types of sources for literature review

• 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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

标题 ：人工智能在系统文献综述中的作用

Papel de la IA en la revisión sistemática de la literatura

Rôle de l'IA dans l'analyse systématique de la littérature

• Library Guides

The Literature Review

Primary and secondary sources, the literature review: primary and secondary sources.

• Searching the literature
• Grey literature
• Organising and analysing
• Systematic Reviews
• The Literature Review Toolbox

On this page

• Primary vs secondary sources: The differences explained 

Can something be both a primary and secondary source?

Research for your literature review can be categorised as either primary or secondary in nature. The simplest definition of primary sources is either original information (such as survey data) or a first person account of an event (such as an interview transcript). Whereas secondary sources are any publshed or unpublished works that describe, summarise, analyse, evaluate, interpret or review primary source materials. Secondary sources can incorporate primary sources to support their arguments.

Ideally, good research should use a combination of both primary and secondary sources. For example, if a researcher were to investigate the introduction of a law and the impacts it had on a community, he/she might look at the transcripts of the parliamentary debates as well as the parliamentary commentary and news reporting surrounding the laws at the time. 

Examples of primary and secondary sources

Primary vs secondary sources: The differences explained

Finding primary sources

• VU Special Collections  - The Special Collections at Victoria University Library are a valuable research resource. The Collections have strong threads of radical literature, particularly Australian Communist literature, much of which is rare or unique. Women and urban planning also feature across the Collections. There are collections that give you a picture of the people who donated them like Ray Verrills, John McLaren, Sir Zelman Cowen, and Ruth & Maurie Crow. Other collections focus on Australia's neighbours – PNG and Timor-Leste.
• POLICY - Sharing the latest in policy knowledge and evidence, this database supports enhanced learning, collaboration and contribution.
• Indigenous Australia  -  The Indigenous Australia database represents the collections of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Library.
• Australian Heritage Bibliography - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Subset (AHB-ATSIS)  - AHB is a bibliographic database that indexes and abstracts articles from published and unpublished material on Australia's natural and cultural environment. The AHB-ATSIS subset contains records that specifically relate to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.include journal articles, unpublished reports, books, videos and conference proceedings from many different sources around Australia. Emphasis is placed on reports written or commissioned by government and non-government heritage agencies throughout the country.
• ATSIhealth  - The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Bibliography (ATSIhealth), compiled by Neil Thomson and Natalie Weissofner at the School of Indigenous Australian Studies, Kurongkurl Katitjin, Edith Cowan University, is a bibliographic database that indexes published and unpublished material on Australian Indigenous health. Source documents include theses, unpublished articles, government reports, conference papers, abstracts, book chapters, books, discussion and working papers, and statistical documents. 
• National Archive of Australia  - The National Archives of Australia holds the memory of our nation and keeps vital Australian Government records safe. 
• National Library of Australia: Manuscripts  - Manuscripts collection that is wide ranging and provides rich evidence of the lives and activities of Australians who have shaped our society.
• National Library of Australia: Printed ephemera  - The National Library has been selectively collecting Australian printed ephemera since the early 1960s as a record of Australian life and social customs, popular culture, national events, and issues of national concern.
• National Library of Australia: Oral history and folklore - The Library’s Oral History and Folklore Collection dates back to the 1950’s and includes a rich and diverse collection of interviews and recordings with Australians from all walks of life.
• Historic Hansard - Commonwealth of Australia parliamentary debates presented in an easy-to-read format for historians and other lovers of political speech.
• The Old Bailey Online - A fully searchable edition of the largest body of texts detailing the lives of non-elite people ever published, containing 197,745 criminal trials held at London's central criminal court.

Whether or not a source can be considered both primary and  secondary, depends on the context. In some instances, material may act as a secondary source for one research area, and as a primary source for another. For example, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince , published in 1513, is an important secondary source for any study of the various Renaissance princes in the Medici family; but the same book is also a primary source for the political thought that was characteristic of the sixteenth century because it reflects the attitudes of a person living in the 1500s.

Source: Craver, 1999, as cited in University of South Australia Library. (2021, Oct 6).  Can something be a primary and secondary source?.  University of South Australia Library. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/historycultural/sourcetypes

• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Searching the literature >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 2:06 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/the-literature-review

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Review: Lit Review Sources

• Lit Review Types
• GRADE System
• Do a Lit Review
• Citation Justice
• Lit Review Sources
• AI for Research This link opens in a new window

Where do I find information for a literature review?

Research is done by...

...by way of...

...communicated through...

...and organized in...

Types of sources for a review...

• Primary source: Usually a report by the original researchers of a study (unfiltered sources)
• Secondary source: Description or summary by somebody other than the original researcher, e.g. a review article (filtered sources)
• Conceptual/theoretical: Papers concerned with description or analysis of theories or concepts associated with the topic
• Anecdotal/opinion/clinical: Views or opinions about the subject that are not research, review or theoretical (case studies or reports from clinical settings)

A Heirarchy of research information:

Source: SUNY Downstate Medical Center. Medical Research Library of Brooklyn. Evidence Based Medicine Course. A Guide to Research Methods: The Evidence Pyramid: http://library.downstate.edu/EBM2/2100.htm

Life Cycle of Publication

Click image to enlarge

Scientific information has a ‘life cycle’ of its own… it is born as an idea, and then matures and becomes more available to the public. First it appears within the so-called ‘invisible college’ of experts in the field, discussed at conferences and symposia or posted as pre-prints for comments and corrections. Then it appears in the published literature (the primary literature), often as a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Researchers can use the indexing and alerting services of the secondary literature to find out what has been published in a field. Depending on how much information is added by the indexer or abstracter, this may take a few months (though electronic publication has sped up this process). Finally, the information may appear in more popular or reference sources, sometimes called the tertiary literature.

The person beginning a literature search may take this process in reverse: using tertiary sources for general background, then going to the secondary literature to survey what has been published, following up by finding the original (primary) sources, and generating their own research Idea.

(Original content by Wade Lee-Smith)

• << Previous: Citation Justice
• Next: Readings >>
• Last Updated: Jul 1, 2024 11:03 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utoledo.edu/litreview

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 10:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources | Difference & Examples

Primary vs. Secondary Sources | Difference & Examples

Published on June 20, 2018 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on May 31, 2023.

When you do research, you have to gather information and evidence from a variety of sources.

Primary sources provide raw information and first-hand evidence. Examples include interview transcripts, statistical data, and works of art. Primary research gives you direct access to the subject of your research.

Secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other researchers. Examples include journal articles, reviews, and academic books . Thus, secondary research describes, interprets, or synthesizes primary sources.

Primary sources are more credible as evidence, but good research uses both primary and secondary sources.

Table of contents

What is a primary source, what is a secondary source, primary and secondary source examples, how to tell if a source is primary or secondary, primary vs secondary sources: which is better, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about primary and secondary sources.

A primary source is anything that gives you direct evidence about the people, events, or phenomena that you are researching. Primary sources will usually be the main objects of your analysis.

If you are researching the past, you cannot directly access it yourself, so you need primary sources that were produced at the time by participants or witnesses (e.g. letters, photographs, newspapers ).

If you are researching something current, your primary sources can either be qualitative or quantitative data that you collect yourself (e.g. through interviews , surveys , experiments ) or sources produced by people directly involved in the topic (e.g. official documents or media texts).

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.

Try for free

A secondary source is anything that describes, interprets, evaluates, or analyzes information from primary sources. Common examples include:

• Books , articles and documentaries that synthesize information on a topic
• Synopses and descriptions of artistic works
• Encyclopedias and textbooks that summarize information and ideas
• Reviews and essays that evaluate or interpret something

When you cite a secondary source, it’s usually not to analyze it directly. Instead, you’ll probably test its arguments against new evidence or use its ideas to help formulate your own.

Examples of sources that can be primary or secondary

A secondary source can become a primary source depending on your research question . If the person, context, or technique that produced the source is the main focus of your research, it becomes a primary source.

Documentaries

If you are researching the causes of World War II, a recent documentary about the war is a secondary source . But if you are researching the filmmaking techniques used in historical documentaries, the documentary is a primary source .

Reviews and essays

If your paper is about the novels of Toni Morrison, a magazine review of one of her novels is a secondary source . But if your paper is about the critical reception of Toni Morrison’s work, the review is a primary source .

Newspaper articles

If your aim is to analyze the government’s economic policy, a newspaper article about a new policy is a secondary source . But if your aim is to analyze media coverage of economic issues, the newspaper article is a primary source .

To determine if something can be used as a primary or secondary source in your research, there are some simple questions you can ask yourself:

• Does this source come from someone directly involved in the events I’m studying (primary) or from another researcher (secondary)?
• Am I interested in evaluating the source itself (primary) or only using it for background information (secondary)?
• Does the source provide original information (primary) or does it comment upon information from other sources (secondary)?

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Most research uses both primary and secondary sources. They complement each other to help you build a convincing argument. Primary sources are more credible as evidence, but secondary sources show how your work relates to existing research. Tertiary sources are often used in the first, exploratory stage of research.

What do you use primary sources for?

Primary sources are the foundation of original research. They allow you to:

• Make new discoveries
• Provide credible evidence for your arguments
• Give authoritative information about your topic

If you don’t use any primary sources, your research may be considered unoriginal or unreliable.

What do you use secondary sources for?

Secondary sources are good for gaining a full overview of your topic and understanding how other researchers have approached it. They often synthesize a large number of primary sources that would be difficult and time-consuming to gather by yourself. They allow you to:

• Gain background information on the topic
• Support or contrast your arguments with other researchers’ ideas
• Gather information from primary sources that you can’t access directly (e.g. private letters or physical documents located elsewhere)

When you conduct a literature review or meta analysis, you can consult secondary sources to gain a thorough overview of your topic. If you want to mention a paper or study that you find cited in a secondary source, seek out the original source and cite it directly.

Remember that all primary and secondary sources must be cited to avoid plagiarism . You can use Scribbr’s free citation generator to do so!

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Common examples of primary sources include interview transcripts , photographs, novels, paintings, films, historical documents, and official statistics.

Anything you directly analyze or use as first-hand evidence can be a primary source, including qualitative or quantitative data that you collected yourself.

Common examples of secondary sources include academic books, journal articles , reviews, essays , and textbooks.

Anything that summarizes, evaluates or interprets primary sources can be a secondary source. If a source gives you an overview of background information or presents another researcher’s ideas on your topic, it is probably a secondary source.

To determine if a source is primary or secondary, ask yourself:

• Was the source created by someone directly involved in the events you’re studying (primary), or by another researcher (secondary)?
• Does the source provide original information (primary), or does it summarize information from other sources (secondary)?
• Are you directly analyzing the source itself (primary), or only using it for background information (secondary)?

Some types of source are nearly always primary: works of art and literature, raw statistical data, official documents and records, and personal communications (e.g. letters, interviews ). If you use one of these in your research, it is probably a primary source.

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

Always make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

A fictional movie is usually a primary source. A documentary can be either primary or secondary depending on the context.

If you are directly analyzing some aspect of the movie itself – for example, the cinematography, narrative techniques, or social context – the movie is a primary source.

If you use the movie for background information or analysis about your topic – for example, to learn about a historical event or a scientific discovery – the movie is a secondary source.

Whether it’s primary or secondary, always properly cite the movie in the citation style you are using. Learn how to create an MLA movie citation or an APA movie citation .

Articles in newspapers and magazines can be primary or secondary depending on the focus of your research.

In historical studies, old articles are used as primary sources that give direct evidence about the time period. In social and communication studies, articles are used as primary sources to analyze language and social relations (for example, by conducting content analysis or discourse analysis ).

If you are not analyzing the article itself, but only using it for background information or facts about your topic, then the article is a secondary source.

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.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, May 31). Primary vs. Secondary Sources | Difference & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/primary-and-secondary-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, the basics of in-text citation | apa & mla examples, how to quote | citing quotes in apa, mla & chicago, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• 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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

Which review is that? A guide to review types

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool
• Critical Review
• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews
• Rapid Review
• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review
• Methodological Review
• Systematic Search and Review

This quick reference tool provides information on a wide range of literature review types that are available for research synthesis for publication and research purposes.  

Graphic and guide based on on the work of  Sutton et al., (2019) on 'Review Families'.

*Note to students undertaking a literature review as part of coursework:

It is recommended that students undertaking a literature review as part of their coursework follow the literature review guidelines provided within their subject as they may include selected elements of full literature reviews suitable to the learning task.

References Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.  Health Information & Libraries Journal ,  36 (3), 202-222.  Full Text

Cite this guide

Birkic, V., Celeste, T., & Cochrane, L. (2020). Which review is that? A guide to review types, Available from https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

• Next: Review Comparison Chart >>
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 1:08 PM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

• University of La Verne
• Subject Guides

Literature Review Basics

• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Literature Review Introduction
• Writing Literature Reviews
• Tutorials & Samples

The Literature

The Literature refers to the collection of scholarly writings on a topic. This includes peer-reviewed articles, books, dissertations and conference papers.

• When reviewing the literature, be sure to include major works as well as studies that respond to major works. You will want to focus on primary sources, though secondary sources can be valuable as well.

Primary Sources

The term primary source is used broadly to embody all sources that are original. P rimary sources provide first-hand information that is closest to the object of study. Primary sources vary by discipline.

• In the natural and social sciences, original reports of research found in academic journals detailing the methodology used in the research, in-depth descriptions, and discussions of the findings are considered primary sources of information.
• Other common examples of primary sources include speeches, letters, diaries, autobiographies, interviews, official reports, court records, artifacts, photographs, and drawings.  

Galvan, J. L. (2013). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences . Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Secondary Sources

A secondary source is a source that provides non-original or secondhand data or information. 

• Secondary sources are written about primary sources.
• Research summaries reported in textbooks, magazines, and newspapers are considered secondary sources. They typically provide global descriptions of results with few details on the methodology. Other examples of secondary sources include biographies and critical studies of an author's work.

Secondary Source. (2005). In W. Paul Vogt (Ed.), Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. (3 rd ed., p. 291). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Weidenborner, S., & Caruso, D. (1997). Writing research papers: A guide to the process . New York: St. Martin's Press.

More Examples of Primary and Secondary Sources

• << Previous: Writing Literature Reviews
• Next: Tutorials & Samples >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 9:59 AM
• URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/litreviews

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods.  Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

  John Dudovskiy

•   [email protected]

Writing and Presenting Guide

Writing literature reviews, what is a literature review.

"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." Source: The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. (2013). Literature Reviews. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/ This link opens in a new window

Need help writing a literature review?

Check out these resources:

Helpful Books from the Library

Helpful Web Resources

• Literature Reviews (UNC Writing Center) This link opens in a new window
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature (The Writing Center at the Univ. of Wisconsin) This link opens in
• The Literature Review (Univ. of Toronto) This link opens in a new window
• Write a Literature Review (University Library at Univ. Of California Santa Cruz) This link opens in a new wi
• Literature Reviews (Ithaca) This link opens in a new window
• << Previous: Writing Papers
• Next: APA Annotated Bibliography >>

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started

Selecting a Review Type

Defining the scope of your review, four common types of reviews.

• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

More Review Types

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

Which Review is Right for You?

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

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

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

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

A FEW GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DEFINING SCOPE

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

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

LITERATURE REVIEW

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

SCOPING REVIEW

• Conducted to address broad research questions with the goal of understanding the extent of research that has been conducted.
• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) 
• Doesn't assess the quality of the literature gathered (i.e. presence of literature on a topic shouldn’t be conflated w/ the quality of that literature)
• " Preparing scoping reviews for publication using methodological guides and reporting standards " is a great article to read on Scoping Reviews

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

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

META-ANALYSIS

• Goes one step further than a systematic review by statistically combining the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. 
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 12:03 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

How to Use AI for Literature Review (2024): Complete 7 Step Guide for Researchers

Jc Chaithanya

13 min read

What is a Literature Review and Why Does It Matter?

Different types of literature review,  method 1: using multiple ai tools for literature review, method 2: using elephas for literature review, advantages of using ai for literature review, the traditional approach: manual literature review, the new kid on the block: ai literature review, comparing the two approaches, common concerns and misconceptions about ai in literature review, things to keep in mind while using ai for literature review, conclusion , 1. can gpt-4 do a literature review , 2. can you use ai to do a literature review, 3. what is the ai tool to summarize the literature review.

Literature reviews are a crucial yet time-consuming part of academic research.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), researchers now have tools that can significantly streamline this process. This guide explores how AI can be effectively utilized to enhance and accelerate literature reviews.

We'll cover the following key aspects:​

• The role of AI in literature reviews
• Specific AI tools designed for academic research, such as Elephas
• Best practices for integrating AI into your research workflow
• Potential benefits and limitations of AI-assisted literature reviews

Whether you're a seasoned researcher or a student embarking on your first major project, this guide will provide practical insights on leveraging AI to improve your literature review process.

So let's get started.

When researchers start a new project , they don't just jump in blindly. They first look at what others have already figured out. That's where a literature review comes in handy.

It's like piecing together a puzzle. You gather all the bits of information from different studies, articles, and books. Then you start to see the big picture. What do we know so far? Where are the gaps? Are there any hot debates going on?

All these will translate to

It connects their work to the bigger conversation in their field

It stops researchers from reinventing the wheel

It helps them spot new angles to explore

It shows they've done their homework

By digging into existing research, scholars can push knowledge forward. They're not starting from scratch, but building on what's already there. Plus, a good literature review is super helpful for other researchers too. ​

It gives them a quick way to catch up on a topic without having to read through piles of separate studies. This saves time and helps guide future research efforts.

Literature reviews can take on various forms depending on their purpose and approach. Below are some of the most popular types of literature reviews:

Narrative Review: This review gives a broad summary of existing studies on a topic but doesn't adhere to a rigid structure. It's often used to provide general insights without analyzing the specifics deeply.

Systematic Review: A systematic review follows a well-defined method to gather, assess, and interpret all available research on a particular question, aiming to reduce bias and provide a more accurate picture of the subject.

Meta-Analysis: This method uses statistical techniques to combine findings from several studies. The goal is to derive a stronger conclusion by merging the data and providing more robust results.

Scoping Review: A scoping review maps out the main ideas and gaps in a field of research, helping to identify where more studies are needed and suggesting potential directions for future research .

Critical Review: This type of review critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, offering new perspectives or challenging previously accepted theories.

Well, each type offers unique insights based on the research objective, shaping the direction of further inquiry of the research. 

Step-by-Step Guide on How to Use AI for Literature Review

Using AI for literature review can significantly streamline your research process. Let's explore two methods: a multi-tool approach and using Elephas, an all-in-one assistant.

1. Identify Your Research Topic and Keywords

The first step is defining your research area. Use Perplexity AI for topic exploration and generating research questions. This AI tool helps you uncover new angles for research topics by analyzing vast amounts of data quickly.

2. Search for Relevant Articles

Start your literature search by heading to Elicit.org. Export the articles based on categories like abstract, author, title, and publication date. You can also use other AI-powered search tools like Semantic Scholar or Google Scholar to broaden your sources.

3. Generate Summaries and Key Themes with GPT-4o

After gathering your articles, use GPT-4o to analyze the abstracts and generate key themes. Input the abstracts with prompts like, “ Please summarize the key themes from these articles. ” This step saves hours of manual reading and gives you a thematic overview.

4. Draft an Initial Literature Review with Copy.ai

Use Copy.ai to create a first draft of your literature review. Its AI-powered writing features allow you to generate sections of the review quickly and in a structured format. Copy.ai can assist in writing specific sections, such as background or methodology, based on the keywords and themes you provide.

5. Refine with Smart Writing Tools

Use AI tools like Jasper or Writesonic to refine your literature review. These tools help to paraphrase content, improve readability, and adapt the tone to meet academic standards. The rewrites from these tools can help make the content more engaging and coherent. ​

6. Organise References Using Reference Managers

As you finalise your draft, integrate reference management tools like Mendeley or Zotero. These tools can store and organise all the references cited in your paper, and AI integration allows for easy reference generation.

7. Use Perplexity AI for Final Checks

Before submission, use Perplexity AI again to check for any gaps in the research or identify potential new areas to explore. It can provide suggestions based on the latest publications and research trends.

Elephas offers an all-in-one solution for conducting literature reviews. Here’s how you can use it:

1. Search the Web with Elephas

Elephas’ web search feature allows you to find relevant articles directly within the tool. Simply input your research terms, and it will pull up related papers, articles, and sources for you to analyse.

2. Analyse Key Themes

Using integrated AI models like GPT-4 or Claude, you can analyse the abstracts or summaries of these papers to identify key themes.

3. Generate a Literature Review

With Elephas’ Smart Write feature, you can create a well-structured literature review in just a few prompts. It pulls in the key themes and drafts a coherent review, ensuring that all relevant abstracts are referenced accurately.

4. Organise with Super Brain

Elephas’ Super Brain feature helps you manage the knowledge from the papers, documents, and research you’re using. It organises and categorises the data for easy access during the writing process.

5. Refine and Customise Tone

Elephas allows you to refine the review by using its multiple writing modes (Zinsser, Friendly, Professional, or Viral Mode). You can ensure that the literature review matches your preferred tone and style.

6. Manage References and Citations

With the help of Super Brain, you can manage references and citations within the text, simplifying the process of creating a bibliography.

By using Elephas, you can significantly speed up the literature review process while maintaining high quality. It’s a comprehensive all-in-one AI tool, making it one of the best solutions for conducting literature reviews.

AI is changing the game for researchers tackling literature reviews. Now, we've got smart tools that can do a lot of the heavy lifting for us. Let's explore some advantages of using AI for literature review. 

Time Efficiency: AI dramatically speeds up the review process. It can analyze thousands of articles in minutes, a task that would take humans days or weeks to complete.

Comprehensive Coverage: AI can thoroughly scan vast databases, ensuring no relevant study slips through the cracks.

Pattern Recognition: AI literature tools excel at identifying trends and connections across multiple studies, often spotting insights that humans might overlook.

Bias Reduction: AI approaches each piece of literature objectively, helping to minimize human biases that can creep into manual reviews.

Multilingual Capabilities: Language barriers become less of an issue. AI can process and analyze research in multiple languages, broadening the scope of reviews.

Data Visualization: Many AI tools can generate clear, insightful visualizations of complex data, making it easier to grasp key findings at a glance.

Continuous Updating: In rapidly evolving fields, AI can keep literature reviews current by continuously incorporating newly published research.

While AI brings these impressive benefits to the table, it's important to remember that it's not a wise move to use AI extensively and limit your human touch in the review. 

The ideal approach is to combine AI with your critical thinking and domain knowledge. As AI technology continues to advance, its role in streamlining and improving literature reviews is only set to grow, opening up exciting new possibilities for more comprehensive and efficient research processes.

Manual Literature Review vs AI Literature Review

In the world of research, literature reviews play a crucial role. They help researchers understand what's already known about a topic and identify gaps in knowledge. Today, we're seeing a shift in how these reviews are conducted, with AI tools coming in and helping researchers to reduce their overall workflow. But what is actually better: manual literature review or AI-assisted literature reviews?

Manual literature reviews have been the standard for a long time. Here's what they typically involve:

They take detailed notes on each source

Researchers spend hours reading through papers and articles

Key themes and patterns are identified through careful analysis

Connections between different studies are made based on the expertise

This method has its strengths. It allows for deep understanding and critical thinking. Researchers can pick up on subtle nuances that might be important. However, it's also very time-consuming and can be limited by the researcher's ability to process large amounts of information.

AI-assisted literature reviews are changing the game. Here's how they work:

AI tools can quickly scan thousands of articles

Key themes and patterns are automatically extracted

They use advanced algorithms to identify relevant studies

Connections between studies are made based on data analysis

The speed and efficiency of AI reviews are impressive. They can process far more information than a human could in the same amount of time. This means researchers can get a broader view of their field quickly. AI tools are also great at spotting trends and connections that humans might miss.

When we look at manual and AI literature reviews side by side, we see some interesting differences:

Time efficiency: AI is much faster, potentially saving weeks of work

Scope: AI can cover a broader range of sources

Depth of analysis: Manual reviews often provide deeper insights

Bias: AI can help reduce human bias, but may have its own algorithmic biases

Flexibility: Manual reviews can adapt more easily to unique research needs

Language: AI can work across multiple languages, expanding the scope of research

It's important to note that AI isn't perfect. It might miss context or nuances that a human would catch. That's why many researchers are now using a hybrid approach. 

They use AI to do the initial heavy lifting, then apply their own expertise to refine and interpret the results.

In the end, whether manual or AI-assisted, the goal of a literature review remains the same: to build a solid foundation for new research and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

There are many concerns and misconceptions about using AI in literature reviews. It's natural to have doubts about new technology, especially when it comes to something as crucial as research.

One big worry is that AI might replace human researchers. But that's not really the case. AI is a powerful tool, but it can't match the critical thinking and deep understanding that humans bring to the table, at least for now. It's more of a helper than a replacement.

Accuracy Concerns:  There's a misconception that AI might misinterpret or miss important information. Modern AI tools are actually quite accurate, but they do need proper setup and oversight to perform at their best.

Over-reliance on Technology: Some worry researchers might become too dependent on AI, losing their own analytical skills. In reality, AI frees up time for deeper analysis and creative thinking.

Data Privacy Issues: Concerns about data security and privacy are valid. It's crucial to use AI tools that adhere to strict data protection standards.

Limited to Quantitative Analysis: Many think AI can only handle numbers and statistics. Actually, advanced AI can process qualitative data too, including complex text analysis. ​

High Costs: While some AI tools can be expensive, many affordable options exist. The efficiency gains often outweigh the initial investment.

Complexity of Use: There's a belief that AI tools are too complicated for the average researcher. In fact, many are designed with user-friendly interfaces.

When using AI for literature reviews, there are several key points to keep in mind. Let's check out these important considerations that might get you into trouble if not checked properly when using AI for a literature review.

Quality Control: While using AI, you need to always double-check the results it generates. Take the time to review the selected articles and ensure they're truly relevant to your research.

Ethical Considerations: The use of AI in academic work is still a hot topic. Be mindful of ethical concerns, particularly around plagiarism and AI-generated content. Make sure your work is original and properly cited. 

Stay Updated: Keep an eye on the latest developments in AI tools for literature reviews. What's new in the AI market and what’s outdated will help inform you to make the most of these tools.

Define Clear Parameters: Be specific about your research questions, keywords, and inclusion criteria. The more precise your input, the more relevant your results will be.

Understand AI Limitations: AI is great at processing large amounts of data, but it might miss nuances or context that a human would catch. 

Maintain a Critical Perspective: Don't accept AI-generated summaries or analyses at face value. Apply your critical thinking skills. Question the results, look for potential biases, and consider alternative interpretations.

Document Your Process: Keep detailed records of how you used AI in your review. Note which tools you used, what parameters you set, and how you verified the results. This transparency is vital for the credibility of your work.

These tips may be generic and known to everyone, but many researchers, while using AI in their literature writing or revising process, still make these mistakes. Using AI is not wrong, but it's about finding the right balance between technological assistance and human expertise.

You know, it's pretty amazing how AI is shaking things up in the world of research. If you're knee-deep in literature reviews, learning to use AI could be a game-changer for you. It's like having a super-smart assistant who never gets tired and can spot connections you might miss.

There are a bunch of ways to go about it - you could mix and match different AI tools, or go for an all-in-one solution. The trick is finding what clicks for you. Just remember, AI is incredibly helpful, but it's not all good. You've still got to bring your expertise to the table.

As AI keeps evolving, it's opening up new possibilities for research. Who knows what breakthroughs we might see? So, getting comfortable with AI for literature reviews now could really set you up for the future. 

It's an exciting time to be a researcher, that's for sure!

Yes, GPT-4 can help with a literature review by summarizing research papers, analyzing content, and identifying key themes. It speeds up the process by offering relevant insights from sources, but human expertise is still needed to ensure accuracy and a comprehensive understanding.

Yes, AI can assist in conducting a literature review by automating tasks such as summarizing research papers, analyzing large amounts of data, and highlighting important findings. This aids in streamlining the review process, although human judgment is essential for interpreting and validating the results effectively.

AI tools like Elephas, designed for summarizing literature reviews, help streamline the process by providing features such as offline support, multiple language models, and web search integration. These tools can quickly summarize key insights and trends across academic papers and other research sources.

AI assistant

Sign up now

Get a deep dive into the most important AI story of the week. Deliverd to your inbox for free!

Meet Elephas - Your AI-Powered Knowledge Assistant. Your Personal ChatGPT for all your files. Transform information overload into actionable insights. Organize vast knowledge. Access ideas efortlessly. Save 10 hours a week

You may also want to read

Paperpal Comprehensive Review (2024): Is it Worth It? | AI for Academic Writing

Pinned Post

Top 10 Best AI Tools for Literature Review (Free + Paid)

What’s New from Apple? iPhone 16 with AI, Apple Watch Series 10, and More!

iPhone Productivity

Previous Post

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 9
• What types of objective measures have been used to assess core ADHD symptoms in children and young people in naturalistic settings? A scoping review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4978-0131 Charlotte Rose Kelman 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5161-0234 Jo Thompson Coon 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0551-9157 Obioha C Ukoumunne 2 ,
• Darren Moore 3 ,
• Rebecca Gudka 1 ,
• Eleanor F Bryant 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2903-6264 Abigail Russell 1
• 1 Children and Young People's Mental Health (ChYMe) Research Collaboration , University of Exeter , Exeter , Devon , UK
• 2 NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC) , University of Exeter Medical School , Exeter , UK
• 3 University of Exeter , Exeter , UK
• Correspondence to Charlotte Rose Kelman; c.kelman{at}exeter.ac.uk

Objectives We described the range and types of objective measures of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and young people (CYP) reported in research that can be applied in naturalistic settings.

Design Scoping review using best practice methods.

Data Sources MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, (via OVID); British Education Index, Education Resources Information Centre, Education Abstracts, Education Research Complete, Child Development and Adolescent Papers, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection (via EBSCO) were searched between 1 December 2021 and 28 February 2022.

Eligibility Criteria Papers reported an objective measure of ADHD traits in CYP in naturalistic settings written in English.

Data extraction and synthesis 2802 papers were identified; titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers. 454 full-text papers were obtained and screened. 128 papers were eligible and included in the review. Data were extracted by the lead author, with 10% checked by a second team member. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used.

Results Of the 128 papers, 112 were primary studies and 16 were reviews. 87% were conducted in the USA, and only 0.8% originated from the Global South, with China as the sole representative. 83 objective measures were identified (64 observational and 19 acceleration-sensitive measures). Notably, the Behaviour Observation System for Schools (BOSS), a behavioural observation, emerged as one of the predominant measures. 59% of papers reported on aspects of the reliability of the measure (n=76). The highest inter-rater reliability was found in an unnamed measure (% agreement=1), Scope Classroom Observation Checklist (% agreement=0.989) and BOSS (% agreement=0.985). 11 papers reported on aspects of validity. 12.5% of papers reported on their method of data collection (eg, pen and paper, on an iPad). Of the 47 papers that reported observer training, 5 reported the length of time the training took ranging from 3 hours to 1 year. Despite recommendations to integrate objective measures alongside conventional assessments, use remains limited, potentially due to inconsistent psychometric properties across studies.

Conclusions Many objective measures of ADHD have been developed and described, with the majority of these being direct behavioural observations. There is a lack of reporting of psychometric properties and guidance for researchers administering these measures in practice and in future studies. Methodological transparency is needed. Encouragingly, recent papers begin to address these issues.

• child & adolescent psychiatry
• impulse control disorders
• psychometrics

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080306

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Strengths and limitations of this study

Our scoping review is the first to identify objective measures for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in naturalistic settings.

Our scoping review has been conducted and reported according to best practice, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines to ensure a high standard of methodological and reporting quality.

The terms ‘objective’ and ‘naturalistic’ can be understood differently, and the criteria we have used may limit the scope of our findings.

Searches were however conducted in 2022 and more recent papers may have advanced the field, such as the recent publication of reporting guidelines for psychometric properties.

Introduction

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with an estimated global prevalence of 5.29% (95% CI: 5.01 to 5.56). 1 It is characterised by chronic hyperactivity, impulsivity and/or inattention, across multiple settings. Although traits can be found across all children and young people (CYP), they are more prominent in those with ADHD. These traits can negatively impact functioning at home, school or in social situations, 2–4 and can be a risk factor for numerous functional impairments that often persist into adulthood. 5–7

Despite ADHD being highly prevalent, there are still significant gaps and discord in research, particularly regarding assessment and diagnosis. 8 An ADHD diagnosis is based on psychiatric criteria, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases 11, both of which require symptoms to be present prior to 12 years old, 9 and across settings. 10 11 With the exception of these diagnostic criteria, there is no definitive framework for assessing ADHD, with variations observed among different nations and even within specific geographical regions, each adhering to unique assessment processes. Health institutions typically follow clinical guidelines, such as The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, 12 to recognise, assess and manage ADHD. Internationally, all guidelines specify who can diagnose and prescribe, and emphasise the importance of clinical interviews, direct observations, family history and recommend rating scales as auxiliary tools, however adherence is not mandatory. 13 Due to the heterogeneous nature of ADHD, most guidelines suggest using subjective measures from multiple informants (eg, teachers, parents and clinicians) that rely on individual beliefs or perceptions to inform the outcome. 14 However, opinions may be biased or influenced by the setting in which the informant knows the child. This subjectivity often leads to significant inconsistencies in ratings across sources, with low agreement between parent and teacher reports being typical in ADHD evaluations. 15 16 Clinicians instead may rely on their own judgement and experience. 17–21 This has led to suggestions that objective measures could alleviate some bias and improve diagnostic accuracy.

An objective measure of ADHD assesses traits through non-opinion-based means. Examples include continuous performance tests (CPTs), 22 systematic behavioural observations, 23 24 acceleration-sensitive tests, 25 26 virtual reality and functional MRI. 27 Objective measures mitigate issues such as informant bias and inconsistencies, which subjective measures are prone to. Objective measures are often not implemented in research and clinical settings, despite being recommended. 28 29 Implementation could offer further evidence towards assessment. Previous reviews have reported that objective measures can exhibit high reliability and validity but demonstrate variability. 24 30 31 For example, Minder et al found the inter-rater reliability across systematic behavioural observations ranged from 0.61 to 1 (Pearson’s r) and from 0.39 to 0.99 (kappa coefficient), and convergent validity varied across studies and tools, with correlations ranging from poor to strong. Objective measures have been found to have good discriminant validity between ADHD and neurotypical people, however, are not as effective as discriminating between ADHD and other disorders. 24 32

ADHD symptoms must be present across all settings to meet diagnostic criteria. However, diagnostic assessments typically occur in controlled clinical settings that lack ecological validity and cannot replicate real-world experiences, and ADHD traits are dynamic. 10 11 The nature and incidence of ADHD behaviours can vary between settings and across similar situations within one setting. 33 34 Hence, there is a definite need to assess ADHD in the presence of those uncontrollable factors, as diagnosis is predicated on symptom presence and impairment across all settings. 35 In turn, the clinical symptoms for ADHD are behavioural, and in settings, such as school, impairment is likely be greater and children may struggle to cope. 36 Therefore, it is important that assessments consider environmental influences.

Several recent reviews of objective measures in ADHD have been conducted 24 29 32 37 ; however, each review focused in depth on a specific type of measure rather than the breadth of what measures have been studied in the research literature. Considering the importance of both objective measures and naturalistic settings in the assessment of ADHD, it is currently unclear which objective measures of ADHD could be used in naturalistic settings. Due to the exploratory nature of this aim, a scoping review was deemed the most appropriate method for this study. A scoping review is an analysis of existing literature, focusing on the breadth and scope of a topic. 38 39 Unlike systematic reviews, which delve deeply into specific questions, scoping reviews prioritise breadth over depth. 38 This descriptive scoping review highlights the array of measures used in the field and what information is reported about them across studies, and identifies gaps in knowledge and informs future research.

We aimed to describe the types of objective measures of ADHD in CYP that have been applied in naturalistic settings and reported in research.

The research questions (RQs) were:

What are the existing objective measures of ADHD in CYP that could be applied in naturalistic settings?

What types of objective measures are there?

What populations have been included in this body of research?

What is the reliability and validity of the objective measures?

How were the objective measures implemented, protocol and registration.

A protocol, written in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, 40 is available on the University of Exeter repository. 41

Eligibility criteria

Study design.

Any study designs were eligible, including systematic reviews. Studies included within systematic reviews were used to identify objective measures.

Participants

CYP aged 18 years old or under presenting with any of the three main ADHD symptoms: hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention. CYP with a clinical or research diagnosis, or presenting symptoms of ADHD as indicated by a validated measure were eligible for inclusion.

Any objective measure used in a naturalistic setting or that could be applied in a naturalistic setting to assess symptoms of ADHD, including behavioural observations, accelerometers, and rating scales. Rating scales recording perceptions of symptom severity or occurrence were excluded.

Naturalistic settings, defined as a child’s everyday variety of settings, included home, school or community spaces. If a study took a child out of their everyday routine, it was not eligible for inclusion, for example, summer ‘treatment’ programme settings.

Date and language

Papers from any country published from 1987, due to reconceptualisation from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) to ADHD in the DSM. Only papers written in English were included to prevent any miscommunication when translating.

Information sources

Selection of sources of evidence.

The search strategy aimed to identify published peer-reviewed journal papers and grey literature. An initial preliminary search of MEDLINE, EBSCO and Embase via OVID was conducted to locate papers relevant to this area and to scope the size of the evidence base.

Electronic databases

MEDLINE, APAPsychINFO, Embase, (via OVID); British Education Index, Education Resources Information Centre, Education Abstracts, Education Research Complete, Child Development and Adolescent Papers, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection (via EBSCO) were searched between 1 December 2021 and 28th February 2022. Grey literature searching was conducted between 30 June 2022 and 31st August 2022.

Search strategy

The search strategy can be found in the online supplemental material .

Supplemental material

Identification of papers for inclusion.

All records were double screened. Duplications were removed and studies were imported into CADIMA for title and abstract screening which took place independently by CRK, RG and EB. These authors then conducted independent full-text screening. If necessary, discrepancies were resolved by consensus or referral to AR.

Data charting process

Data charting, whereby relevant data were extracted from studies, was completed using Microsoft Excel to facilitate. The draft charting spreadsheet was piloted on an initial 20 papers. After piloting, amendments were made to ensure that it captured all relevant details to answer our RQs. Data were extracted by the lead author. A random sample of 10% of papers was checked by SH (Suzie Holt) and KC (Kirsty Corwell) and as the error rates were low this was considered adequate. Data were extracted or charted for 39 features of included papers. These included key data about the study type and design, participant characteristics and detailed information on the objective measure including psychometric data. A full list of items is reported in the online supplemental material .

Synthesis of results

Papers were grouped and synthesised based on commonalities. In the process of reviewing the included studies, we identified recurring themes and categories that were prevalent across multiple papers. Consequently, we adopted these categories as the basis for our analytical framework. The key defining feature that grouped papers was whether objective measures were behaviour observations or acceleration-sensitive devices.

Patient and public involvement statement

Patient and public involvement was not used for this scoping review.

The screening process is shown in figure 1 . The original search yielded 2802 potentially relevant citations. Before screening, 1587 duplicates were removed. After deduplication, 1215 citations proceeded to the screening stage. A total of 612 records were initially excluded at title and abstract screening. Following an alteration to the original protocol, a second stage of title and abstract screening was undertaken to exclude papers that described sleep and ADHD using objective measures, unless papers were reporting on the use of the objective measures to quantify core ADHD symptoms. This resulted in the exclusion of a further 139 papers. A total of 454 papers potentially met the eligibility criteria based on title and abstract, and the corresponding full-text papers were procured for review. Ninety-three papers were unobtainable and were not screened at full-text stage, 361 papers were screened at the full-text stage. In total, 128 papers were eligible for inclusion.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of screened and included studies. ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Characteristics of sources of evidence

A total of 112 of the included papers described primary research and 16 were reviews, 2 of which were systematic reviews. Thirty-nine of the included studies involved understanding, assessing or improving non-pharmacological interventions, 19 involved investigating demographic characteristics in relation to ADHD and associated behaviours or outcomes, 16 tested the psychometric properties of objective measures, 11 involved adapting or evaluating current diagnostic criteria, 10 involved exploring, identifying or evaluating functional impairments associated with ADHD, 9 investigated the efficacy, impact or pharmacological aspects of treatments, 8 involved interventions providing support for activity levels, 6 tested the psychometric properties of a subjective measure, 6 involved the development or revision of subjective measures, 5 employed multiple methods, techniques or modalities to assess or diagnose ADHD and one tested a CPT.

Of the included papers, 123 reported country of setting. Most (n=87) were undertaken in the USA, 11 in the UK; 3 each in Canada, Japan, The Netherlands and Switzerland; 2 each in Australia, Italy, South Korea and Spain; and 1 each in Belgium, China, Germany, New Zealand and Taiwan. This is summarised in table 1 .

• View inline

Included papers participant characteristics

What populations have been included?

Eighty nine (69.5%) of the 128 papers had participants with a diagnosis of ADHD. Of those 89 papers, 49 included research diagnoses (55%), 34 included clinical diagnoses (38%), and 4 included both research and clinical diagnoses (4.5%).

Primary studies

Of the 112 primary papers included in the review, 96 reported the number of participants. The number of participants ranged from 1 to 1378, with a mean of 118.6 (SD=247.6, median=44, IQR=81.5). The mean age was 8.6 (SD=2.0), and ages ranged from 3 to 18 years old. Eighty-nine of the 103 primary studies either explicitly stated or provided the information (eg, number of male participants) to calculate the percentage of male participants within the study. The mean percentage of male participants across the primary papers was 75.9% (SD=16.83), ranging from 46.4% to 100%.

Forty four of the 103 primary studies described the ethnicity or nationality of the participants; of these, 41 papers explicitly stated the percentage of participants for each ethnicity or nationality group. Nine different ethnicities were included. The most common ethnicity of participants was white/Caucasian (mean=65%, range=14.6%–100%, median=75% and IQR=42.6%) with 32 references to the percentage of the population who were white/Caucasian and three stating their population was ‘predominantly’ or ‘mostly’ white. The other ethnicities mentioned included black/African American (n included studies=26, range reported in included studies=1%–100%, median=12% and IQR=9.4%), Hispanic/Latino (n=18, range=11.6%–100%, median=11%, IQR=25.1%), Asian (n=5, range=1.9%–21%), Native American/American Indian/Inuit or Aleutian (n=4, range=1%–2%), mixed ethnicity/bi-racial/multiracial (n=7, range=3.7%–21%), Asian Pacific Islander (n=4, range=1%–14%), ‘Ethnic Minority’ (n=1), and other (n=6, range=1.16%–21%).

Rather than ethnicity, some studies reported nationality. Nine different named nationalities were included within the primary papers. This included Portugal (n=1), China (n=1), West Indies (n=1), Japan (n=2), Taiwan (n=1), Former Yugoslavia (n=1), ‘the rest of Europe’ (n=1), African (n=1) and ‘the rest of the world’ (n=1). Further details on participant characteristics can be found in table 1 .

Of the 16 included reviews, three reported the number of participants. The number of participants ranged from 228 to 18 074. Participant ages ranged from 5 to 13 years old. The mean percentage of male participants across the primary papers was 76% (SD=17%), ranging from 46.4%–100%.

What types of existing objective measures of ADHD in CYP can be applied in naturalistic settings?

The objective measures identified fall into two categories: direct behavioural observations and acceleration-sensitive measures. Of the 83 individual objective measures, 64 (77%) were observational measures and 19 (23%) were acceleration-sensitive measures.

Direct behavioural observations (number of included papers=64)

Direct behavioural observations of children’s classroom behaviour were the most common assessment methods used in the included studies ( table 2 ). From the 64 observational measures identified, 22 were unnamed. Our included studies’ direct behavioural observations often used frequency, or event, recording to compare the frequency of behaviours in comparison to control children. 42 Many used time sampling, which refers to whether a behaviour does or does not occur during an interval within an observation period. This can either be during the whole predefined interval (whole interval), at any point within the interval (partial interval) or at a fixed moment of time (momentary time sampling). 24 43

Reliability reported in included direct behavioural observation studies (n=64)

The most frequently used measure was the Behaviour Observation System for Schools (BOSS) (n=24). The BOSS is a whole-interval time sampling measure which is split into 15-s intervals. The total observation period was predominantly 15 min across the studies, 44–46 however, some took 10 47 or 30 min. 48 There are five behaviour codes used across the studies which used the BOSS: Active Engaged Time (AET), Passive Engaged Time (PET), Off Task Motor (OFT-M), Off Task Verbal (OFT-V), and Off Task Passive (OFT-P).

The next most frequently identified was the Classroom Observation Code (COC) (n=16, 26%). Similar to the BOSS, the COC is a whole-interval time sampling measure which is split into 15-s intervals. Again, the total length differed between studies (eg, 30 min, 49 across two blocks of 8 min 50 and 2/3 min 51 ). The COC assesses the occurrence of 12 mutually exclusive behaviour categories including Interference, Off-Task Behaviour, Non-Compliance, Gross Motor-Standing, Gross Motor-Vigorous, Out-of-Chair Behaviour, Physical Aggression, Threat or Verbal Aggression Directed at Another Child, Threat or Verbal Aggression Directed at the Teacher, Solicitation of Teacher, and Absence of Behaviour. 52

The third most frequently identified was the Direct Observation Form (DOF) (n=12). The DOF is a 10-min observation which can occur in a group, classroom or playtime setting. 53 As well as a narrative description (that would not meet criteria for being an objective measure), the observer rates whether the child is on-task or off-task during the last 5 s of each 1 min-interval. 54 The DOF On-task score is the total number of 1-min intervals when the child was rated as on-task, averaged across multiple 10-min observations. 52

A summary of each observational measure is provided in the online supplemental table 1 .

Acceleration-sensitive measures (n=19)

Acceleration-sensitive measures measure activity levels or movement of an individual. 37 The type of acceleration-sensitive measure common in our review was actigraph (n=19). Actigraphs are small, sensor-based devices that record motor activity. 55 They are usually worn on the wrist (n=16), waist (n=5), hip (n=4) or ankle (n=3) (some were worn in multiple places). Actigraphs calculate an individual’s activity level per unit of time, 56 and can record continuously over hours or days. 57 58 Due to this, they are useful for measuring habitual activity in everyday life. 59 However, it has been suggested that actigraphy simplifies complex motor data into the number of times that part of the body accelerates above a pre-set threshold. 56

The most frequently mentioned acceleration-sensitive measure was the motionlogger actigraph (including, mini and micro mini) (n=8), which is a device that was worn continuously on the non-dominant wrist 53 56 60 or as a belt. 61 The next most frequently mentioned acceleration-sensitive measures were the CSA actigraph (n=2), the actigraph LIGNEX 1 (n=2), GT1 M actigraph (n=2), Runscribe inertial sensors (n=2) and actigraph GT3x device (n=2).

A summary of each observational measure is provided in online supplemental table 2 .

Reliability

Over half of the papers mentioned the reliability of the objective measure (n=76). Reliability was predominantly expressed as inter-rater reliability (n=80), with some using test–retest (n=5). Inter-rater reliability was mainly presented as a percentage agreement (n=48), kappa statistic (n=21), phi coefficient (n=5) and Cronbach’s alpha (n=6). Further reliability details are reported in table 2 . The measures found to be most reliable between raters were an unnamed measure (% agreement=1), the Scope Classroom Observation Checklist (SCOC) (% agreement=0.989), 62 and the Behavioural Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS) (% agreement=0.985). 63 The lowest reliability measure was a phi coefficient of 0.53 for the Functional Observation of Classrooms and Learners (FOCAL Point). 64

Aspects of validity were mentioned in 11 papers but often inconsistently. Where papers only used correlation coefficients to quantify agreement, these statistics are not reported here. Group comparisons were reported when comparing ADHD groups to control groups. Summaries of validity findings in these papers are presented in table 3 .

Validity reported in included studies

Implementation

Of the 128 primary and review papers, 16 identified the format of the measure. This does not include papers where the observational measure records what it does (eg, accelerometers). Twelve of the 16 measures were recorded electronically and four used pencil and paper, as seen in online supplemental tables 3 and 4 .

Forty seven of the 128 papers mentioned who recorded the objective measure, as seen in online supplemental tables 3 and 4 . Of the 103 primary papers, 47 mentioned training being given or stated the observers were ‘trained’. Five of those papers that mentioned training, also mentioned the length of time the training took. The length of training time ranged from 3 hours to 1 year. More detail is shown in online supplemental tables 3 and 4 . Of the 103 primary papers, 85 mentioned how long the measure took to complete. The observational measures ranged from 5 min to 90 min, with many being repeated multiple times. The acceleration-sensitive measures ranged from 3 hours to >7 days.

Given the increasing interest in objective measures, this review aimed to understand the range and types of objective measures of ADHD in the research literature that are relevant to CYP and that could be applied in naturalistic settings.

The review found 83 objective measures; systematic behavioural observations and acceleration-sensitive measures made up most of the objective measures used in naturalistic settings, with the same large-scale commercialised tests (eg, the BOSS) being predominantly used across papers. Like Minder et al , 24 we found the BOSS to be one of the most commonly used objective measures of ADHD. However, alterations to measures, like the BOSS test, lack consistent documentation. We found considerably less included studies usedacceleration-sensitive measures, with just over 30% of the papers reporting on them. This reflects Hall et al , who similarly found acceleration-sensitive tests to be less commonly used than observations. 29 This is perhaps unsurprising as there is no mandatory requirement for psychological or neuropsychological tests in the diagnostic process, highlighting a potential gap in assessment practices.

The included studies primarily aimed to refine assessment methods and assess the efficacy of interventions, particularly school-based cognitive behavioural therapy programmes, often integrating objective measures alongside conventional assessment methods. This is reflective of best-practice recommendations in literature, such as those made by Emser et al , 28 who highlight the added value of using an objective measure in ADHD assessment, as well as being reflective of clinical guidance. Despite this, these are less used in clinical practice. 29 35 This could be for numerous reasons, one being that the psychometric properties of one objective measure are reported to vary widely across studies, as seen in this review. Clinician and researcher had confidence that objective measures that capture change or symptoms robustly may be impacted by this, leading to objective measures being used as an adjunct rather than a primary outcome or assessment method. This review shows that there are, however, objective measures that are psychometrically sound, such as the BOSS; there remains a gap between research findings and real-world application, highlighting the need for further bridging of this divide to improve clinical outcomes. Moreover, the majority of the included papers were from the USA, which was considerably higher than the next most common setting (the UK (9%)). This was unsurprising as psychological papers remain largely American. 65 While only making up 4.25% of the total world population, the USA dominates psychological research. 66 67 This influence is noteworthy, particularly regarding variations in how ADHD is understood across cultures. Psychological research, often reliant on White, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) samples, risks limited generalisability. 68 Objective measures developed and assessed solely in Western contexts may not be universally applicable and could even be harmful. 69 70 Despite increased publications from non-Western countries since 2014, the Global South remains under-represented in top social science outputs. 71 In our study, only 0.8% of papers were from the Global South, with China being the sole representative. Further cross-cultural validation of objective measures is essential for robust generalisation.

Another area warranting further scrutiny is the reporting of psychometric properties of measures. In our review, over half of the papers reported reliability, and only 11 reported validity. Previous studies have identified a systematic lack of reporting of psychometric properties across the fields of education, health and psychology. 72 73 Echoing Barry et al , 72 the most reported psychometric property in this review was inter-rater reliability. Similar to wider literature, 74–76 validity was significantly under reported, with only 11 included papers reporting validity. It could be suggested that researchers assume that a given measure will be sufficient either based on previous studies or the common use of the measure, 77 however, as many also lack adequate reporting this could create further issues if relying on these measures. Reassessing reliability and validity statistics, even if reported in previous studies, to guide instrument selection is crucial for establishing psychometric evidence in the new sample. 78 Following the synthesis of our findings, a psychometric reporting guideline has been published by Johansson et al . 79 They provide both a minimal checklist, for what readers should scrutinise in a psychometric paper, and a comprehensive set of checklist items for studies reporting psychometric properties. They go on to suggest that the minimal checklist could act as a foundation for determining whether a measure is valid and reliable. Future research studies should focus on clearly stating how objective measures are used, the processes behind using and recording objective measures, and routinely report psychometric properties of the measures in the study sample as well as citing those from prior papers. Using a reporting guideline will ensure more consistency and a higher standard across psychometric reporting. Encouragingly, recent papers begin to address these issues. For example, Basic et al 80 explored the use of motion sensors for detecting ADHD and found high accuracy with advanced computational methods. However, they emphasise a need for further validation and integration with other methods.

Based on this review, clinicians integrating objective measures into assessment, particularly in naturalistic settings like schools, should prioritise measures with strong psychometric evidence. Further research is needed to validate objective measures across diverse populations, including non-Western cultures, to improve generalisability. Methodological transparency, including clear definitions of terms and detailed descriptions of methodologies, is crucial for advancing ADHD research.

Our scoping review was the first to identify objective measures in naturalistic settings, specifically for CYP. One strength was that this scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to ensure a high standard of methodological and reporting quality. We further endeavoured to report changes to criteria from the protocol, in order to be transparent with our identification process. An arguable weakness is the arbitrariness in definition of objective and naturalistic. The term objective can be understood differently, and our criteria within this paper may limit the scope of our findings. Naturalistic was defined as something which does not take a child out of their normal routine, however the definition of a ‘normal routine’ could be contested. Hence, this generalisation may have missed some papers. This is especially true where children with special educational needs, including children with ADHD, may be taken out of the classroom in smaller groups or work 1-to-1.

This study identified multiple objective measures of ADHD, which could be used to assess symptoms of ADHD in naturalistic settings (eg, school). However, the searches were conducted in 2022, and publication in 2024 therefore means there may have been further relevant studies published that are not captured within our findings. Throughout this review it has been evident that the psychometric properties and implementation of objective measures has been overlooked in ADHD research in naturalistic settings. Further adaptations and testing would be needed to see if objective measures were valid for a range of neurodevelopmental disorders or to add value to diagnostic decisions. Further testing is needed in a variety of cultures and countries to be able to generalise our findings, particularly in the Global South.

In conclusion this review identified a range of measures to objectively measure traits of ADHD. It highlighted a need for improved psychometric reporting, as well as transparency of how measures were implemented. Regarding specific measures, the BOSS is the most used in research and has the most recordings of its psychometric properties. However, there are some promising measures that require further research (eg, the SCOC).

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Acknowledgments.

We thank Suzie Holt and Kirsty Cordwell (University of Exeter) for full text screening.

• Polanczyk G ,
• de Lima MS ,
• Horta BL , et al
• Agnew-Blais J ,
• Michelini G
• Janssens A , et al
• Schoenfelder EN ,
• Huang K-L , et al
• Howard AL ,
• Kennedy TM ,
• Mitchell JT , et al
• Lidestam B ,
• Selander H ,
• Vaa T , et al
• American Psychiatric Association
• Castellanos FX ,
• Sonuga-Barke EJS ,
• Milham MP , et al
• Coghill DR ,
• Werner-Kiechle T ,
• Farahbakhshian S , et al
• Jungersen CM ,
• Nissley-Tsiopinis J ,
• Nanda S , et al
• Mallaris Y , et al
• Tchaconas A ,
• Meryash D , et al
• Dekkers TJ ,
• Groenman AP ,
• Wessels L , et al
• Kovshoff H ,
• Williams S ,
• Vrijens M , et al
• Nelson JM ,
• Whipple B ,
• Lindstrom W , et al
• Kadesjö J ,
• Kadesjö B , et al
• Escolano-Pérez E ,
• Herrero-Nivela ML ,
• Blanco-Villaseñor A , et al
• Zuberer A ,
• Brandeis D , et al
• Gawrilow C ,
• Kühnhausen J ,
• Schmid J , et al
• Griffiths KR ,
• Quintana DS ,
• Hermens DF , et al
• Cortese S ,
• Chabernaud C , et al
• Johnston BA ,
• Steele JD , et al
• Valentine AZ ,
• Groom MJ , et al
• Oosterlaan J ,
• Oord S , et al
• Albitos PJ ,
• Hao YF , et al
• Amemiya J , et al
• Rommelse N ,
• Matthys W ,
• Anderson E ,
• Buitelaar J ,
• Wakschlag L.
• Wheeler L ,
• Pumfrey P ,
• Wakefield P
• Gualtieri CT ,
• Sonuga‐Barke EJS ,
• Barua PD , et al
• Peters MDJ ,
• Stern C , et al
• Tricco AC ,
• Zarin W , et al
• Kelman CR ,
• Thompson Coon J ,
• Ukoumunne OC , et al
• Twyford J ,
• Junod REV ,
• Pfiffner LJ ,
• Villodas M ,
• Kaiser N , et al
• Steiner NJ ,
• Frenette EC ,
• Rene KM , et al
• Kennerley S ,
• Jaquiery B ,
• Hatch B , et al
• Veenman B ,
• Oosterlaan J
• Miller TW ,
• Stevenson J ,
• Sonuga-Barke E ,
• McCann D , et al
• Schottelkorb AA
• Johnson KA ,
• Wong PS , et al
• Ironside S , et al
• Kaku R , et al
• Muñoz-Organero M ,
• Heller B , et al
• Cho SM , et al
• Takahashi H ,
• Nakamura T , et al
• Faedda GL ,
• Hernandez M , et al
• McHale S , et al
• Aspiranti KB ,
• Ninness C ,
• Rumph R , et al
• Martingano AJ ,
• Bajwa N ul H ,
• Henrich J ,
• Norenzayan A
• Tindall L ,
• Kerrigan P , et al
• Ngwenya N ,
• Dziva Chikwari C ,
• Seeley J , et al
• Thalmayer AG ,
• Toscanelli C ,
• Piazza-Gardner AK , et al
• Twum Antwi-Agyakwa K
• Schimmack U
• Lilienfeld SO ,
• Strother AN
• Johansson M ,
• Preuter M ,
• Karlsson S , et al
• Uusimaa J ,
• DuPaul GJ ,
• Jitendra AK , et al
• Hosterman SJ ,
• Jitendra AK
• Sheldrick RC ,
• Frenette EC , et al
• Slattery L ,
• Crosland K ,
• Iovannone R
• Capriotti M ,
• Beaulieu A , et al
• Friedman LM ,
• Dvorsky MR , et al
• Santiago-Rodríguez ME ,
• Davis CL , et al
• Paolicelli LM , et al
• Abikoff HB ,
• Jensen PS ,
• Arnold LLE , et al
• Miller ML ,
• Abikoff H ,
• Hechtman L ,
• Klein RG , et al
• McConaughy SH ,
• Harder VS ,
• Antshel KM , et al
• Skansgaard EP ,
• Dunson RM ,
• Hughes JN ,
• Thompson A V
• Fiorello CA ,
• Carroll A ,
• Houghton S ,
• Taylor M , et al
• Luitjohan JR
• Simonsen BM ,
• Pipan M , et al
• McGoey KE ,
• Schneider DL ,
• Rezzetano KM , et al
• Atkins MS ,
• Pelham WE ,
• McNamara E ,
• Bloomquist ML ,
• August GJ ,
• Ostrander R , et al
• Charlebois P ,
• LeBlanc M ,
• Gagnon C , et al
• Broussard CD ,
• Rapport MD ,
• Ardoin SP ,
• Mclaughlin V ,
• Gresham F ,
• Macmillan D , et al
• Jitendra AK ,
• Tresco KE , et al
• Hoerger ML ,
• Symons FJ ,
• Kim O , et al
• Kofler MJ ,
• Alderson RM , et al
• Fedewa AL ,
• Schafer EC ,
• Mathews L ,
• Mehta S , et al
• McGrath AM ,
• Handwerk ML ,
• Armstrong KJ , et al
• Amado-Caballero P ,
• Casaseca-de-la-Higuera P ,
• Alberola-Lopez S , et al

Contributors CRK: conceptualisation, investigation, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing. JTC: conceptualisation, supervision, writing - review and editing. OCU: conceptualisation, supervision, writing - review and editing. DM: conceptualisation, supervision, writing - review and editing. RG: investigation, validation. EB: investigation, validation. AR: conceptualisation, supervision, writing - review and editing. CRK and AR acted as guarantors.

Funding National Institute for Health Research NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300591), and The Department of Health and Social Care Grant no: NA.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF: