Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Affiliations.

  • 1 Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany. [email protected].
  • 2 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected].
  • 3 Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected].
  • 4 College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
  • 5 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  • 6 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
  • 7 Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.
  • 8 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • 9 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • 10 Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
  • 11 Liljus ltd, London, UK.
  • 12 Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
  • 13 Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
  • PMID: 33046871
  • DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

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

  • Environment
  • Research Design
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic*

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

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

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

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

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

11k Accesses

81 Citations

388 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Conservation biology
  • Environmental impact

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

This article has been updated

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

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

challenges of literature review pdf

Change history

19 october 2020.

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

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Neal R. Haddaway

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Neal R. Haddaway & Biljana Macura

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

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

Alison Bethel

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Lynn V. Dicks

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

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

Julia Koricheva

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Gillian Petrokofsky

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

  • Andrew S. Pullin

Liljus ltd, London, UK

Sini Savilaakso

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

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

Gavin B. Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal R. Haddaway .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

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

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary table.

Examples of literature reviews and common problems identified.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 31 July 2020

Published : 12 October 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

  • Hashem Dadashpoor
  • Leyla Ghasempour

Landscape and Ecological Engineering (2024)

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

  • Toshiaki S. Jo

Hydrobiologia (2024)

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Multi-purpose Forest Management Practices on the Breeding Success of Forest Birds

  • João M. Cordeiro Pereira
  • Grzegorz Mikusiński
  • Ilse Storch

Current Forestry Reports (2024)

Parasitism in viviparous vertebrates: an overview

  • Juan J. Palacios-Marquez
  • Palestina Guevara-Fiore

Parasitology Research (2024)

Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making

  • Steven J. Cooke
  • Carly N. Cook

Environmental Evidence (2023)

Quick links

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

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

challenges of literature review pdf

LSE - Small Logo

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

Neal Haddaway

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

3 comments | 314 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

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

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

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

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

challenges of literature review pdf

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About the author

challenges of literature review pdf

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

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

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

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

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

challenges of literature review pdf

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

November 16th, 2020.

challenges of literature review pdf

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

January 18th, 2017.

challenges of literature review pdf

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

challenges of literature review pdf

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

challenges of literature review pdf

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Med Libr Assoc
  • v.109(4); 2021 Oct 1

Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report

Linda c. o'dwyer.

1 ude.nretsewhtron@reywdo-l , Head of Research and Information Services, Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

Q. Eileen Wafford

2 ude.nretsewhtron@droffaw-q , Research Librarian, Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern, Chicago, IL

Associated Data

There are no data associated with this article.

Background:

Every step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews.

Case Presentation:

This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.

Conclusions:

Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.

Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center has supported systematic reviews since 2014 with both consultation and collaboration support models. The consultation model is a one-hour meeting where the librarian provides an overview of the process and advice on the search strategy. The review team performs their own searches and other related tasks with minimal input and no expectation of coauthorship for the librarian. Under the collaboration model, the librarian assists with the protocol, search strategy development, running the searches, removing duplicate records, and creating drafts of the PRISMA diagram as well as search methods for the manuscript. Our team consists of six librarians who have coauthored over sixty published systematic and scoping reviews and have consulted on many more. The majority of our user base, made up of faculty, residents, fellows, and students, choose our full collaboration service. At any one time, Galter librarians are each working, on average, between three and seven reviews at various stages of the process. Over the last few years, we have endeavored to streamline our process, refine best practices, and improve how we collaborate and communicate with our review teams to manage the increasing popularity of our systematic review service and see more reviews completed to submission.

Every step in the systematic review process has challenges. Similar to the experience of librarians surveyed by Nicholson et al., librarians collaborating on systematic reviews at Galter regularly encounter challenges with a review team's methodology [ 1 ]. These challenges include inappropriate or unfocused research questions, resistance to multiple reviewers, grey literature exclusion, and limited information sources. Many reviewers underestimate the time commitment for completing a systematic review, resist creating a protocol, or do not actively participate with search strategy development. These challenges can result in delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete a review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly. In fact, Townsend et al. identified communication as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews [ 2 ]. This case report presents effective communication approaches employed by Galter librarians to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. Our approach to effective communication with teams is multifaceted. We employ templates, checklists, and documents from our Systematic Review Toolkit [ 3 , 4 ]. We share knowledge gained from published sources along with personal and shared experiences to teach reviewers about systematic reviews, encourage active involvement, and form productive collaborations with publishable reviews. These approaches are also applicable to other comprehensive projects such as scoping reviews.

CASE PRESENTATION

Challenge: inappropriate or unfocused review question.

A common problem we encounter at the outset of a systematic review is an overly broad review question or no explicit review question but merely a topic that could produce several more specific questions. Some questions are too narrow or easily answerable with a statistics search (e.g., incidence, prevalence). From experience with supporting many review teams, we can usually spot a tricky review question immediately, though it might require some preliminary searching to identify issues. We have several discussion points to help reviewers understand the importance of a focused review question and impact on their timeline:

  • Broad questions may not appeal to their targeted journal.
  • Broad questions produce a massive number of results that require screening.
  • Many studies may meet the inclusion criteria and require full-text screening and risk of bias assessments.

Raising these potential pitfalls often helps teams realize the impracticality of broad review questions.

We sometimes encounter questions already addressed by existing systematic reviews. Galter librarians avoid collaborating on duplicative reviews as they (a) do not contribute to scholarship and (b) will likely meet resistance during the journal submission and publication process. Teams should present reasons for duplicating an existing review, such as poor methodology of the original review or the need for an update. Alternatively, they should assure us that their review is indeed different.

We typically discuss the question in more depth using information from the library's review intake form, part of the Systematic Review Toolkit [ 3 ]. We review their population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) elements and explain how broad concepts affect the results, usually with the demonstration of a preliminary search strategy. Sometimes, we ask reviewers to outline the structure of their paper with the protocol or a draft of the paper outline with the following questions to help them think about key aspects of their manuscript:

  • How will they analyze and organize the results?
  • What kind of data will they extract from each article?
  • Will they be undertaking a meta-analysis?
  • Are there certain facets they want to address that would aid in structuring the narrative?

Thinking about this information at the start helps some reviewers focus and refine their questions. For teams committed to a broad question, we suggest that the question may be more usefully answered with a scoping review and ask them if they are willing to pursue that instead. Many reviewers are indeed willing once they learn how its methodology better suits their question.

Challenge: Resistance to using more than one reviewer

While each project should have, at minimum, two independent reviewers assessing all articles throughout the process, researchers in a hurry or with limited support may wish to forego this step.

Resistance to using more than one reviewer offers the opportunity to emphasize the importance of multiple reviewers independently screening titles, abstracts, and full text; extracting data; and assessing quality to minimize bias [ 5 ]. Systematic reviews are top-level evidence precisely because review teams apply rigorous methods aimed at minimizing bias. We also inform reviewers that the use of a single author will likely set off alarm bells with peer reviewers during journal submission. Knowing that taking this shortcut may place the acceptance of their manuscript in jeopardy reinforces the importance of using more than one reviewer.

Challenge: Underestimating the time commitment

Many teams underestimate the time required to complete a systematic review. Reviewers should understand systematic reviews are long-term projects that may take between six and eighteen months to complete [ 6 – 8 ]. Resources such as the systematic review process diagram illustrated by Tsafnat et al., found in our Systematic Review Toolkit, help us communicate estimated time requirements for each step of a review [ 3 , 9 ]. While we do not systematically track librarians' time spent on systematic reviews (though we plan to do so in future), we plan for two to four weeks to develop the search strategy, which relies on teams' responsiveness to emails and questions; seven to ten days to search the various databases; and three to four days to remove duplicate results. We present estimated screening times of twenty to thirty minutes for every 200 records to thirty to sixty seconds per citation so teams can project the hours necessary to complete the title and abstract screening. We talk about the need to allot time to full text retrieval, full text screening, data extraction, data synthesis, including quality assessment, and the final write up. We also review the time commitment to update searches before the submission and the need to reemploy the screening and analysis steps for any new results as peer reviewers may return or reject manuscripts due to outdated searches. Additionally, peer reviewers might identify a relevant article published between the time we performed the original search and submitted the manuscript. Upon clarifying the steps and time commitments, we ask if the projected timeline works for the group. Teams with tighter deadlines may opt for the consultant model or no library support.

Challenge: Resistance to inclusion of grey literature

We have worked with many teams hesitant to incorporate grey literature in their review. Many reviewers are unfamiliar with the term grey literature , so we explain grey literature sources and reference our Systematic Reviews guide, which is part of the toolkit [ 10 ]. This guide lists various sources of grey literature including bibliographic databases like Embase and Scopus and online platforms such as the New York Academy of Medicine, OpenGrey, MedNar, and ClinicalTrials.gov . We take responsibility for learning about different sources of grey literature and making recommendations that are appropriate for each research question.

We maintain open and honest communication by explaining the pros and cons of grey literature. The inclusion of grey literature will increase the number of records to review but may yield few relevant studies for analysis. It also requires more time-intensive methods to find and screen it; however, its inclusion produces a fuller picture by minimizing publication bias [ 11 , 12 ]. To get buy-in from reviewers, we involve them from the start by asking for key societies, websites, and resources in their field on our intake form. In our experience, manuscripts have a better chance of journal acceptance if authors exhaust every resource. For reviewers unwilling to include grey literature, we suggest noting the exclusion of grey literature as a potential limitation in the manuscript.

Challenge: Inappropriate database selections and preferences

When it comes to the number of databases to search, reviewers usually either 1) want us to restrict the search to a limited number of databases or 2) suggest every database with any possible connection to their topic, usually drawn from another systematic review. We explain how a more targeted approach will likely yield more conclusive results than an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink strategy. Posey et al. found searching three of the major bibliographic databases would capture 97–100% of the eligible studies in their analysis of ninety-seven systematic reviews that collectively searched fifty-seven sources [ 13 ]. Furthermore, the Cochrane Collaboration recommends at a minimum to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for clinical trials [ 12 ]. For teams who would like to limit to MEDLINE, we go over the benefits of additional sources, especially grey literature to reduce bias.

We want teams to understand how these database selections can produce a comprehensive review and reduce the likelihood of a request for revisions or rejection from a journal's editors for database selection. After our discussion and an outline of our recommendations, taking into account redundancy, time, and efficiency, reviewers are usually willing to defer to our experience with database selection. We then refine and confirm the final list of databases with the team.

Challenge: Resistance to protocol creation and development

We periodically encounter resistance to development of a protocol. In our conversations with review teams, we convey the importance of a protocol as a tool to plan the review and address potential challenges early in the collaboration. The PRISMA checklist also requires protocol registration information [ 14 ]. The protocol should be in place prior to the start of the project as this aligns with the goals of the systematic review process to minimize bias. However, reviewers have time to work on their protocol because PROSPERO, the systematic reviews protocols registry, permits protocol registration up to the data extraction stage. This allows some latitude to change the protocol after, for example, the pilot screen. By the time a pilot screen is complete, the final inclusion and exclusion criteria should be set. Journal editors reviewing the submitted review usually require evidence of a prepublished protocol, so authors should be able to point to the location of a published protocol [ 12 , 14 ].

At Galter Library, we operate a “ no protocol, no librarian” policy. We require teams working with Galter librarians under the collaboration model to develop and register a protocol before we proceed with the search strategy development. We discuss this requirement in the initial meeting and outline it in the Memorandum of Understanding, a document that collaborating review teams sign at the start of the project. Our Protocol Development page on the online guide includes tools to develop the protocol as well as guidance on where to deposit (e.g., PROSPERO, Open Science Framework, open access journals, or Northwestern's institutional repository). We also offer to review a team's protocol before submission and offer suggestions for revision. Explaining how the absence of a protocol may be problematic during journal peer review, the benefits of a protocol, and that our involvement is contingent on the completion of a protocol usually compels the most reluctant teams to create one.

Challenge: Difficulties with search strategy development

Development of a comprehensive search strategy can be problematic when reviewers do not understand the process, fail to provide constructive feedback, or respond to requests for input on the search terms. Search strategy development is the librarian's domain and where our expertise is most valuable. It is an iterative process reliant on ongoing communication between the team and librarian [ 15 ]. To promote and improve this interaction, we help teams understand the components of a comprehensive search, including the role of keywords, subject headings, and Boolean and proximity operators. We work with them to generate a list of candidate search terms, which involves ensuring each term in the search strategy is as targeted as possible while still not missing any potentially relevant terminology.

We ask questions such as:

  • Are there additional terms for each PICO component?
  • Can we eliminate a term without harming the integrity of the review?
  • Do they see potentially useful articles in the preliminary PubMed search after the addition of a suggested term?
  • Which terms are bringing in the majority of the literature and are they truly adding to the search?
  • Do we need to explode a MeSH term and each term below the subject heading?

Upon checking for search terms that may bring in substantive numbers of irrelevant results without contributing to the search's quality, we run searches with and without those terms and ask our teams to check a set of results with the problematic terms alone.

The inclusion of word variants, synonyms, alterative drug names, and other relevant terms often results in larger search numbers than a reviewer is expecting. Teams may insist on removing certain terms, sometimes against our recommendation. At this point, we may decide the removal of the terms damage the integrity of the review as well as the search strategy and offer to provide consult-level support so reviewers can take the search in a direction in which they are comfortable.

Challenge: Resistance to librarian coauthorship

Some teams resist adding the librarian as a coauthor; however, our support will invariably meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' standards for coauthorship [ 16 ]. We use the initial consultation to discuss Galter's two-tier support model of one-off consultation versus full collaboration so reviewers understand the depth of our contribution. For teams that elect or revert to the consultation model, we communicate the limits of our contribution as consultants. Some librarians at Galter review each step of the systematic review process using Tsafnat et al.'s diagram from the Systematic Review Toolkit [ 9 ]. Outlining the services now on the reviewers' to-do list instead of the librarian's illustrates how much we help when teams use the full-service, collaborative model.

We explicitly ask about authorship attribution at the start of the project on the intake form and on the Memorandum of Understanding found in the Systematic Review Toolkit [ 3 ]. In our experience, it is rare for potential reviewers to refuse to list us as a coauthor. However, Galter's policy is to offer consultation services rather than the full collaboration for teams that decline to acknowledge the librarian as coauthors.

Challenge: Unresolved or ongoing issues

When our communication proves ineffective and a challenge stymies progress or compromises quality, we exercise the right to remove ourselves from the review. Exiting a review gracefully can be tricky and uncomfortable. A strategy that we have employed effectively is as follows: 1) thank the team for their input, 2) describe the process/policy where there is an issue and include a brief rationale or supporting documents, and 3) provide alternative options. Using this approach, we may communicate the following to a team that does not submit a completed protocol:

Thank you for your input. As per Galter's policy, I am only able to move forward with the review if the protocol is complete and adheres to the PRISMA-P statement. Attached are documents to help the team develop the protocol. I understand that Galter Library's parameters for supporting teams under the full-collaboration/librarian as coauthor model may not work for every team's timeline or workflow. Our consultation model is more flexible and accommodates different workflows.

Fortunately, we rarely have to exit a review, and it only happens after consultation with a librarian supervisor.

Effective communication with review teams, identified as both a constant challenge and a required competency for librarians in previous studies, keeps systematic review projects moving forward [ 1 , 2 ]. This case report explores effective communication approaches used by librarians at Galter Library to meet challenges from reviewers with limited knowledge of the systematic review process, unrealistic timelines, or who may resist the inclusion of a second reviewer or grey literature. Some teams want to take short cuts with search strategy development or database selection. Alternatively, reviewers may suggest an exhaustive list of terms and databases, which will create more work for everyone involved without producing a better quality review.

We use our knowledge and experience to facilitate discussion and understanding of the process. We present facts, examples, action items, and questions to engage the reviewers. We supplement our conversations with tools from the Systematic Review Toolkit, such as the intake form with a team's PICO details, Tsafnat et al.'s flow diagram, and the Memorandum of Understanding with information about each party's responsibilities. The Systematic Reviews Guide with descriptions of the process and support models is a great reference tool, especially when we need to address authorship [ 10 ].

Our approach to communicating with review teams is a work in progress. Our monthly Systematic Review Working Group meetings help us improve our communication and overcome obstacles through sharing experiences, receiving feedback, and learning about different communication styles. Every library, institution, and user base is different, so our approach may not work in every environment. The techniques covered in this case study help minimize misunderstandings, educate reviewers, and usually lead to successful collaborations for librarians at Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center. Any librarian who collaborates on systematic reviews can adapt and employ these techniques as they meet the many challenges of working with review teams.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are thankful to the library's Systematic Review Working Group for their input.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

A GUIDE TO LITERATURE REVIEW

Profile image of selorm kuffour

A literature review must be coherent, systematic and clear. The review of literature must stick to answering the research question and also there must be a justification of every argument using extracts and illustrations. It is essential that all sources used in the literature review are properly recorded and referenced appropriately to avoid the incidence of plagiarism. Finally the work must be proof-read. It is also worth noting that literature review is not producing a list of items. Also it is essential that the contents of the literature to be reviewed are well read and also spelling mistakes or wrong dates of publication are avoided.

Related Papers

HUMANUS DISCOURSE

Humanus Discourse

The importance of literature review in academic writing of different categories, levels, and purposes cannot be overemphasized. The literature review establishes both the relevance and justifies why new research is relevant. It is through a literature review that a gap would be established, and which the new research would fix. Once the literature review sits properly in the research work, the objectives/research questions naturally fall into their proper perspective. Invariably, other chapters of the research work would be impacted as well. In most instances, scanning through literature also provides you with the need and justification for your research and may also well leave a hint for further research. Literature review in most instances exposes a researcher to the right methodology to use. The literature review is the nucleus of a research work that might when gotten right spotlights a work and can as well derail a research work when done wrongly. This paper seeks to unveil the practical guides to writing a literature review, from purpose, and components to tips. It follows through the exposition of secondary literature. It exposes the challenges in writing a literature review and at the same time recommended tips that when followed will impact the writing of the literature review.

challenges of literature review pdf

yakubu nawati

Rebekka Tunombili

Amanda Bolderston

A literature review can be an informative, critical, and useful synthesis of a particular topic. It can identify what is known (and unknown) in the subject area, identify areas of controversy or debate, and help formulate questions that need further research. There are several commonly used formats for literature reviews, including systematic reviews conducted as primary research projects; reviews written as an introduction and foundation for a research study, such as a thesis or dissertation; and reviews as secondary data analysis research projects. Regardless of the type, a good review is characterized by the author’s efforts to evaluate and critically analyze the relevant work in the field. Published reviews can be invaluable, because they collect and disseminate evidence from diverse sources and disciplines to inform professional practice on a particular topic. This directed reading will introduce the learner to the process of conducting and writing their own literature review.

• Learning outcomes • The nature of a literature review • Identifying the main subject and themes • Reviewing previous research • Emphasizing leading research studies • Exploring trends in the literature • Summarizing key ideas in a subject area • Summary A literature review is usually regarded as being an essential part of student projects, research studies and dissertations. This chapter examines the reasons for the importance of the literature review, and the things which it tries to achieve. It also explores the main strategies which you can use to write a good literature review.

Meriel Louise Anne Villamil

tecnico emergencias

Learning how to effectively write a literature review is a critical tool for success for an academic, and perhaps even professional career. Being able to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic not only demonstrates having a good grasp on available information for a topic, but it also assists in the learning process. Although literature reviews are important for one's academic career, they are often misunderstood and underdeveloped. This article is intended to provide both undergraduate and graduate students in the criminal justice field specifically, and social sciences more generally, skills and perspectives on how to develop and/or strengthen their skills in writing a literature review. Included in this discussion are foci on the structure , process, and art of writing a literature review. What is a Literature Review? In essence, a literature review is a comprehensive overview of prior research regarding a specific topic. The overview both shows the reader what is known about a topic, and what is not yet known, thereby setting up the rationale or need for a new investigation, which is what the actual study to which the literature review is attached seeks to do. Stated a bit differently (Creswell 1994, pp. 20, 21) explains: The literature in a research study accomplishes several purposes: (a) It shares with the reader the results of other studies that are closely related to the study being reported (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990. (b) It relates a study to the larger, ongoing dialog in the literature about a topic, filling in gaps and extending prior studies (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). (c) It provides a framework for establishing the importance of the study. As an overview, a well done literature review includes all of the main themes and subthemes found within the general topic chosen for the study. These themes and subthemes are usually interwoven with the methods or findings of the prior research. Also, a literature review sets the stage for and JOURNAL

Andrew Johnson

This chapter describes the process of writing a literature review and what the product should look like

Auxiliadora Padilha

Ignacio Illan Conde

RELATED PAPERS

Blucher Design Proceedings

feres khoury

alireza pirzad

Rajiv Mehta

CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water

Muhammad Yousaf

Mammal Review

Zhaoqun Zhang

Scientia in educatione

Petr Eisenmann

Jurnal Pelita Pendidikan

Anggi putri suhadi

14 th World Conference on Earthquake …

luis vasquez

Revista española de Documentación Científica

José Antonio Moreiro González

Luigi Palopoli

Ieda Parra Barbosa Rinaldi

Wendy Rodríguez

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Indian journal of medical ethics

dr vikas rajpurohit

Revista de Biología Tropical

Félix Fontal-Cazalla

hans briegel

world journal of case reports and clinical images

World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images (ISSN: 2835-1568) CODEN: USA , Josefina Principe

MCAST journal of applied research & practice

Revista Latinoamericana de Población

Eduardo Rodríguez Rocha

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism

Ambika Ashraf

Edijane Pereira Santos

James Marcum

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research

Robert West

New Phytologist

Dominique Van Der Straeten

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

IMAGES

  1. challenges faced when conducting literature review

    challenges of literature review pdf

  2. (PDF) A study on Issues and Challenges faced by SMEs : A Literature Review

    challenges of literature review pdf

  3. (PDF) Challenges faced by management in implementing audit

    challenges of literature review pdf

  4. (PDF) Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting

    challenges of literature review pdf

  5. literature review article pdf Sample of research literature review

    challenges of literature review pdf

  6. Example of a Literature Review for a Research Paper by

    challenges of literature review pdf

VIDEO

  1. Literature Review Writing 2021: How to write a literature review FAST with example

  2. How to Write a Literature Review in 30 Minutes or Less

  3. LITERATURE REVIEW: Step by Step Guide for Writing an Effective Literature Review

  4. Literature Review

  5. How To Write A Literature Review In 3 Simple Steps (FREE Template With Examples)

  6. How to Write a Literature Review: 3 Minute Step-by-step Guide

COMMENTS

  1. (PDF) Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

    Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x Authors: Neal R Haddaway Freelance Alison Bethel University of Exeter Lynn V Dicks University of...

  2. (PDF) Literature Reviews: What are the Challenges, and how can Students

    (PDF) Literature Reviews: What are the Challenges, and how can Students and new Business Researchers be Successful? Home Economics Business Research Literature Reviews: What are the...

  3. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

    Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across …

  4. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review

    duct literature review" and "review methodology." After reviewing the first twenty pages of search results, we found a total of twenty-eight potentially relevant articles. Then, we refined our keywords. A search on Web of Science using keywords "review methodology," "literature review," and "synthesis" yielded a total of 882 ...

  5. PDF The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting

    2.1. Literature Review as a Concrete Document or Standalone Writing Output A literature review can be structured in the form of a document or schema that de-pends on key relevant sources on a topic and discussions that reflect the sources in con-versational or narrative format to improve knowledge on the subject being researched.

  6. PDF CHAPTER 3 Conducting a Literature Review

    A literature review is constructed using information from existing legitimate sources of knowledge. Identifying which sources are appropriate when writing a literature review can be puzzling. Furthermore, knowing where the sources can be found is sometimes challeng-ing. What to do with the sources once they are gathered is a common source of ...

  7. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

    Main. The aims of literature reviews range from providing a primer for the uninitiated to summarizing the evidence for decision making 1. Traditional approaches to literature reviews are ...

  8. (PDF) The challenges of conducting literature reviews in research

    This chapter introduces the challenges of conducting aliterature review by addressing first, what a literature review actually is and its purpose.Further, the elements of preparation,...

  9. Writing a literature review

    When writing a literature review it is important to start with a brief introduction, followed by the text broken up into subsections and conclude with a summary to bring everything together. A summary table including title, author, publication date and key findings is a useful feature to present in your review (see Table 1 for an example).

  10. PDF Literature Review and Focusing the Research

    Literature Review Uses • When writing a literature review for the purposes of planning a research study, what are some of the uses that the literature review can serve for you? • Why is a literature review especially important in areas that (a) are emerging, (b) typically have small samples (e.g., special education research), or (c) represent

  11. Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting literature

    Conducting literature review is a complicated, sometimes confusing and laborious process that beginning educational researchers, especially graduate students, often find challenging. However, in the past these challenges were hardly considered, but in more recent times they have been increasingly considered by various faculties and graduate ...

  12. 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

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

  13. Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective

    Challenge: Resistance to inclusion of grey literature. We have worked with many teams hesitant to incorporate grey literature in their review. Many reviewers are unfamiliar with the term grey literature, so we explain grey literature sources and reference our Systematic Reviews guide, which is part of the toolkit .

  14. PDF ICT in Education: A Critical Literature Review and Its Implications

    ABSTRACT. This review summarizes the relevant research on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. Specifically, it reviews studies that have touched upon the merits of ICT integration in schools, barriers or challenges encountered in the use of ICT, factors influencing successful ICT integration, in-service and ...

  15. PDF A Literature Review on The Benefits, Challenges And

    This paper provides a literature review on the use of accreditation as a quality assurance system by the public sector. The purpose of the literature review is to: a. identify the benefits and challenges usually associated with accreditation (and any empirical evidence available); b.

  16. The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in

    A forthcoming systematic review on microcredit impact and women's empowerment by Vaessen et al. (forthcoming) has managed to conduct a meta-analysis including studies that are conceptually and methodologically diverse. The challenges and limitations of doing this are discussed in Duvendack et al. (Citation 2012).

  17. (PDF) PROBLEMS OF ACADEMIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND WRITING ...

    The difficulty in understanding, reviewing and writing of literature mainly emanates from failure right from the inception to clearly identify what precisely the reviewer wants and how to go...

  18. (PDF) A GUIDE TO LITERATURE REVIEW

    2022 • Humanus Discourse The importance of literature review in academic writing of different categories, levels, and purposes cannot be overemphasized. The literature review establishes both the relevance and justifies why new research is relevant.

  19. PDF Literature Review: Supporting Struggling Readers Katherine Dudych Abstract

    and concisely, serves as the motivation for this literature review. When teaching students at varying reading levels, with specific strengths and weaknesses, teachers need to be directly attuned to individual students' needs and work to create some immediate change in an effort to increase students' engagement in their own learning.

  20. Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future

    The relationships between the technologies and learning outcomes for students and teachers have also been neglected. This systematic review study aims to understand the opportunities and challenges of AIEd by examining the literature from the last 10 years (2012-2021) using matrix coding and content analysis approaches.

  21. (PDF) Importance and Issues of Literature Review in Research

    PDF | The process of literature review in research is explained in detail with llustrations. | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

  22. PDF Benefits, Challenges, and Methods of Artificial Intelligence (AI

    2021). In another systematic literature review, variables such as design principles, interaction styles, etc. related to chatbots were included (Kuhail et al., 2023). In a systematic literature review conducted by Okonkwo and Abejide-Ade (2021), the benefits and challenges of using chatbot technologies in education as well as their use

  23. (PDF) Challenges, Issues, Barriers and Problems in Digital

    (PDF) Challenges, Issues, Barriers and Problems in Digital Transformation - Systematic Literature Review Home Digital Challenges, Issues, Barriers and Problems in Digital Transformation -...

  24. (PDF) Challenges in Restaurant Industry A Literature Review

    Challenges in Restaurant Industry A Literature Review June 2021 Authors: Purvi Munot Girish Mude MIT World Peace University, Pune , India Abstract Due to increased urbanization and modernity,...