate agreement, inconsistencies, or evolution of evidence on a topic. For example, an umbrella review on problem-based learning highlighted the shift in research focus over time from does it work, to how does it work, to how does it work in different contexts, and pointed to directions for new research (Hung et al., 2019 ).

Practical questions for those considering a literature review include whether one has the time required and an appropriate team to conduct a high-quality knowledge synthesis. Regardless of the type of knowledge synthesis and use of quantitative or qualitative methods, all require rigorous and clear methods that allow for reproducibility. This can take time, up to 12–18 months. A high-quality knowledge synthesis also requires a team whose members have expertise not only in the content matter, but also in knowledge synthesis methodology and in literature searches (i.e. a librarian). A team with multiple reviewers with a variety of perspectives can also help manage the volume of large reviews, minimize potential biases, and strengthen the critical analysis.

Finally, a pitfall one should be careful to avoid is merely summarizing everything in the literature without critical evaluation and integration of the information. A knowledge synthesis that merely bean counts or presents a collection of unconnected information that has not been reflected upon or critically analyzed does not truly advance knowledge or decision-making. Rather, it leads us back to our original question of whether it should have been done in the first place.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (pp. 18–21). Princeton University Press.

Cornett, M., Palermo, C., & Ash, S. (2023). Professional identity research in the health professions—a scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 28 (2), 589–642.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher , 38 (7), 746–750.

Hung, W., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2019). A review to identify key perspectives in PBL meta-analyses and reviews: Trends, gaps and future research directions. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 24 , 943–957.

Maggio, L. A., Thomas, A., & Durning, S. J. (2018). Knowledge synthesis. In T. Swanwick, K. Forrest, & B. C. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, theory, and practice (pp. 457–469). Wiley.

Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , 10 (1_suppl), 6–20.

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology , 70 , 747–770.

Spencer, M., Sherbino, J., & Hatala, R. (2022). Examining the validity argument for the Ottawa Surgical Competency operating room evaluation (OSCORE): A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 27 , 659–689.

Tan, E., Frambach, J., Driessen, E., & Cleland, J. (2023). Opening the black box of school-wide student wellbeing programmes: A critical narrative review informed by activity theory. Advances in Health Sciences Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10261-8 . Epub ahead of print 02 July 2023.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA

H. Carrie Chen

Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Ayelet Kuper

Division of General Internal Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Canada

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Jennifer Cleland

University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA

Patricia O’Sullivan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Carrie Chen .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chen, H.C., Kuper, A., Cleland, J. et al. Should I do a synthesis (i.e. literature review)?. Adv in Health Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10335-1

Download citation

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10335-1

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research