![what should not be included in a literature review U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
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
![what should not be included in a literature review Logo of ploscomp](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/logo-ploscomp.png)
![](http://writinghelp.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
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,
![Click on image to zoom An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715443/bin/pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg)
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.
- Translation
Deciding what to Include and Exclude as you begin to write your Literature Review
By charlesworth author services.
- Charlesworth Author Services
- 06 October, 2021
Once you have completed your literature search , you can start thinking about creating a structure to best explain the literature and to link existing studies to your paper. Having a firm structure provides the foundation for laying out your discussions of the literature and/or the development of your research question(s) or hypothesis. Before that, though, you may still need to make some key decisions regarding what literature or texts should be included and excluded in your paper. This article highlights four essential considerations as you start drafting a structure for your literature review .
Comprehensiveness
There are two types of literature review : one is the literature review section within a paper and the other is a literature review synthesis paper that aims to provide a framework for future studies. For the first, a more focused review of only relevant studies would be more appropriate and useful. For the second type, however, you would usually be expected to provide a much more comprehensive review.
For a literature review section within a paper, a focused review that is more tightly related to your study will help you to build arguments more succinctly, and enable you to link existing studies to your own research more easily. If you find that the literature that is most relevant to your study still falls in large, broad categories, then breaking this section down into different, smaller subsections can be helpful for making sure the various ideas and themes are presented clearly and are easy to follow.
Level of detail
In the literature review, you should be aiming to clearly explain prior and current studies so you can better contextualise your own research within the field. However, the level of detail that you include in this section needs to be carefully considered.
If several studies are key to your paper or sound similar to your study, you may need to compare and contrast them more closely in order to differentiate them from prior studies, create connections between them or to build on existing literature.
In addition, if you need to draw from specific papers for your methodology or your theoretical framework , it is a good idea to go into slightly more detail and provide as much information as is reasonably possible, rather than assuming that the reader already knows about these studies.
However, too many detailed descriptions can be distracting and it is important to try to strike a balance between providing enough information for your reader to follow your argument without overwhelming them with too much detail. In some instances therefore, offering a summarised key message can work more effectively.
In order to better gauge the level of detail needed, go through your writing several times to sharpen your focus, ask your colleagues for feedback or engage professional editing services to check that your structure and overall narrative are clear.
Online sources and extended quotations
Sometimes, you may want to include online sources in your discussion of the literature. For example, government reports or reputable reports released by major organisations can be quite useful for helping you develop your narrative and arguments. These reports may also provide some initial evidence. However, if you do choose to use such studies, they should be engaged alongside other studies from different sources to make them more plausible.
In addition, unless really necessary, try to avoid very long or extended quotations. A better practice is to paraphrase and/or summarise the key points that you are trying to make. Drawing from your notes can be useful here and will also help to avoid potential concerns about plagiarism . Using your own words to explain complex issues or to summarise long quotations can also make reading easier for the reader.
The literature review is supposed to comprise a summary of thoughts and findings in prior or existing studies related to the topic that you are addressing in your study. Accordingly, the discussion of these studies should be as objective as possible and should not include your personal opinions, comments or even article preferences. This will help you to describe what has already been done in the field more clearly and use this review as a basis for developing your own research.
Use the above four points to help you stay on track as you write. By being very clear about what your literature review will include or exclude, you will be able to provide an effective, focused overview of existing research, upon which you can build and structure your own study .
Read next (fourth) in series: How to refer to other studies or literature in the different sections of a research paper
Read previous (second) in series: How to structure and write your literature review
Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services .
Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.
To know more about our services, visit: Our Services
Share with your colleagues
![what should not be included in a literature review cwg logo](https://www.cwauthors.com/icon/cwg-logo-two.png)
Scientific Editing Services
Sign up – stay updated.
We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts
Writing a Literature Review
![what should not be included in a literature review OWL logo](https://owl.purdue.edu/images/logos/owllogo_black.png)
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.
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
- Search for relevant literature
- Evaluate sources
- Identify themes, debates, and gaps
- Outline the structure
- Write your literature review
A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
![what should not be included in a literature review upload-your-document-ai-proofreader](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/grammar-check.webp)
Table of contents
What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.
- Quick Run-through
- Step 1 & 2
When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
- Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
- Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
- Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
- Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
- Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.
Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
![what should not be included in a literature review Literature review guide](https://www.scribbr.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Literature-review-guide.webp)
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
![what should not be included in a literature review what should not be included in a literature review](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dissertation-proofreading-service.png)
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
- Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
- Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
- Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
- Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .
Make a list of keywords
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
- Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
- Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
- Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth
Search for relevant sources
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:
- Your university’s library catalogue
- Google Scholar
- Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
- Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
- EconLit (economics)
- Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)
You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.
Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.
For each publication, ask yourself:
- What question or problem is the author addressing?
- What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
- What are the key theories, models, and methods?
- Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
- What are the results and conclusions of the study?
- How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?
Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.
Take notes and cite your sources
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
Don't submit your assignments before you do this
The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.
![what should not be included in a literature review what should not be included in a literature review](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads//2019/12/before-editing.png)
Try for free
To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
- Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
- Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
- Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
- Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
- Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
- Most research has focused on young women.
- There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
- But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.
There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
Chronological
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.
Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
Methodological
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
- Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
- Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
- Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources
Theoretical
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, you can follow these tips:
- Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
- Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
- Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
- Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts
In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.
Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.
Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Sampling methods
- Simple random sampling
- Stratified sampling
- Cluster sampling
- Likert scales
- Reproducibility
Statistics
- Null hypothesis
- Statistical power
- Probability distribution
- Effect size
- Poisson distribution
Research bias
- Optimism bias
- Cognitive bias
- Implicit bias
- Hawthorne effect
- Anchoring bias
- Explicit bias
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
- To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
- To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
- To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
- To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
- To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .
An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.
✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
![what should not be included in a literature review what should not be included in a literature review](https://cdn.paperpal.com/assets/images/paperpal_editage_logo.webp)
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
![what should not be included in a literature review literature review](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/literature-review-1170x780.jpeg)
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process.
Table of Contents
- What is the purpose of literature review?
- a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:
- b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:
- c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:
- d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:
How to write a good literature review
- Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
- Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
- Select Databases for Searches:
- Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
- Review the Literature:
- Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
- How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?
- Frequently asked questions
What is a literature review?
A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.
![what should not be included in a literature review](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/image.png)
What is the purpose of literature review?
A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2
1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge.
2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.
Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal
3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research.
4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered.
5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research.
6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature.
Literature review example
Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic.
Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:
Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies:
a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:
Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements.
b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:
Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources.
c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:
The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.
d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:
Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning.
![what should not be included in a literature review](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Banner1-2-1024x410.png)
Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!
Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements.
Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review.
- Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field.
- Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address.
- Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research.
- Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic.
- Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review.
Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria.
- Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement.
- Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic.
- Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature.
- Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps.
- Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review.
Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.
Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research.
- Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective.
- Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field.
- Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice.
- Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field.
- Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community.
![what should not be included in a literature review what is a literature review](https://pp-blog.paperpal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/blog-banner_audio-streaming.png)
Conducting a literature review
Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1
Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
- Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study.
- Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore?
Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
- Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview?
- Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region?
- Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude?
Select Databases for Searches:
- Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
- Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic.
Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
- Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques.
- Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability.
- Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references.
Review the Literature:
- Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies.
- Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research.
- Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives.
- Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions.
- Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research?
Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
- Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches.
- Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered.
- Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
- Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research.
Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!
How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?
Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.
Here’s how to use the Research feature:
- Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations.
- Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access.
- Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review.
The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.
Frequently asked questions
A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.
Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.
Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic.
Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods.
Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers. Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved. Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic. Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings. Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject. It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.
The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review: Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic. Define the scope and purpose of the literature review. State the research question or objective. Body: Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology. Critically analyze and evaluate each source. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Highlight any methodological limitations or biases. Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review. Highlight the research gap. Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.
Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows:
Annotated Bibliography | Literature Review | |
Purpose | List of citations of books, articles, and other sources with a brief description (annotation) of each source. | Comprehensive and critical analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. |
Focus | Summary and evaluation of each source, including its relevance, methodology, and key findings. | Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular subject and identifies gaps, trends, and patterns in existing literature. |
Structure | Each citation is followed by a concise paragraph (annotation) that describes the source’s content, methodology, and its contribution to the topic. | The literature review is organized thematically or chronologically and involves a synthesis of the findings from different sources to build a narrative or argument. |
Length | Typically 100-200 words | Length of literature review ranges from a few pages to several chapters |
Independence | Each source is treated separately, with less emphasis on synthesizing the information across sources. | The writer synthesizes information from multiple sources to present a cohesive overview of the topic. |
References
- Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review. Journal of criminal justice education , 24 (2), 218-234.
- Pan, M. L. (2016). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis.
- Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review. San José State University Writing Center .
Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.
Try it for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing. Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!
Related Reads:
- Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics
- How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps
- How Long Should a Chapter Be?
- How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?
6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level
Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).
- Resources Home 🏠
- Try SciSpace Copilot
- Search research papers
- Add Copilot Extension
- Try AI Detector
- Try Paraphraser
- Try Citation Generator
- April Papers
- June Papers
- July Papers
![what should not be included in a literature review SciSpace Resources](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2023/01/Scispace--600---72-px---1-.png)
How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide
![what should not be included in a literature review Deeptanshu D](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2021/08/1585503406514.jpg)
Table of Contents
A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.
Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.
Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.
![what should not be included in a literature review Perform Literature reviews using SciSpace Copilot](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2023/06/Research-methodology-using-SciSpace-Copilot-1.png)
In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.
What is a literature review?
A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.
Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:
“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.
Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”
Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.
![what should not be included in a literature review A literature review paper](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/2023/06/Literature-review.png)
A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.
As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.
What is the purpose of a literature review?
A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.
What is the importance of a literature review?
The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:
- Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
- Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
- Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
- Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
- Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
- Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area
How long should a literature review be?
Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.
Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.
Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.
What are the different types of literature reviews?
All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.
Here are the different types of literature reviews:
Argumentative review
It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.
Integrative review
It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.
Methodological review
This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question — you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.
Systematic review
This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.
Meta-analysis review
Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.
Historical review
Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.
Theoretical Review
This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.
Scoping Review
The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.
State-of-the-Art Review
The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.
Can you use the first person in a literature review?
When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."
Do you need an abstract for a literature review?
Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:
- The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
- A one-sentence thesis statement
- An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
- Summary of what you've learned
- Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
- Potential implications and future scope for research
Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review
Is a literature review written in the past tense?
Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.
How many sources for a literature review?
There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.
The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.
Quick tips on how to write a literature review
To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.
You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:
- Outline the purpose behind the literature review
- Search relevant literature
- Examine and assess the relevant resources
- Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
- Structure planning to write a good literature review
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review
As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:
- How many sources do I need to include?
- What kind of sources should I analyze?
- How much should I critically evaluate each source?
- Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
- Do I need to include any background information or definitions?
Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.
2. Search relevant literature
Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.
You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:
- Google Scholar
- Microsoft Academic
- Science.gov
Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.
Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.
3. Examine and assess the sources
It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.
While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:
- What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
- What is the definition of critical aspects?
- How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
- Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
- How relevant are the key findings of the work?
- In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
- What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
- What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?
Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.
Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.
4. Discover connections
At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.
A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:
- Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
- Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
- Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
- Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
- Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends
Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.
5. Structure planning to write a good literature review
There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.
Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.
Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.
Literature review samples
1. Standalone
2. As a section of a research paper
How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?
SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:
Find the right information
Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.
Assess credibility of papers quickly
When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.
Get the complete picture in no time
SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.
Make referring sources super easy
To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.
Final tips on how to write a literature review
A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.
We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.
Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. how to start a literature review.
• What questions do you want to answer?
• What sources do you need to answer these questions?
• What information do these sources contain?
• How can you use this information to answer your questions?
2. What to include in a literature review?
• A brief background of the problem or issue
• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue
• A description of what you will do in your project
• How this study will contribute to research on the subject
3. Why literature review is important?
The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.
4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?
To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21
5. What are the components of a literature review?
• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.
• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.
• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.
6. What are common errors in writing literature review?
• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.
• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.
• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.
• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.
7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?
• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.
• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.
• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.
• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.
• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.
8. How many sources should a literature review have?
When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.
9. Can literature review have diagrams?
• To represent an abstract idea or concept
• To explain the steps of a process or procedure
• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts
10. How old should sources be in a literature review?
Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.
11. What are the types of literature review?
• Argumentative review
• Integrative review
• Methodological review
• Systematic review
• Meta-analysis review
• Historical review
• Theoretical review
• Scoping review
• State-of-the-Art review
12. Is a literature review mandatory?
Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.
But before you go,
- Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
- Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
- Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
- Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples
You might also like
![what should not be included in a literature review Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/size/w1000/2024/02/scispace-gpt-vs-consensus-gpt.png)
Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences
![what should not be included in a literature review Nikhil Seethi](https://typeset.io/resources/content/images/size/w100/2023/11/NIKHILS.png)
Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)
Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library
- Collections
- Research Help
YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
- Biomedical Databases
- Global (Public Health) Databases
- Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
- Grey Literature
- Trials Registers
- Data and Statistics
- Public Policy
- Google Tips
- Recommended Books
- Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
What is a literature review?
A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.
Why is it important?
A literature review is important because it:
- Explains the background of research on a topic.
- Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
- Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
- Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
- Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
- Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.
APA7 Style resources
APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers
1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.
Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.
- Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
- Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
- If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.
2. Decide on the scope of your review
How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?
- This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?
![](http://writinghelp.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.
Make a list of the databases you will search.
Where to find databases:
- use the tabs on this guide
- Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
- More on the Medical Library web page
- ... and more on the Yale University Library web page
4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.
- Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
- Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
- Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
- Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
- Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
- Ask your librarian for help at any time.
- Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.
Review the literature
Some questions to help you analyze the research:
- What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
- Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
- What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
- Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
- If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
- How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?
Tips:
- Review the abstracts carefully.
- Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
- Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
- << Previous: Recommended Books
- Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
- URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral
![what should not be included in a literature review The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill](https://writingcenter.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/346/2018/08/writingcenterlogo-oneline.png)
Literature Reviews
What this handout is about.
This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
Introduction
OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?
Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.
What is a literature review, then?
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.
A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.
But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?
The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.
Why do we write literature reviews?
Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.
Who writes these things, anyway?
Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.
Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?
If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:
- Roughly how many sources should you include?
- What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
- Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
- Should you evaluate your sources?
- Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?
Find models
Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.
Narrow your topic
There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.
Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .
And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.
Consider whether your sources are current
Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.
Strategies for writing the literature review
Find a focus.
A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.
Convey it to your reader
A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:
The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.
Consider organization
You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:
First, cover the basic categories
Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:
- Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
- Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
- Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?
Organizing the body
Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.
To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:
You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.
Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:
- Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
- By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
- By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
- Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
- Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.
Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:
- Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
- History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
- Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?
Begin composing
Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:
However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).
Use evidence
In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.
Be selective
Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.
Use quotes sparingly
Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.
Summarize and synthesize
Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.
Keep your own voice
While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.
Use caution when paraphrasing
When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .
Revise, revise, revise
Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .
Works consulted
We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.
Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.
Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.
Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.
Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.
You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Make a Gift
The Sheridan Libraries
- Write a Literature Review
- Sheridan Libraries
- Evaluate This link opens in a new window
What Will You Do Differently?
Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..
Professor, this one's for you .
Introduction
Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start. .
- VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process. (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important
- OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.
- NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.
Reports on the work of others. | Reports on original research. | |
To examine and evaluate previous literature. | To test a hypothesis and/or make an argument. May include a short literature review to introduce the subject. |
- Next: Evaluate >>
- Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
- URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review
- UConn Library
- Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
- Introduction
Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction
- Getting Started
- How to Pick a Topic
- Strategies to Find Sources
- Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
- Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
- Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
- Citation Resources
- Other Academic Writings
What are Literature Reviews?
So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. 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." Taylor, D. The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.
Goals of Literature Reviews
What are the goals of creating a Literature Review? A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:
- To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
- To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
- Identify a problem in a field of research
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews . Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.
What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?
- A research paper assigned in a course
- A thesis or dissertation
- A grant proposal
- An article intended for publication in a journal
All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.
Types of Literature Reviews
What kinds of literature reviews are written?
Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
- Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework: 10.1177/08948453211037398
Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.
- Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review: 10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w
Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.
- Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis: 10.1215/00703370-9164737
Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.
- Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis: 10.1177/05390184221113735
Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences
- UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
- << Previous: Getting Started
- Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
- Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
- URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview
![what should not be included in a literature review Creative Commons](https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/customers/757/images/by-nc.png)
The Literature Review, Part 2: What Not to Include
This blog is about what not to include in your literature review. In short, the literature review is a snapshot of the current state of research on your topic, including research on study variables and major concepts or theories of your study. The literature review also helps to support your research problem and rationalize why your study is necessary by identifying gaps in the literature and methodological weaknesses of previous studies. Below is what not to include in your literature review.
Do not include purely historical or informational material, such as information from websites. Information from reputable web sites, such as government and state sites, can be useful. But such information is typically more suitable for background or introductory sections of the dissertation. If it is necessary to include historical or informational material in your literature review, do so sparingly.
![what should not be included in a literature review request a consultation](https://www.statisticssolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/gentleman-cap-and-gown-1.png)
Discover How We Assist to Edit Your Dissertation Chapters
Aligning theoretical framework, gathering articles, synthesizing gaps, articulating a clear methodology and data plan, and writing about the theoretical and practical implications of your research are part of our comprehensive dissertation editing services.
- Bring dissertation editing expertise to chapters 1-5 in timely manner.
- Track all changes, then work with you to bring about scholarly writing.
- Ongoing support to address committee feedback, reducing revisions.
Also, be cautious about the use of books in literature reviews. Although manuscripts of academic books are often sent to external reviewers, it is difficult to be certain whether a book manuscript was peer reviewed. Different publishers have different approaches, and there are no review standards for book manuscripts. Some schools and professors allow books in literature reviews; however, a general rule of thumb is that books should be used sparingly and with a degree of caution.
Do not include extended quotations, and use direct quotes sparingly, if at all. The literature review is a synthesis and analysis of research on your topic in your own words. Most ideas can be and should be paraphrased. Professors sometimes perceive undue reliance on quotations as intellectual laziness. However, if you feel it necessary to use quotations, use them sparingly.
![what should not be included in a literature review](https://www.statisticssolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/author-tom.png)
One caveat to the above suggestions is the theoretical framework. If you have a theoretical foundation or framework section in your literature review, it may be necessary to use books and older foundational articles to explain and support theories. Theories are developed over time; consequently, it takes longer to publish on theories compared to studies. Discussion and development of theories often appear in books. However, do not use material from websites to support your theoretical framework.
Loading metrics
Open Access
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
* E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France
- Marco Pautasso
![what should not be included in a literature review PLOS](https://journals.plos.org/resource/img/logo-plos.png)
Published: July 18, 2013
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
- Reader Comments
Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America
Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .
When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.
Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.
Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience
How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:
- interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
- an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
- a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).
Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).
Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature
After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:
- keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
- keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
- use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
- define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
- do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.
The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,
- PPT PowerPoint slide
- PNG larger image
- TIFF original image
The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001
- discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
- trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
- incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.
When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:
- be thorough,
- use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
- look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.
Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading
If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.
Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.
Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write
After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.
There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .
Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest
Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.
While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.
Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent
Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:
- the major achievements in the reviewed field,
- the main areas of debate, and
- the outstanding research questions.
It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.
Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure
Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .
How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .
Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback
Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.
Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .
Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective
In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.
In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.
Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies
Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.
Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.
- 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
- 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
- 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
- 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
- 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.
How to Write a Literature Review
What is a literature review.
- What Is the Literature
- Writing the Review
A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.
This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .
The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts.
Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.
Types of Literature Reviews
There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:
- Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
- Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
- Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.
A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly.
Examples of Literature Reviews
See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences.
Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:
- Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
- Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
- Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
- Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
- Results - What was found in the course of the study
- Discussion - What do the results mean
- Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area
Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.
The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.
This article has a standard breakdown of sections:
- Introduction
- Literature Review
- Some discussion sections
First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.
This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.
- Next: What Is the Literature >>
- Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
- URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview
![what should not be included in a literature review](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/GC-Logo-Registered.png)
What Is A Literature Review?
A plain-language explainer (with examples).
By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)
If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.
Literature Review 101
- What (exactly) is a literature review
- What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
- How to find high-quality resources
- How to structure your literature review chapter
- Example of an actual literature review
What is a literature review?
The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:
Reviewing the literature
The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then summarise and catalogue these for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter.
The literature review chapter
The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an overview of the key literature that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an integrated review of the state of knowledge around your research topic.
![what-is-lit-review Starting point for the literature review](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/what-is-lit-review.png)
What’s the purpose of a literature review?
The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:
Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge
The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be more than just a summary of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next).
Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill
The second function of the literature review chapter is to show what’s currently missing from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.
Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework
The third function of the literature review is to form the basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review.
For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut!
So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework.
Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology
The fourth function of the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.
So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales.
![lit-review-webinar-2024 Free Webinar: Literature Review 101](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/lit-review-webinar-2024.png)
How do I find articles for my literature review?
Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is built on credible research .
We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the most popular pieces of research are in your field.
One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites.
Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research.
Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer.
Need a helping hand?
How should I structure my literature review?
Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.
You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.
In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .
Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.
![Blog post images (3) A good literature review should synthesise the existing research in relation to the research aims, not simply summarise it.](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/Blog-post-images-3.png)
Example of a literature review
In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.
Wrapping Up
In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review .
![course Literature Review Course](https://gradcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/course.png)
Psst… there’s more!
This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .
16 Comments
Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.
Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂
This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.
This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.
Timothy T. Chol [email protected]
Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends
This was so useful. Thank you so much.
Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.
The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff
Great Brief Explanation, thanks
So helpful to me as a student
GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!
This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!
Well-presented overview of the literature!
This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
- Print Friendly
![what should not be included in a literature review Banner](https://d2jv02qf7xgjwx.cloudfront.net/sites/1570/banner/Header_WarnerLibrary.jpg)
How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review
- Step #1: Choosing a Topic
- Step #2: Finding Information
- Step #3: Evaluating Content
- Step #4: Synthesizing Content
- #5 Writing the Review
- Citing Your Sources
WRITING THE REVIEW
You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.
The actual review generally has 5 components:
Abstract - An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:
- A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
- Your thesis statement
- A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
- Summarize your findings
- Conclusion(s) based upon your findings
Introduction : Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:
- Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
- Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
- Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope) -
Body : The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-
- Chronological - by publication or by trend
- Thematic - organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
- Methodical - the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing
You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.
Conclusion : In the conclusion, you should:
Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.
Bibliography : Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.
- Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
- Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
- << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
- Next: Citing Your Sources >>
- Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
- URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews
About the Library
- Collection Development
- Circulation Policies
- Mission Statement
- Staff Directory
Using the Library
- A to Z Journal List
- Library Catalog
- Research Guides
Interlibrary Services
- Research Help
Warner Memorial Library
![what should not be included in a literature review what should not be included in a literature review](https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/4496/images/Twitter.png)
Reference management. Clean and simple.
What is a literature review? [with examples]
![what should not be included in a literature review Literature review explained](https://cdn.paperpile.com/guides/img/what-is-literature-review-400x400.png)
What is a literature review?
The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.
A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.
In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.
If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:
- the objective of a literature review
- how to write a literature review
- the basic format of a literature review
Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.
The four main objectives of a literature review are:
- Studying the references of your research area
- Summarizing the main arguments
- Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
- Presenting all of the above in a text
Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.
The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:
- introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
- body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
- conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature
➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.
First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”
➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .
There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.
Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:
- School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
- Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
- A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]
Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.
There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.
No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”
The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.
![what should not be included in a literature review academic search engines](https://cdn.paperpile.com/guides/img/academic-search-engines-illust-400x400.png)
Libraries | Research Guides
Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.
- Planning the Review
- The Research Question
- Choosing Where to Search
- Organizing the Review
- Writing the Review
A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read.
- Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher
- Next: Planning the Review >>
- Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
- URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews
- Open access
- Published: 16 August 2024
Validity of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score for lower extremity in patients with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone undergoing bone resection and reconstruction surgery in hip and knee
- Nikolai Sherling 1 ,
- Müjgan Yilmaz 2 ,
- Christina Enciso Holm 2 ,
- Michael Mørk Petersen 2 , 3 &
- Linda Fernandes 1
BMC Cancer volume 24 , Article number: 1019 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) is widely used to evaluate functioning following surgery for bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. However, concerns have been raised about its content validity due to the lack of patient involvement during item development. Additionally, literature reports inconsistent results regarding data quality and structural validity. This study aimed to evaluate content, structural and construct validity of the Danish version of the MSTS for lower extremity (MSTS-LE).
The study included patients from three complete cohorts ( n = 87) with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone who underwent bone resection and reconstruction surgery in hip and knee. Content validity was evaluated by linking MSTS items to frameworks of functioning , core outcome sets and semi-structured interviews. Data quality, internal consistency and factor analysis were used to assess the underlying structure of the MSTS. Construct validity was based on predefined hypotheses of correlation between the MSTS and concurrent measurements.
Content validity analysis revealed concerns regarding the MSTS. The MSTS did not sufficiently cover patient-important functions, the item Emotional acceptance could not be linked to the framework of functioning , the items Pain and Emotional acceptance pertained to domains beyond functioning and items’ response options did not match items. A two-factor solution emerged, with the items Pain and Emotional acceptance loading highly on a second factor distinct from functioning . Internal consistency and construct validity showed values below accepted levels.
The Danish MSTS-LE demonstrated inadequate content validity, internal consistency, and construct validity. In addition, our analyses did not support unidimensionality of the MSTS. Consequently, the MSTS-LE is not a simple reflection of the construct of functioning and the interpretation of a sum score is problematic. Clinicians and researcher should exercise caution when relying solely on MSTS scores for assessing lower extremity function. Alternative outcome measurements of functioning should be considered for the evaluation of postoperative function in this patient group.
Peer Review reports
One commonly used outcome measurement in patients treated surgically for soft tissue or bone sarcoma is the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) [ 1 ]. The MSTS was developed to evaluate postoperative function aiming to permit comparisons of end-results from different surgical treatments [ 1 , 2 ]. To be useable, an outcome measurement should demonstrate content validity, i.e. include items important to the patient group and items relevant for the construct to be measured [ 3 ]. No study has asked patients with bone sarcoma what functions and activities in daily life they consider important and compared that to the MSTS. Additionally, the construct of the MSTS has not been compared to established frameworks. Therefore, it is unknown whether the items of the MSTS measure functions and activities that are important to the patient group or whether they reflect the construct of functioning . Despite the lack of evidence for content validity, the MSTS for the lower extremity (MSTS-LE) has shown consistent results for construct validity, with moderate to high correlations to other measurements of functioning , for example to the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and the Short Form 36 physical function [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Conversely, the results for internal structure of the MSTS are inconsistent. Some studies have found ceiling effects for both MSTS single items and sum score [ 4 , 6 , 7 ] while others did not find ceiling effects [ 5 , 8 ]. Three studies have tested the MSTS for structural validity, with the conclusion of a one-factor solution, i.e., unidimensionality, for the MSTS [ 5 , 6 , 9 ]. However, the studies showed eigenvalues close to cut-off for a two-factor solution and all three studies showed moderate to low factor loadings for the items Pain and Emotional acceptance [ 5 , 6 , 9 ]. Based on results of low factor loadings for Pain and Emotional acceptance, one could question their reflection of functioning . If the MSTS is to be used in future research and clinical practice for the evaluation of functioning , further evidence of its ability to reflect functioning is needed.
The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the validity of the MSTS-LE, more specifically its content validity, data quality, internal consistency, structural and construct validity.
Design, inclusion, and patient characteristics
Data for this project was extracted from three cohorts including patients with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone in the lower extremity going through bone tumour resection and reconstruction with a tumour prosthesis in the hip or knee (Table 1 ). Assessments were completed once for each patient, i.e., the study design was cross-sectional. All three cohorts ( n = 87) were used for analyses of internal structure. Cohort one ( n = 30) was in addition tested for content and construct validity.
Cohort one included 30 patients enrolled from a complete cohort of 72 patients [ 10 ]. The patients had undergone surgery between 2006 and 2016 at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The included patients ( n = 30) were interviewed using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) and assessed using the MSTS and concurrent outcome measurements at mean 7 (range, 2–12) years after surgery.
Cohort two included 24 patients enrolled from a complete cohort of 50 patients [ 11 ]. The patients had undergone surgery between 1985 and 2005 at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The included patients ( n = 24) were assessed using the MSTS at mean 15 (range, 4–29) years after surgery.
Cohort three included 33 patients enrolled from a national cohort using the Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS) only as tumour prosthesis for reconstruction of bone [ 12 ]. The patients had undergone surgery between 2005 and 2013 at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Sections at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus. The included patients ( n = 33) were assessed using the MSTS at mean 5 (range, 1–11) years after surgery.
Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS)
The Danish MSTS-LE was used [ 1 , 7 ]. It comprises six items (Pain, Function, Emotional acceptance, Supports, Walking ability and Gait) and is administered by a clinician. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (worst possible score) to 5 (best possible score) [ 1 ]. The items have unique response options for 0 through 5 (Table 2 ). A sum score for the six items is calculated (maximum 30 points) and normalised to a 0–100 score.
Semi-structured interview used for the evaluation of content validity
Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is designed to identify patient-important functions and activities. It is valid for use in numerous diseases and conditions and can be administered as a semi-structured interview or as a patient reported outcome (PRO) [ 13 , 14 ]. We chose the semi-structured interview modality, carried out by a physiotherapist (LF). The patients were asked to identify up to five important functions or activities they were unable to perform or had difficulties with because of the condition. Once identified, the activities were categorised and listed. Activities that included the same type of movement were categorised into a meaningful concept [ 15 ]. For example, “walking on uneven surfaces”, “walking fast” or “walking long distances” were categorised into Walking. Sport represented any sports-related activity, for example playing golf, water polo, or swimming. Running was a separate category, as it could be either sports related or a means of moving quickly from one place to another, e.g., run to catch a bus. After identifying important activities, the patients were asked to score them for level of difficulty on a 11-point scale (0 = unable to perform the activity, 10 = able to perform activity at the same level as before surgery) [ 13 , 16 ]. For each category, the number of patients identifying the activity and the median level of difficulty was presented in a chart. Individual mean PSFS scores were also used for the evaluation of construct validity.
Concurrent outcome measurements
Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is a valid and widely used tool for the measurements of pain intensity among patients with varying conditions [ 17 , 18 ]. The patients were asked to score current pain intensity (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable).
Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) is a patient-specific PRO developed to account for the heterogeneity of functioning in patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcoma [ 19 , 20 ]. It is unidimensional and comprises 30 questions about daily tasks, work/school and leisure time [ 19 ]. Difficulties performing the activities are scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = impossible to do, 5 = not at all difficult). The total score is calculated as a percentage of the maximum score. The Danish version has shown acceptable comprehensibility, test-retest reliability and construct validity [ 21 ].
The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a multidimensional PRO measuring quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer [ 22 ]. The QLQ-C30 is widely used, shows robust psychometric properties, has population-based reference data and is translated into Danish [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. It consists of 30 questions scored on Likert scales [ 4 ]. We used the sum score and sub scores for physical functioning, emotional functioning and pain in the analyses, normalised to 0–100-points. A high sum score represents a high QoL, a high functioning score represents high levels of functioning and a high pain score represents high levels of pain [ 22 , 24 ].
30-second chair stand test (CST) assesses muscle power and strength of the lower extremity, it can predict deterioration of function and can be used in people with different diseases and ages [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. It has shown good reliability (ICC > 0.80) and a measurement error of 1 repetition [ 26 ]. The patients were asked to stand up and sit down from a 45 cm chair as many times as possible in 30 s. A standardised protocol from the Association of Danish Physiotherapists was used.
6-minute walk test (6MWT) assesses walking capacity and has been used on patients with numerous diagnoses, including bone sarcoma [ 10 , 26 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. It has shown ICCs of > 0.90 and measurement errors between 14 and 30 m [ 26 , 34 ]. The patients were asked to walk as fast as possible back and forth on a 20-meter walking track in an enclosed corridor at the hospital. A standardised protocol from the Association of Danish Physiotherapists was used.
Demographic data, PRO scorings, and physical tests were presented as number (%), mean (SD), median (range) values as appropriate for different scales. A sample size of at least five observations per item and at least 100 observations has been suggested for determining structural validity [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. We were able to include 87 patients from three complete cohorts between 1985 and 2016. The MSTS scorings had no missing data. For the data collection of concurrent measurements, there was one patient in Cohort 1 that declined physical tests (CST, 6MWT) at the hospital because of logistical reasons, and one patient had internally missing data in QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Different statistical analyses were applied for different psychometric evaluations. Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS v.29.
Content validity is defined as the degree to which the content of a PRO is an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured [ 36 , 39 ]. Since the MSTS intends to measure functioning [ 1 ], the six items and their response options should be a reflection of functioning . An international consensus for quality rating of PROs has recommend three overarching criteria for the evaluation of content validity: relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility [ 3 ]. Relevance includes an evaluation of items’ relevance for the construct and the population of interest. To evaluate items’ relevance for the construct of functioning , MSTS items were listed and, wherever possible, linked to codes of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [ 40 ]. To evaluate MSTS items’ relevance for the population of interest, we linked MSTS-items to activities identified in the PSFS. Comprehensiveness includes an evaluation of whether key concepts are included in an outcome measurement. Key concepts can be found in core outcome sets [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Since there is no specific core outcome set for patients that undergo bone sarcoma surgery, we chose to link MSTS items to key concepts defined in core outcome sets for cancer and primary total knee and hip joint replacement [ 43 , 44 ]. Comprehensibility was evaluated by linking response options of the MSTS to the ICF and PSFS. Response options should match items to meet quality standards [ 3 ]. The linking processes were done independently by two of the authors (NS, LF) following recommendations for ICF-linking of outcome measures [ 15 ].
Data quality. Missing data of individual items, central tendency, distribution of item-scoring and floor- and ceiling effects were described. Floor- and ceiling effects were defined as present if > 15% of patients scored the lowest or highest possible score, respectively [ 46 ].
Internal consistency has been defined as the degree of interrelatedness amongst the individual items [ 39 ]. The analysis requires a unidimensional scale of at least three items [ 39 ]. If our analysis of structural validity suggested > 1 dimension, internal consistency was tested separately for each dimension [ 46 ]. Inter-item correlation, item-total correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted were determined [ 47 ]. An inter-item correlation between 0.20 and 0.50 is recommended [ 36 ]. The item-total correlations assume that patients with a high total score also have high scores on all items [ 36 ]. If an item shows an item-total correlation of < 0.30 it does not help greatly in distinguishing between patients with high and low scores and can be removed. A Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted shows the value for remaining items that are still in the analysis. A high value indicates that the deleted item is redundant and a low value that there is room for more items under the same construct. A Cronbach’s alpha value between 0.70 and 0.90 is commonly considered acceptable interrelatedness [ 48 ].
Structural validity has been defined as the degree to which the scores of a PRO are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct to be measured [ 39 ]. Initially, the data was tested for suitability for factor analysis. Inter-item correlation coefficients between 0.20 and 0.80, overall correlation of a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) of > 0.50 (ideally > 0.80) and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity have been recommended as prerequisites for factor analysis [ 36 , 37 ]. We applied a principal component analysis (PCA). The number of latent factors extracted was based on the shape of a scree plot (elbow and levelling), Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalue > 1) and the cumulative percentage of explained variance after each factor (ideally 70–80%) [ 37 , 49 , 50 ]. Oblique rotation (direct oblimin) method was applied since our factor correlation matrix showed a coefficient above the suggested cut-off 0.32 [ 37 , 49 , 50 ]. There is no consensus on threshold for sufficient loading of an item to a factor, but with a sample size of at least 100 patients, a loading of > 0.30 is usually considered significant [ 50 ]. Items that load substantially (> 0.3) on more than one factor are called complex variables and need to be taken into consideration [ 50 ].
Construct validity is defined as the degree to which the score of an outcome measurement is consistent with hypotheses of expected relationships to other PROs [ 39 ]. High correlations are expected when measurements of the same construct and with the same mode of administration are compared (convergent). Conversely, lower correlations are expected when different constructs are compared (divergent). Previously published results of correlations between the MSTS and concurrent outcome measures were used as guidance when formulating predefined hypotheses [ 19 ]. MSTS sum scores were expected to have high correlations to scorings from TESS, PSFS and QLQ-C30 physical function, as they all measure functioning subjectively [ 7 , 51 ]. MSTS sum score was expected to correlate at a moderate level with QLQ-C30 sum score, since it is a multidimensional measurement [ 52 ]. Concurrent measurements of more narrow constructs (e.g., pain, walk capacity, emotional function) were expected to have high correlations to single items of the MSTS but low correlations to MSTS sum score [ 53 ] The research group formulated hypotheses of correlation prior to analyses. Cut-offs for high (≥ 0.60), moderate (> 0.30 to < 0.60) and low (≥ 0.30) correlation were applied [ 40 ]. For a positive rating of hypothesis testing, at least 75% of predefined hypotheses should be confirmed [ 46 ]. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test was used.
Content validity
Semi-structured interview. The patients ( n = 30), identified a total of 94 important activities which they found impossible or difficult to perform. These single activities were categorized into 12 meaningful concepts (Fig. 1 ). The three most frequently identified activities were Walking ( n = 14), Sports ( n = 19) and Running ( n = 20), with median (min–max) difficulty levels of 3.5 (0–5) points, 1 (0–7) point, and 0 (0–6) points, respectively.
![what should not be included in a literature review figure 1](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12885-024-12686-9/MediaObjects/12885_2024_12686_Fig1_HTML.png)
Number of activities (dark grey bar) the patients found important and were unable to perform or had difficulties with because of the condition. Median score (light grey bar) of the level of difficulty ranging from 0–10 points (0 = unable to perform the activity, 10 = able to perform activity at same level as before surgery). ***Squatting: This includes the isometric position in a squat and the dynamic squat. **Walking: This is a summary of walking in various speeds and distances in diverse terrain. *Sports: This includes various sports activities such as soccer, swimming, golf, tennis, badminton, dancing, water polo and skiing
Items’ relevance for the construct of functioning. All MSTS-items, except for Emotional acceptance, could be linked to ICF-codes (Table 3 ). The item Function was considered a wide concept and could be linked to any ICF-code under the domains (b) and (d).
Items’ relevance for the included sample. Two of six MSTS-items could be linked to PSFS (Table 3 ). The MSTS-item Function could be linked to any activity identified in the PSFS.
Key concepts . The MSTS-items Pain and Functioning were linked to the different domains Pain and Function defined in both core outcome sets [ 43 , 44 ]. The domain ‘patient satisfaction’, in the core outcome set for joint replacement, was partly linked to the MSTS-item Emotional acceptance, since one response option included the word ‘satisfied’.
Comprehensiveness. The response options for the items Pain, Function and Walking Ability changed content throughout the scale (Table 3 ). The response options ‘disabling’ and ‘disability’ could be linked to several ICF-codes and the response option ‘recreational’ could be linked to several activities identified in the PSFS (Table 3 ).
Data quality
Item median values ranged from 3 to 5 and all response options were used (Table 4 ). None of the items showed floor effects, but all items, except for Function, showed ceiling effects (Table 4 ). There were no internal missing values.
Internal consistency
Three inter-item correlation coefficients exceeded 0.50 (Supports and Walking ability, r = 0.60; Supports and Gait, r = 0.55; Walking ability and Gait, r = 0.55) (Table 5 ). As our PCA did not support unidimensionality, but a two-factor solution, the item-total and the Cronbach’s alpha was only tested for Factor 1. The item Function showed the lowest item-total correlation ( r = 0.45) but did not fall below the limit of < 0.30 (Table 5 ). The items Supports and Walking ability showed Cronbach’s alpha, if item deleted, below accepted values between 0.70 and 0.90 (Table 5 ).
Structural validity
The inter-item correlation between Pain and Gait showed a low correlation ( r = 0.19). Since this study was not a data reduction exercise and the two items had acceptable correlations to remaining items, they were retained. The KMO was 0.79 and the Bartlett’s test was significant ( p < 0.001) suggesting adequate data for the performance of a factor analysis.
The scree plot illustrated a steep slope for Factor 1 (eigenvalue 2.904), intermediate slope for Factor 2 (eigenvalue 1.017) and almost flat slope for Factor 3 (eigenvalue 0.685) (Fig. 2 ). The cumulative percentage of total variance explained was 48.4% for Factor 1 and 65.4% for Factor 1 and 2. Based on eigenvalues, cumulative percent and the scree plot, a two-factor solution was suggested for the analysis of factor-loading pattern.
![what should not be included in a literature review figure 2](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12885-024-12686-9/MediaObjects/12885_2024_12686_Fig2_HTML.png)
Scree plot of the principal component analysis
The factor loading pattern for a two-factor solution showed high loadings for Supports, Gait, Walking ability and Function to Factor 1, but not for Pain and Emotional acceptance (Table 6 ). The items Walking ability and Function loaded > 0.30 on two factors, thus identified as complex variables.
Construct validity
Six out of 13 (46%) predefined hypotheses were ascertained (Table 7 ). The TESS, QLQ-C30 sum score, QLQ-C30 physical functioning sub score and pain ratings showed high correlations to the MSTS (Table 7 ). The QLQ-C30 sum score was not expected to have a high correlation to the MSTS, since it measures QoL and not functioning only. The MSTS showed a low correlation to the PSFS, which was unexpected since both should reflect the construct of functioning . Also, the MSTS item Walking ability had an unexpectedly low correlation to walking capacity (6MWT).
The MSTS-LE showed insufficient content validity. The internal consistency and hypothesis testing were below acceptable levels. We found ceiling effects in five of six items and, in contrast to other studies, our analyses supported a two-factor solution.
The evaluation of content validity showed that there were concerns with the three quality criteria; relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. The item Emotional acceptance was not relevant to the construct of functioning , the item Function was relevant to the construct but had a too broad and unspecific content. Pain and Function should pertain to separate constructs. Three items did not have matching response options and many patient-important activities identified in the interview were not represented in the MSTS. The MSTS has been criticised for not involving patients’ perception of function in the development of items and response options [ 19 ]. We used a semi-structured interview to evaluate the MSTS-items’ relevance to the population of interest. Our results showed that the patients reported many more functions and activities that were important for them, than those in the MSTS. For example, recreational activities such as gardening, bicycling, hiking, and different sports activities were considered important, but not specifically named in the MSTS. For the measurement of functioning , an alternative to the MSTS could be the TESS [ 54 ]. The items of the TESS were development based on input from patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcoma [ 19 ]. Comparing the TESS to our interview, the TESS includes kneeling, walking, gardening, and recreational activities also found in our interviews, suggesting that TESS has a more relevant content than the MSTS for this patient group. The evaluation of the items’ relevance to the construct of functioning showed that the item Emotional acceptance could not be linked to the ICF. This suggests that Emotional acceptance does not reflect functioning and should not be part of PROs with functioning as the construct of interest. Further, the linking process of the item Function was of concern, as it could be linked to many ICF-codes, reflecting several functions, resulting in a very broad and unspecific content. This was supported by a relatively low item-total correlation for the item Function, suggesting that the content is unspecific and there is scope for more items under the same construct [ 48 ]. An unspecific content will make interpretation difficult. The items Pain and Function were linked to important key concepts, but were defined as two separate domains in the core outcome sets suggesting that they reflect different constructs [ 43 , 44 ]. When separate constructs are measured, they should either pertain to different PROs, or they should be treated separately in multidimensional scales [ 36 ]. Based on the unspecific content of the item Function and the potential mix of different constructs within the MSTS-LE, a sum score should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, the evaluation of comprehensibility of response options showed similar results as Lee et al., with concerns about the formulations for Pain, Function and Walking ability [ 4 ]. The item Pain relates to the intake of analgesics rather than the perception of pain and the items Function and Walking ability change content throughout the scale. One main requirement in formulating items and their response options is that they should be simple, easy to understand and the response options should match their items [ 3 ]. Since the response options for three items of the MSTS-LE change in content, the response options are difficult to interpret and do not match the items.
The factor analysis in our study supported a two-factor solution. In contrast to our results, two earlier studies considered the MSTS to be unidimensional, i.e. consisting of one factor only [ 5 , 6 ]. The scree plots in the two earlier studies showed elbow shapes located at the second factor, similar to our study, but their eigenvalues for the second factors were just below 1, whereas ours was just above 1. Determining the number of factors, and thereby the dimensionality of a measurement, can be difficult when scree plots do not take a characteristic sharp elbow shape and eigenvalues are close to the cut-off value 1. One of the earlier studies discussed the possibility of a two-factor solution but decided to let the eigenvalue < 1 for a second factor determine the unidimensionality of the MSTS [ 5 ]. Values close to cut-offs can lead to different conclusions in different studies, which in this case indicates that the MSTS is not sufficiently robust between samples. Further, looking at the factor-loading patterns, it is doubtful whether the MSTS can be supported as a unidimensional measurement of functioning . Our study clearly showed that the items Pain and Emotional acceptance had low loadings to Factor 1 and high loadings to Factor 2, indicating that Pain and Emotional acceptance are explained by another underlying construct than functioning . This is supported by the three earlier studies showing lower loadings for Pain and Emotional acceptance compared to the other items of the MSTS although, they never tested a two-factor solution and investigated whether Pain and Emotional acceptance had a better fit to a second factor [ 5 , 6 , 9 ]. Since Pain and Emotional acceptance can be vaguely explained by the underlying construct of functioning , they should be treated as a separate factor. The MSTS-LE should therefore not be considered a unidimensional measurement of functioning , but rather a multidimensional measurement where the dimensions should be treated separately with separate subscores rather than a sum score, as is current practice.
One limitation in our study was sample size. It is recommended that at least 100 patients are included when performing factor analyses [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. With the data available ( n = 87) one could consider increasing the limit for an item to contribute sufficiently to a factor from > 0.30 to > 0.50 [ 36 ]. By doing so, the items Function would not load sufficiently to Factor 1. This leaves the item Function a complex variable only, not pertaining to any of the two factors, which complicates the interpretation of the MSTS even further. Another limitation is time from surgery to assessment point. In all three cohorts time from surgery varied widely and for most included patients many years had elapsed. Time from surgery can affect which patients could be included from the complete cohorts. Because around 60–80% of the patients in the three cohorts were alive at inclusion [ 11 , 12 , 55 ], the cohorts could comprise patients with a better outcome of physical function than the background population. Including a subgroup with a better function from the total population has presumably biased the results to better scorings of the MSTS and can possibly explain our high ceiling effects.
Conclusions
The MSTS showed insufficient content validity and when asking patients, other functions than those included in the MSTS were of importance. Our findings do not support the MSTS as a unidimensional measurement of functioning , but a two-factor solution. Thus, MSTS sum scores should be interpreted with caution. We suggest that alternative outcomes, such as the TESS and objective measurements, are considered for the evaluation of functioning in clinical practice and future research.
Data availability
The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score
Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score – Lower Extremity
Toronto Extremity Salvage Score
Global Modular Replacement System
Patient Specific Functional Scale
Patient Reported Outcome
Numeric Rating Scale
The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, v. 3
Quality of Life
30-second chair stand test
6-minute walk test
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Principal Component Analysis
Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993:241–6.
Amino K, Kawaguchi N, Matsumoto S, Manabe J, Furuya K, Isobe Y. Functional Evaluation of Limb Salvage Operation for Malignant Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Using the Evaluation System of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. New Developments for Limb Salvage in Musculoskeletal Tumors. 1989:27–30.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research 2018;March.
Lee SH, Kim DJ, Oh JH, Yoo KH, Kim HS. Validation of a functional evaluation system in patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003:217–26.
Rebolledo DCS, Vissoci JRN, Pietrobon RP, de Camargo OP, Baptista AM. Validation of the Brazilian version of the musculoskeletal tumor society rating scale for lower extremity bone sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:4020–6.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Iwata S, Uehara K, Ogura K, Akiyama T, Shinoda Y, Yonemoto T et al. Reliability and Validity of a Japanese-language and Culturally Adapted Version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring System for the Lower Extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:2044–52. 2016.
Saebye CKP, Keller J, Baad-Hansen T. Validation of the Danish version of the musculoskeletal tumour society score questionnaire. World J Orthop. 2019;10:23–32.
Janssen SJ, Pereira NRP, Raskin KA, Ferrone ML, Hornicek FJ, van Dijk CN, et al. A comparison of questionnaires for assessing physical function in patients with lower extremity bone metastases. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:691–6.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Mallet J, El Kinani M, Crenn V, Ageneau P, Berchoud J, Varenne Y et al. French translation and validation of the cross-cultural adaptation of the MSTS functional assessment questionnaire completed after tumor surgery. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2023;109(3):103574.
Fernandes L, Holm CE, Villadsen A, Sørensen MS, Zebis MK, Petersen MM. Clinically important reductions in physical function and quality of life in adults with Tumor prostheses in the hip and knee: a cross-sectional study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479:2306–19.
Holm CE, Bardram C, Riecke AF, Horstmann P, Petersen MM. Implant and limb survival after resection of primary bone tumors of the lower extremities and reconstruction with mega-prostheses fifty patients followed for a mean of fourteen years. Int Orthop. 2018;42:1175–81.
Yilmaz M, Sørensen MS, Saebye CKP, Baad-Hansen T, Petersen MM. Long-term results of the global modular replacement system tumor prosthesis for reconstruction after limb-sparing bone resections in orthopedic oncologic conditions: results from a national cohort. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120:183–92.
Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Can. 1995;47:258–63.
Article Google Scholar
Barten JA, Pisters MF, Huisman P, Takken T, Veenhof C. Measurement properties of patient-specific instruments measuring physical function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:590–601.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustün B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:212–8.
Berghmans DDP, Lenssen AF, van Rhijn LW, de Bie RA. The patient-specific functional scale: its reliability and responsiveness in patients undergoing a total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(7):550–6.
Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(Suppl 1):S240–52.
PubMed Google Scholar
Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;41:1073–93.
Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, Bombardier C, Griffin A, Bell RS. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:508–16.
Willeumier JJ, van der Wal CWPG, van der Wal RJP, Dijkstra PDS, Vliet Vlieland TPM, van de Sande MAJ. Cross-cultural adaptation, translation, and Validation of the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score for Extremity Bone and soft tissue tumor patients in Netherlands. Sarcoma. 2017;2017:6197525.
Saebye CKP, Safwat A, Kaa AK, Pedersen NA, Keller J. Validation of a Danish version of the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score questionnaire for patients with sarcoma in the extremities. Dan Med J. 2014;61:A4734.
Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Vol. (3rd Edition). 2001.
Juul T, Petersen MA, Holzner B, Laurberg S, Christensen P, Grønvold M. Danish population-based reference data for the EORTC QLQ-C30: associations with gender, age and morbidity. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2183–93.
Koller M, Aaronson NK, Blazeby J, Bottomley A, Dewolf L, Fayers PM, et al. Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(12):1810–20.
Orange ST, Marshall P, Madden LA, Vince RV. Can sit-to-stand muscle power explain the ability to perform functional tasks in adults with severe obesity? J Sports Sci. 2019;37:1227–34.
Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, Terwee CB, Roos EM, Bennell KL. Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:1548–62.
Crockett K, Ardell K, Hermanson M, Penner A, Lanovaz J, Farthing J, et al. The relationship of knee-extensor strength and rate of torque development to sit-to-stand performance in older adults. Physiotherapy Can. 2013;65:229–35.
Slaughter SE, Wagg AS, Jones CA, Schopflocher D, Ickert C, Bampton E, et al. Mobility of vulnerable elders study: Effect of the sit-to-stand activity on mobility, function, and quality of life. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16:138–43.
Tveter AT, Dagfinrud H, Moseng T, Holm I. Health-related physical fitness measures: reference values and reference equations for Use in Clinical Practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:1366–73.
Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70:113–9.
Burr JF, Bredin SSD, Faktor MD, Warburton DER. The 6-Minute Walk Test as a predictor of objectively measured aerobic fitness in healthy working-aged adults. Phys Sportsmed. 2011;39:133–9.
Dam JC, van Bekkering E, Bramer WP, Beishuizen JAM, Fiocco A, Dijkstra M. Functional outcome after surgery in patients with bone sarcoma around the knee; results from a long-term prospective study. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:1028–32.
Galiano-Castillo N, Arroyo-Morales M, Ariza-Garcia A, Sánchez-Salado C, Fernández-Lao C, Cantarero-Villanueva I, et al. The six-minute walk test as a measure of health in breast cancer patients. J Aging Phys Act. 2016;24:508–15.
Bohannon RW, Crouch R. Minimal clinically important difference for change in 6-minute walk test distance of adults with pathology: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:377–81.
Schmidt K, Vogt L, Thiel C, Jäger E, Banzer W. Validity of the six-minute walk test in cancer patients. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34(7):631–6.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Lidwine B, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine. Vol. 1st ed. New York: 2011.
Park JH, Kim JI. Practical Consideration of Factor Analysis for the Assessment of Construct Validity. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2021;51(6):643–7.
Suhr DD. Principal Component Analysis vs. exploratory factor analysis. Stat Data Anal. 2005;30:203–30.
Google Scholar
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.
Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:S15–20.
Chiarotto A, Ostelo RW, Turk DC, Buchbinder R, Boers M. Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice. Braz J Phys Ther. 2017;21:77–84.
Ramsey I, Eckert M, Hutchinson AD, Marker J, Corsini N. Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2020;4.
Ramsey I, Corsini N, Hutchinson AD, Marker J, Eckert M. A core set of patient-reported outcomes for population-based cancer survivorship research: a consensus study. J Cancer Surviv. 2021;15:201–12.
Singh JA, Dowsey MM, Dohm M, Goodman SM, Leong AL, Voshaar MMJHS, et al. Achieving consensus on total joint replacement trial outcome reporting using the OMERACT filter: endorsement of the final core domain set for total hip and total knee replacement trials for endstage arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2017;44:1723–6.
Singh JA, Dowsey MM, Choong PF. Patient endorsement of the Outcome measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) total joint replacement (TJR) clinical trial draft core domain set. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18.
Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury. 2011;42(3):236–40.
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.
Brown JD. Choosing the Right Number of Components or factors in PCA and EFA. JALT Testing&Evaluation SIG Newsl. 2009;2009(13):3–19.
Brown JD. Choosing the right type of Rotation in PCA and EFA. JALT Testing&Evaluation SIG Newsl. 2009;13:3.
Kim HS, Yun J, Kang S, Han I. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score for extremity sarcoma. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(1):93–7.
Saebye CKP, Fugloe M, Nymark H, Safwat T, Petersen A, Baad-Hansen MM. Factors associated with reduced functional outcome and quality of life in patients having limb-sparing surgery for soft tissue sarcomas - a national multicenter study of 128 patients. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(2):239–44.
Marchese VG, Rai SN, Carlson CA, Pamela SH, Spearing EM. Assessing functional mobility in survivors of lower-extremity sarcoma: reliability and validity of a new assessment tool. 2007;49(2):183–9.
Kask G, Barner-Rasmussen I, Repo JP, Kjäldman M, Kilk K, Blomqvist C, et al. Functional outcome measurement in patients with lower-extremity soft tissue sarcoma: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(13):4707–22.
Holm CE, Soerensen MS, Yilmaz M, Petersen MM. Evaluation of tumor-prostheses over time: Complications, functional outcome, and comparative statistical analysis after resection and reconstruction in orthopedic oncologic conditions in the lower extremities. SAGE Open Med [Internet]. 2022 Apr 21 [cited 2023 Aug 8];10:20503121221094190. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9047786/
Bekendtgørelse af lov om. videnskabsetisk behandling af sundhedsvidenskabelige forskningsprojekter og sundhedsdatavidenskabelige forskningsprojekter [Internet]. LBK 1338 af 01/09/2020. http://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1338
Download references
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the patients participating in the three cohorts included.
LF received funding from Vissing Fonden, Aalborg, Denmark (grant number 85969).
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Midwifery, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, and Psychomotor Therapy, Faculty of Health, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Nikolai Sherling & Linda Fernandes
Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
Müjgan Yilmaz, Christina Enciso Holm & Michael Mørk Petersen
Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Michael Mørk Petersen
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
N.S., M.M.P. and L.F. contributed to concept and design. M.Y., C.E.H. and L.F. collected the data. N.S. and L.F. contributed to data analysis, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation. N.S. and L.F. contributed to literature search, manuscript editing, and manuscript review. M.Y., C.E.H. and M.M.P. revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Linda Fernandes .
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
The study was carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration. Approvals from the Danish Data Protection Agency (VD-2018-20-6594, 2013-41-2591, 2013-41‐2591), the Capital Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics (H-18032141) and the Danish Health and Medicines Authority (no. 3-3013-894/1, 3‐3013‐1045/1/) were obtained prior to inclusion. Patients in Cohort 1 and 2 received oral and written information and signed informed consent prior to inclusion. In case of minors under the age of 16, informed consent to participate was obtained from the parents. Cohort 3 was a retrospective cohort, using data from registers. In Denmark, informed consent in registered based studies is deemed unnecessary according to national legislation [ 56 ].
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The 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.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Sherling, N., Yilmaz, M., Holm, C.E. et al. Validity of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score for lower extremity in patients with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone undergoing bone resection and reconstruction surgery in hip and knee. BMC Cancer 24 , 1019 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12686-9
Download citation
Received : 29 August 2023
Accepted : 24 July 2024
Published : 16 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12686-9
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
- Musculoskeletal tumor society score
- Bone sarcoma
- Physical function
- Outcome measures
ISSN: 1471-2407
- Submission enquiries: [email protected]
- General enquiries: [email protected]
![what should not be included in a literature review American Psychological Association](https://apastyle.apa.org/Content/Images/megamenu/images@2x/apa-logo.png)
How to cite ChatGPT
![what should not be included in a literature review Timothy McAdoo](https://apastyle.apa.org/images/tim-mcadoo_tcm11-262299.png)
Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.
We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.
In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.
Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper
If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.
Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.
When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.
When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).
Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software
The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.
The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:
- Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
- Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)
Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):
Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.
Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.
Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.
The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.
Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.
Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).
Other questions about citing ChatGPT
You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.
We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?
On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.
For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.
Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .
We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Related and recent
Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.
APA Style Monthly
Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.
Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.
APA Style Guidelines
Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category
- Abbreviations
- Bias-Free Language
- Capitalization
- In-Text Citations
- Italics and Quotation Marks
- Paper Format
- Punctuation
- Research and Publication
- Spelling and Hyphenation
- Tables and Figures
Full index of topics
![](http://writinghelp.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources. One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources. This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles. Of course, just because a piece of content ...
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" )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given ...
The literature review is supposed to comprise a summary of thoughts and findings in prior or existing studies related to the topic that you are addressing in your study. Accordingly, the discussion of these studies should be as objective as possible and should not include your personal opinions, comments or even article preferences.
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).
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship ...
he simplest thing of all—structure. Everything you write has three components: a beginning, a middle and an e. d and each serves a different purpose. In practice, this means your review will have an introduction, a main body where you review the literature an. a conclusion where you tie things up.
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications.
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
How to write a literature review in 6 steps. How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.
Literature reviews take time. Here is some general information to know before you start. VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process. (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included. --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students". --9.5 minutes, and every second is important.
Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic. Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these. Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one) Inform your own methodology and research design. To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure.
Example: Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework: 10.1177/08948453211037398 ; Systematic review: "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139).
Some schools and professors allow books in literature reviews; however, a general rule of thumb is that books should be used sparingly and with a degree of caution. Do not include extended quotations, and use direct quotes sparingly, if at all. The literature review is a synthesis and analysis of research on your topic in your own words.
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 . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of: the major achievements in the reviewed field,
Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work. A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision.
Since the literature review forms the backbone of your research, writing a clear and thorough review is essential. The steps below will help you do so: 1. Search for relevant information and findings. In research, information published on a given subject is called "literature" or "background literature.".
The word "literature review" can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature - i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or ...
The actual review generally has 5 components: Abstract - An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts: A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic. Your thesis statement. A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review. Summarize your findings.
Definition. A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research. In a literature review, you're expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions. If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain: the objective ...
A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it ...
Background The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) is widely used to evaluate functioning following surgery for bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. However, concerns have been raised about its content validity due to the lack of patient involvement during item development. Additionally, literature reports inconsistent results regarding data quality and structural validity. This study aimed to ...
For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response. ... Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the ...
Background: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is an eating disorder that involves restrictive or avoidant eating behaviour not related to weight or body image concerns. It was first included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition (DSM-5) in 2013. ARFID frequently begins in childhood and can have serious psychosocial impacts and detrimental ...