review articles of research

• Insights blog

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

• Published: 02 October 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
• Mark B. Houston 2 &
• John Hulland 3  

239k Accesses

478 Citations

64 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
• [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
• How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
• How to write a review article. Williamson RC. Williamson RC. Hosp Med. 2001 Dec;62(12):780-2. doi: 10.12968/hosp.2001.62.12.2389. Hosp Med. 2001. PMID: 11810740 Review.
• A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
• Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
• Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
• Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
• Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
• Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
• Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 92.9K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

• Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
• Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
• Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
• Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
• Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
• Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
• Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
• Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

The do’s and don’ts of writing review articles

If you (or a global pandemic) take the bench away from the scientist, what do they do? They write reviews of course!

As many of us are now far too familiar with, crafting a review article presents a series of unique challenges. Unlike a manuscript, in which the nature of your data inherently shapes the narrative of the article, a review requires synthesizing one largely from scratch. Reviews are often initiated without a well-defined scope going in, which can often leave us feeling overwhelmed, like we’re faced with covering an entire field.

With these challenges in mind, here are a few tips and tricks to make review writing as painless as possible, for the next time you lose your pipette:

• Defining this viewpoint can be extremely helpful in limiting the scope of your literature search, preventing the overwhelming feeling of having to read every paper ever — focus your time and energy on deep-dives into those papers most important to this motivating viewpoint.
• Ask yourself: Who do you want reading your review? What could you cover that would be most helpful to them?
• This will be an iterative process — the focus of your review will likely change significantly over the writing process, as you read more papers and start organizing your thoughts.
• For each review, ask: What are their take-home messages? How can you differentiate your own from each of these?
• As a member of the field, look out for things you wish they had covered: “I wish they had a figure on this, I wish they discussed this, I wish they clarified this…”
• Are there key papers that they missed?
• Are there key papers that have been published since these reviews have been published?
• Cite other reviews to save yourself some writing! If a tangentially related topic is outside of the scope of your review, it’s commonplace to reference other reviews for the sake of brevity, and to recognize their hard work: “X is outside of the scope of this review, but is covered in-depth here [Ref]”).
• For each paper, ask: What was known before this paper, what did this paper show, and what are its limitations?
• It’s important to accept the fact that it is impossible to read, let alone discuss in-depth, hundreds and hundreds of papers.
• Depending on how each paper will fit into your article’s narrative, it may only be necessary to review specific sections or figures. [ I don’t have to read every word of every paper?! ]
• Given the unstructured nature of a non-data-driven article, this is a hugely important step in the process that will make writing infinitely less painful.
• Which key papers are you going to discuss in which sections?
• Outline subsections and transitions under each major section.
• Engage with your PI early and often in the process of crafting your outline, and try to get explicit approval of the finished product before you start writing — this can save you from a lot of painful backtracking later!
• Writing and structuring your review should be iterative as you continue to refine, read more papers, and start to actually get words down on the page
• The most helpful reviews synthesize the findings of multiple papers into a cohesive take-home message.
• Think about how specific findings relate to your overarching motivation for this article
• Think about how different papers relate to each other — do different studies align, or do they contradict each other?
• Keep in mind how people generally skim articles, by skimming the figures — reviews are no different
• Figures should be included in your structural outline
• For example, many people pull schematics from their own reviews to use directly in background slides of future presentations
• While you cannot avoid citing and discussing major, high impact papers from larger journals, consider that these have likely already been discussed in great depth by other reviews given their high visibility. Good research exists in smaller journals, and you can do your part to cast a light on this work.
• You can provide a fresh perspective by looking outside your field for analogous research, provided you can find a creative way to fit it into the scope of your review’s narrative.

Blog post written by Caleb Perez , with input from Tyler Toth, Viraat Goel , and Prerna Bhargava .

Reviews versus Perspectives- It’s important to draw the distinction between reviews and perspectives here. Although we believe that both should review the field in the context of some overarching scientific viewpoint, perspective articles allow the author much more freedom to craft a more opinionated argument and are generally more forward-thinking. If you have that freedom, definitely use it!

Belonging to a group- Of course, the extent to which you can do this may be limited, depending on how familiar you are with the field. First-year graduate students getting into a new field, for example, may not have as great of a grasp on the gaps in the field — you may have to lean on the advice of your PI and colleagues to help guide you here, especially in the early stages of the process before you start your in-depth literature search.

How to read a paper- There are many situations in which a narrower, targeted paper review is warranted. As one example, imagine a section of a review in which you are comparing different technologies for application X. In this context, you may only need to do a detailed review of the methods sections and any figures they have that benchmark their method for your particular application of interest. The rest of the paper is less relevant, so there’s no need to waste your valuable time and energy. 

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Review Articles

Sophisticated natural products as antibiotics

This Review examines the diverse strategies utilized by naturally occurring antibiotics and suggests how they have provided, and will in future provide, inspiration for the design of novel antibiotics.

• Richard E. Lee
• Ingo Wohlgemuth

Expanding chemistry through in vitro and in vivo biocatalysis

This Review considers developments in enzymes, biosynthetic pathways and cellular engineering that enable their use in catalysis for new chemistry and beyond.

• Elijah N. Kissman
• Max B. Sosa
• Michelle C. Y. Chang

Decoding the interplay between genetic and non-genetic drivers of metastasis

This Review discusses the importance of genetic and non-genetic reprogramming events during the metastatic cascade.

• Panagiotis Karras
• James R. M. Black
• Jean-Christophe Marine

Bridging structural and cell biology with cryo-electron microscopy

The interplay between cryo-electron microscopy and cryo-electron tomography to define complex macromolecular assemblies and visualize them in situ is explored.

• Eva Nogales
• Julia Mahamid

Ion and lipid orchestration of secondary active transport

This Review describes the various mechanisms of ion-coupled transport across membranes and how the activities of transporter proteins are modulated by the composition of the lipid bilayer.

• Olga Boudker

Natural killer cell therapies

This Review explores in detail the complexity of NK cell biology in humans and highlights the role of these cells in cancer immunity.

• Eric Vivier
• Lucas Rebuffet
• Valeria R. Fantin

A break in mitochondrial endosymbiosis as a basis for inflammatory diseases

We suggest that as mitochondrial signals probably contribute to the homeostatic role of inflammation, dysregulation of these processes may lead to autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, with increasing evidence pointing to the recent failure of endosymbiosis being crucial.

• Michael P. Murphy
• Luke A. J. O’Neill

Molecular pathology of neurodegenerative diseases by cryo-EM of amyloids

Structural studies of amyloid filaments purified from brains of people with neurodegenerative diseases link specific amyloid folds with distinct diseases and provide a basis for the development of models of neurodegenerative disease.

• Sjors H. W. Scheres
• Benjamin Ryskeldi-Falcon
• Michel Goedert

From target discovery to clinical drug development with human genetics

This Review provides a perspective on the development of non-cancer therapies based on human genetics studies and suggests measures that can be taken to streamline the pipeline from initial genetic discovery to approved therapy.

• Katerina Trajanoska
• Claude Bhérer
• Vincent Mooser

Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

The advances in artificial intelligence over the past decade are examined, with a discussion on how artificial intelligence systems can aid the scientific process and the central issues that remain despite advances.

• Hanchen Wang
• Marinka Zitnik

Physiology and diseases of tissue-resident macrophages

This Review addresses the current understanding of the roles of tissue-resident macrophages in physiology and disease, including their development and their functions in tissue remodelling and nutrient recycling.

• Tomi Lazarov
• Sergio Juarez-Carreño
• Frederic Geissmann

A second wave of topological phenomena in photonics and acoustics

The current state of the art of topological phenomena in photonics and acoustics is reviewed and future research directions for valuable applications are discussed.

• Xiujuan Zhang
• Farzad Zangeneh-Nejad
• Johan Christensen

The neuroscience of cancer

This Review examines the interplay between the nervous system and tumours, from cancer initiation to progression and metastasis.

• Rebecca Mancusi
• Michelle Monje

Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus

This Review examines the palaeobiology of Australopithecus in terms of morphology, phylogeny, diet, tool use, locomotor behaviour and other characteristics, and considers the role of this genus of hominins in human evolution.

• Zeresenay Alemseged

Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery

Recent advances in computational approaches and challenges in their application to streamlining drug discovery are discussed.

• Anastasiia V. Sadybekov
• Vsevolod Katritch

Revisiting the Holocene global temperature conundrum

Examination of available evidence on whether anthropogenic global warming was preceded by a long-term warming trend or by global cooling provides support for a relatively mild millennial-scale global thermal maximum during the mid-Holocene.

• Darrell S. Kaufman
• Ellie Broadman

River ecosystem metabolism and carbon biogeochemistry in a changing world

A review of current river ecosystem metabolism research quantifies the organic and inorganic carbon flux from land to global rivers and demonstrates that the carbon balance can be influenced by a changing world.

• Tom J. Battin
• Ronny Lauerwald
• Pierre Regnier

Topological kagome magnets and superconductors

Recent key developments in the exploration of kagome materials are reviewed, including fundamental concepts of a kagome lattice, realizations of Chern and Weyl topological magnetism, flat-band many-body correlations, and unconventional charge-density waves and superconductivity.

• Jia-Xin Yin
• M. Zahid Hasan

Brain borders at the central stage of neuroimmunology

Anatomical, cellular and molecular immune interactions at the borders of the central nervous system control homeostatic brain function and can lead to neurological or psychiatric diseases, representing potential therapeutic targets.

• Justin Rustenhoven
• Jonathan Kipnis

Origin of life-forming volatile elements in the inner Solar System

The processes that distributed life-forming volatile elements throughout the early Solar System and how they then became incorporated into planetary building blocks are reviewed.

• Michael W. Broadley
• David V. Bekaert
• Bernard Marty

Quick links

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

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: July 27, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,130,584 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

RSC Advances

A comprehensive review on sustainable surfactants from cnsl: chemistry, key applications and research perspectives.

* Corresponding authors

a Department of Applied Chemistry, College of Science and Technology, Kookmin University, 77 Jeongneung-ro, Sungbuk-Gu, Seoul 02707, Republic of Korea E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Surfactants, a group of amphiphilic molecules ( i.e. with hydrophobic(water insoluble) as well as hydrophilic(water soluble) properties) can modulate interfacial tension. Currently, the majority of surfactants depend on petrochemical feedstocks (such as oil and gas). However, deployment of these petrochemical surfactants produces high toxicity and also has poor biodegradability which can cause more environmental issues. To address these concerns, the current research is moving toward natural resources to produce sustainable surfactants. Among the available natural resources, Cashew Nut Shell Liquid (CNSL) is the preferred choice for industrial scenarios to meet their goals of sustainability. CNSL is an oil extracted from non-edible cashew nut shells, which doesn't affect the food supply chain. The unique structural properties and diverse range of use cases of CNSL are key to developing eco-friendly surfactants that replace petro-based surfactants. Against this backdrop, this article discusses various state-of-the-art developments in key cardanol-based surfactants such as anionic, cationic, non-ionic, and zwitterionic. In addition to this, the efficiency and characteristics of these surfactants are also analyzed and compared with those of the synthetic surfactants (petro-based). Furthermore, the present paper also focuses on various market aspects and different applications in various industries. Finally, this article describes various future research perspectives including Artificial Intelligence technology which, of late, is having a huge impact on society.

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

A. Veeramanoharan and S. Kim, RSC Adv. , 2024,  14 , 25429 DOI: 10.1039/D4RA04684F

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author, advertisements.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Older Adults Do Not Benefit From Moderate Drinking, Large Study Finds

Virtually any amount increased the risk for cancer, and there were no heart benefits, the researchers reported.

By Roni Caryn Rabin

Even light drinking was associated with an increase in cancer deaths among older adults in Britain, researchers reported on Monday in a large study. But the risk was accentuated primarily in those who had existing health problems or who lived in low-income areas.

The study, which tracked 135,103 adults aged 60 and older for 12 years, also punctures the long-held belief that light or moderate alcohol consumption is good for the heart.

The researchers found no reduction in heart disease deaths among light or moderate drinkers, regardless of this health or socioeconomic status, when compared with occasional drinkers.

The study defined light drinking as a mean alcohol intake of up to 20 grams a day for men and up to 10 grams daily for women. (In the United States, a standard drink is 14 grams of alcohol .)

“We did not find evidence of a beneficial association between low drinking and mortality,” said Dr. Rosario Ortolá, an assistant professor of preventive medicine and public health at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the lead author of the paper, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

On the other hand, she added, alcohol probably raises the risk of cancer “from the first drop.”

The findings add to a mounting body of evidence that is shifting the paradigm in alcohol research. Scientists are turning to new methodologies to analyze the risks and benefits of alcohol consumption in an attempt to correct what some believe were serious flaws in earlier research, which appeared to show that there were benefits to drinking.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

New Open Access Journal from APS and Sage Expands Publishing Opportunity for Psychological Scientists

Applications now open for role of inaugural editor.

• Advances in Psychological Science Open
• APS Journals
• Open Practices

August 13, 2024 — The Association for Psychological Science (APS) and Sage announce the launch of Advances in Psychological Science Open , a fully open access journal that will publish high-quality empirical, technical, theoretical, and review articles, across the full range of areas and topics in psychological science. The journal will accept submissions in a variety of formats, including long-form articles and short reports, and APS is encouraging scientists to submit integrative and interdisciplinary research articles. 

“APS is always working to identify new ways to catalyze advances in psychological science,” said APS CEO Robert Gropp. “We are excited to announce that we are launching Advances in Psychological Science Open to provide a publication option for scientists who want a fully open access journal in which to share their research findings.”  

APS has launched a search for the inaugural editor of the journal with the goal of having an editor appointed to begin work in January 2025, with first acceptance of manuscripts in mid- 2025. Nominations, including self-nominations, for Founding Editor are welcomed.  Nominations of members of underrepresented groups in psychology are especially encouraged. For more information on how to submit a nomination, please refer to the open call here .  

“Sage has been committed to opening pathways for social and behavioral scientists since our founding nearly 60 years ago,” said Bob Howard, executive vice president, research at Sage. “We’re thrilled to build on our long-standing partnership with APS to launch a journal publishing high-quality, impactful research that will help shape the future of psychological science.” 

The new title is the seventh journal that APS will publish in partnership with Sage. Advances in Psychological Science Open adds to the rich ecosystem of APS publications that collectively meet the needs of the psychological science community. APS members will receive a significant discount on the open access fee for this new journal, adding to the suite of benefits that members already receive. 

For more information, please contact Scott Sleek at [email protected] .

About Sage  

Sage  is a global academic publisher of books, journals, and library resources with a growing range of technologies to enable discovery, access, and engagement. Believing that research and education are critical in shaping society, 24-year-old Sara Miller McCune founded Sage in 1965. Today, we are controlled by a group of trustees charged with maintaining our independence and mission indefinitely.  

See the related announcement: Advances in Psychological Science Open  Coming Soon

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Incoming PSPI Editor Colleen Seifert Outlines Her Goals for the Journal

Colleen Seifert aims to expand the range of topics covered in the APS publication.

Research Briefs

Recent highlights from APS journals articles.

Recent highlights from APS journals articles on the link between self-esteem and eating disorders, how to be liked in first encounters, the effects of stress on rigid learning, and much more.

Privacy Overview

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

Systematic and other reviews: criteria and complexities

Robert t. sataloff.

1 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Voice, Philadephia, USA

2 Editor Emeritus, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Philadephia, USA

Matthew L. Bush

3 Assistant Editor, Otology & Neurotology, Lexington, USA

Rakesh Chandra

4 Editor-in-Chief, Ear, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Nashville, USA

Douglas Chepeha

5 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, Toronto, Canada

Brian Rotenberg

6 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, London, Canada

Edward W. Fisher

7 Senior Editor, Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Birmingham, UK

David Goldenberg

8 Editor-in-Chief, Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Hershey, USA

Ehab Y. Hanna

9 Editor-in-Chief, Head & Neck, Houston, USA

Joseph E. Kerschner

10 Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Milwaukee, USA

Dennis H. Kraus

11 Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, New York, USA

John H. Krouse

12 Editor-in-Chief, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

13 Editor-in-Chief, OTO-Open, Philadelphia, USA

14 Editor-in-Chief, Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

15 Editor-in-Chief, World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

Michael Link

16 Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, Rochester, USA

Lawrence R. Lustig

17 Editor-in-Chief, Otology & Neurotology, New York, USA

Samuel H. Selesnick

18 Editor-in-Chief, The Laryngoscope, New York, USA

Raj Sindwani

19 Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, Cleveland, USA

Richard J. Smith

20 Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Iowa City, USA

James Tysome

21 Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Otolaryngology, Cambridge, UK

Peter C. Weber

22 Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Otolaryngology, Boston, USA

D. Bradley Welling

23 Editor-in-Chief, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, Boston, USA

Review articles can be extremely valuable. They synthesize information for readers, often provide clarity and valuable insights into a topic; and good review articles tend to be cited frequently. Review articles do not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval if the data reviewed are public (including private and government databases) and if the articles reviewed have received IRB approval previously. However, some institutions require IRB review and exemption for review articles. So, authors should be familiar with their institution’s policy. In assessing and interpreting review articles, it is important to understand the article’s methodology, scholarly purpose and credibility. Many readers, and some journal reviewers, are not aware that there are different kinds of review articles with different definitions, criteria and academic impact [ 1 ]. In order to understand the importance and potential application of a review article, it is valuable for readers and reviewers to be able to classify review articles correctly.

Systematic reviews

Authors often submit articles that include the term “systematic” in the title without realizing that that term requires strict adherence to specific criteria. A systematic review follows explicit methodology to answer a well-defined research question by searching the literature comprehensively, evaluating the quantity and quality of research evidence rigorously, and analyzing the evidence to synthesize an answer to the research question. The evidence gathered in systematic reviews can be qualitative or quantitative. However, if adequate and comparable quantitative data are available then a meta-analysis can be performed to assess the weighted and summarized effect size of the studies included. Depending on the research question and the data collected, systematic reviews may or may not include quantitative meta-analyses; however, meta-analyses should be performed in the setting of a systematic review to ensure that all of the appropriate data were accessed. The components of a systematic review can be found in an important article by Moher et al. published in 2009 that defined requirements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ 2 ].

In order to optimize reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) statement at a meeting in 1996 that led to publication of the QUOROM statement in 1999 [ 3 ]. Moher et al. revised that document and re-named the guidelines the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The PRISMA statement included both meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and the authors incorporated definitions established by the Cochrane Collaboration [ 4 ]. The PRISMA statement established the current standard for systematic reviews. To qualify as a systematic review, the methods section should acknowledge use of the PRISMA guidelines, and all PRISMA components should be incorporated strictly in all facets of the paper from the research question to the discussion. The PRISMA statement includes a checklist of 27 items that must be included when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis [ 2 ]. A downloadable version of this checklist can be used by authors, reviewers, and journal editorial staff to ensure compliance with recommended components [ 5 ]. All 27 will not be listed in this brief editorial (although authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the article by Moher et al. and familiarize themselves with all items), but a few will be highlighted.

The research question, as reflected in the title, should be a hypothesis-based specific research inquiry. The introduction must describe the rationale for the review and provide a specific goal or set of goals to be addressed. The type of systematic review, according to the Cochrane Collaboration, is based on the research question being asked and may assess diagnostic test accuracy, review prognostic studies evidence, evaluate intervention effect, scrutinize research methodology, or summarize qualitative evidence [ 6 ].

In the methods section, the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design (PICOS) must be put forward. In addition to mentioning compliance with PRISMA, the methods section should state whether a review protocol exists and, if so, where it can be accessed (including a registration number). Systematic reviews are eligible for registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as established at the University of York (York, UK). When PROSPERO is used (it is available but not required for systematic reviews), registration should occur at the initial protocol stage of the review, and the final paper should direct to the information in the register. The methods section also must include specific study characteristics including databases used, years considered, languages of articles included, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies; and rationale for each criterion must be included. Which individuals specifically performed searches should be noted. Electronic search strategy (with a full description of at least one electronic search strategy sufficient to allow replication of the search), process for article selection, data variables sought, assumptions and simplifications, methods for assessing bias risk of each individual study (such as selective reporting in individual studies) and utilization of this information in data synthesis, principal summary measures (risk ratio, hazard ratio, difference in means, etc.), methods of data management and combining study results, outcome level assessment, and other information should be reported.

The results section should include the number of studies identified, screened, evaluated for eligibility (including rationale for exclusion), and those included in the final synthesis. A PRISMA flow diagram should be included to provide this information succinctly [ 7 ]. The results also should include the study characteristics, study results, risk of bias within and across studies, and a qualitative or quantitative synthesis of the results of the included studies. This level of rigor in acquiring and evaluating the evidence of each individual study is one of the criteria that distinguishes systematic reviews from other categories. If the systematic review involves studies with paired samples and quantitative data, a summary of data should be provided for each intervention group along with effect estimates and confidence intervals for all outcomes of each study. If a meta-analysis is performed, then synthesized effect size should be reported with confidence intervals and measures of consistency (i.e. – data heterogeneity such as I 2 ) for each meta-analysis, and assessment of bias risk across studies. A forest plot, which provides a graphical presentation of the meta-analysis results, should be included.

The discussion section should summarize the main findings commenting on the strength of evidence for each outcome, as well as relevance to healthcare providers, policymakers and other key stake-holders; limitations of the study and outcomes; and conclusions highlighting the interpretation of results in the context of other research, and implications for future research.

Without adhering to of all of these criteria and the others listed in the PRISMA statement and checklist, the review does not qualify to be classified as “systematic”.

Meta-analyses

Meta-analyses, when feasible based on available and comparable quantitative data, supplement a systematic review evaluation, by adding a secondary statistical analysis of the pooled weighted outcomes of similar studies. This adds a level of objectivity in the synthesis of the review’s findings. Meta-analyses are appropriate when at least 2 individual studies contain paired samples (experimental group and control group) and provide quantitative outcome data and sample size. Studies that lack a control group may over-estimate the effect size of the experimental intervention or condition being studied and are not ideal for meta-analyses [ 8 ]. It also should be remembered that the conclusions of a meta-analysis are only as valid as the data on which the analysis is based. If the articles included are flawed, then the conclusions of the meta-analysis also may be flawed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the most rigorous categories of review.

Other types of reviews

Mixed methods reviews.

Systematic reviews typically contain a single type of data, either qualitative or quantitative; however, mixed methods reviews bring together a combination of data types or study types. This approach may be utilized when quantitative data, in the setting of an intervention study, only provide a narrow perspective of the efficacy or effectiveness of the intervention. The addition of qualitative data or qualitative studies may provide a more complete picture of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of clinicians, patients or researchers regarding that intervention. This type of review could involve collecting either the quantitative or the qualitative data using systematic review methodology, but often the qualitative data are gathered using a convenience sampling. Many qualitative studies provide useful insights into clinical management and/or implementation of research interventions; and incorporating them into a mixed methods review may provide valuable perspective on a wide range of literature. Mixed methods reviews are not necessarily systematic in nature; however, authors conducting mixed methods reviews should follow systematic review methodology, when possible.

Literature and narrative reviews

Literature reviews include peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, but also may include conference abstracts, books, graduate degree theses, and other non-peer reviewed publications. The methods used to identify and evaluate studies should be specified, but they are less rigorous and comprehensive than those required for systematic reviews. Literature reviews can evaluate a broad topic but do not specifically articulate a specific question, nor do they synthesize the results of included studies rigorously. Like mixed method reviews, they provide an overview of published information on the topic, although they may be less comprehensive than integrative reviews; and, unlike systematic reviews, they do not need to support evidence-based clinical or research practices, or highlight high-quality evidence for the reader. Narrative reviews are similar to literature reviews and evaluate the same scope of literature. The terms sometimes are used interchangeably, and author bias in article selection and data interpretation is a potential concern in literature and narrative reviews.

Umbrella reviews

An umbrella review integrates previously published, high-quality reviews such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Its purpose is to synthesize information in previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses into one convenient paper.

Rapid review

A rapid review uses systematic review methodology to evaluate existing research. It provides a quick synthesis of evidence and is used most commonly to assist in emergent decision-making such as that required to determine whether COVID-19 vaccines should receive emergent approval.

Scoping, mapping, and systematized reviews

If literature has not been reviewed comprehensively in a specific subject that is varied and complex, a mapping review (also called scoping review) may be useful to organize initial understanding of the topic and its available literature. While mapping reviews may be helpful in crystallizing research findings and may be published, they are particularly useful in helping to determine whether a topic is amenable to systematic review, and to help organize and direct the approach of the systematic review or other reviews of the subject. Systematized reviews are used most commonly by students. The systematized review provides initial assessment of a topic that is potentially appropriate for a systematic review, but a systematized review does not meet the rigorous criteria of a systematic review and has substantially more limited value. Additional types of reviews exist including critical review, state-of-the-art review, and others.

Reviews can be invaluable; but they also can be misleading. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide readers with the greatest confidence that rigorous efforts have attempted to eliminate bias and ensure validity, but even they have limitations based upon the strengths and weaknesses of the literature that they have assessed (and the skill and objectivity with which the authors have executed the review). Risks of bias, incomplete information and misinformation increase as the rigor of review methodology decreases. While review articles may summarize research related to a topic for readers, non-systematic reviews lack the rigor to answer adequately hypothesis-driven research questions that can influence evidence-based practice. Journal authors, reviewers, editorial staff, and should be cognizant of the strengths and weaknesses of review methodology and should consider them carefully as they assess the value of published review articles, particularly as they determine whether the information presented should alter their patient care.

Authors’ contributions

The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Declarations

The authors declare no competing interests.

This article is co-published in the following journals: Journal of Voice, Otology & Neurotology, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Head & Neck, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Clinical Otolaryngology, American Journal of Otolaryngology, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology.

Publisher’s Note

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Strengthening akis for sustainable agricultural features: insights and innovations from the european unio: a literature review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. data collection procedure, 2.2. identification criteria, 2.3. screening and selection criteria, 2.4. eligibility and inclusion criteria.

• The studies that were carried out or considered the 28 countries in the European Union (including the United Kingdom until 2019 and excluding Romania).
• Studies published in the English Language.
• Studies that were published within the past 11 years (the review covers the period from 2014 to 2024, a period in which the two previous Programming Periods of the Common Agricultural Policy were implemented).
• Studies covering the inclusion of a transparent description of the process of data acquisition and interpretation.
• Studies covering a primary or secondary class investigation on the subject matter.
• Studies showcasing the effects of AKISs and FASs on agricultural knowledge advancement.
• Studies published in a non-English language.
• Studies carried out outside the EU.
• Studies with unclear methodology of data collection and analysis.
• Studies lacking author names and affiliation.
• Studies not covering both the main issues of this review (i.e., AKIS and FAS).

4. Discussion

4.1. akis and fas in the foreground through the new cap, 4.2. improving the effectiveness of an akis, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Kuiper, D.; Roling, N.G. Proceedings of the European Seminar on Knowledge Management and Information Technology ; Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 8–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermans, F.; Geerling-Eiff, F.; Potters, J.; Klerkx, L. Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments—Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019 , 88 , 76–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Union Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (EU SCAR). Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition—A Reflection Paper ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Labarthe, P.; Beck, M. CAP and Advisory Services: From Farm Advisory Systems to Innovation Support. EuroChoices 2022 , 21 , 5–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiraly, G.; Vago, S.; Bull, E.; Van der Cruyssen, L.; Arbour, T.; Spanoghe, P.; Van Dijk, L. Information behaviour of farmers, foresters, and advisors in the context of digitalisation in the EU. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2023 , 125 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ingram, J.; Mills, J. Are advisory services “fit for purpose” to support sustainable soil management? An assessment of advice in Europe. Soil Use Manag. 2019 , 35 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laurent, C.; Nguyen, G.; Triboulet, P.; Ansaloni, M.; Bechtet, N.; Labarthe, P. Institutional continuity and hidden changes in farm advisory services provision: Evidence from farmers’ microAKIS observations in France. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2021 , 28 , 601–624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madureira, L.; Labarthe, P.; Marues, C.S.; Santos, G. Exploring micro AKIS: Farmer-centric evidence on the role of advice in agricultural innovation in Europe. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2022 , 28 , 549–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amerani, E.; Michailidis, A. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in a Changing Environment in Greece. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Hellenic Association of Agricultural Economists, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2–3 November 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiljunen, J.; Jaakkola, D. AKIS and Advisory Services in Finland. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Charatsari, C.; Michailidis, A.; Francescone, M.; De Rosa, M.; Aidonis, D.; Bartoli, L.; La Rocca, G.; Camanzi, L.; Lioutas, E.D. Do Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems Have the Dynamic Capabilities to Guide the Digital Transition of Short Food Supply Chains? Information 2024 , 15 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masi, M.; De Rosa, M.; Vecchio, Y.; Adinolfi, F. The long way to innovation adoption: Insights from precision agriculture. Agric. Food Econ. 2022 , 10 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nordlund, I.; Norrby, T. AKIS and advisory services in Sweden. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Sturel, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in France. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Enfedaque Diaz, L.; Jimenez Gonzalez, A.; Pures Pato, M.A. AKIS and advisory services in Spain. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Almeida, R.; Viveiros, F. AKIS and Advisory Services in Portugal. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
• Birke, F.; Bae, S.; Schober Gerster-Bentaya, M.; Knierim, A.; Asensio, P.; Kolbeck, M.; Ketelhodt, C. AKIS and Advisory Services in Germany. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Jelakovic, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Croatia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Stankovic, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Serbia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Hrovatic, I. AKIS and Advisory Services in Slovenia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Bachev, H. Governance of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Bulgaria. SSRN Electron. J. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E.; Kanaki, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Cyprus. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Knierim, A.; Kernecker, M.; Erdle, K.; Kraus, T.; Borges, F.; Wurbs, A. Smart farming technology innovations—Insights and reflections from the German Smart-AKIS hub. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019 , 90–91 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koutsouris, A.; Zarokosta, E.; Pappa, E.; Kanaki, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Greece. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 30 January 2024).
• Coquil, X.; Cerf, M.; Auricoste, C.; Joannon, A.; Barcellini, F.; Cayre, P.; Chizallet, M.; Dedieu, B.; Hostiou, N.; Hellec, F.; et al. Questioning the work of farmers, advisors, teachers and researchers in agro-ecological transition. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018 , 38 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lybaert, C.; Debruyne, L. AKIS and Advisory Services in Belgium. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Dortmans, E.; Van Geel, D.; Van der Velde, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Netherlands. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
• Gaborne, J.A.; Varga, Z.; Ver, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Hungary. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• de Foliveira, M.; Gomes da Silva, F.; Ferreira, S.; Teixeira, M.; Damαsio, H.; Ferreira, A.D.; Gonηalves, J.M. Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Case Study of Lis Valley Irrigation District, Portugal. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirra, L.; Caputo, N.; Gandolfi, F.; Menna, C. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Campania Region: The challenges facing the first implementation of experimental model. J. Agric. Policy 2020 , 3 , 35–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cristiano, S.; Carta, V.; Sturla, V.; D’Oronzio, M.A.; Proietti, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Italy. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• Todorova, I. AKIS and Advisory Services in Bulgaria. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Dzelme, A.; Zurins, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Latvia. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Matuseviciute, E.; Petraitis, R.; Sakickiene, A.; Titiskyte, L.; Urbanaviciene, S. AKIS and Advisory Services in Lithuania. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Zimmer, S.; Stoll, E.; Leimbrock-Rosch, L. AKIS and Advisory Services in Luxembourg. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 1 February 2024).
• Giagnocavo, C.; de Cara-Garcνa, M.; Gonzαlez, M.; Juan, M.; Marνn-Guirao, J.I.; Mehrabi, S.; Rodrνguez, E.; van der Blom, J.; Crisol-Martνnez, E. Reconnecting Farmers with Nature through Agroecological Transitions: Interacting Niches and Experimentation and the Role of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. Agriculture 2022 , 12 , 137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klitgaard, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in Denmark. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2019. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Cristiano, S.; Carta, V.; D’Oronzio MA Proietti, P.; Sturla, V. AKIS and Advisory Services in Malta. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
• Knierim, A.; Boenning, K.; Caggiano, M.; Cristσvγo, A.; Dirimanova, V.; Koehnen, T.; Labarthe, P.; Prager, K. The AKIS Concept and its Relevance in Selected EU Member States. Outlook Agric. 2015 , 44 , 29–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Terziev, V.; Arabska, E. Enhancing Competitiveness and Sustainability of Agri-Food Sector through Market-Oriented Technology Development in Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Bulgaria. In Proceedings of the III International Scientific Congress Agricultural Machinery, Varna, Bulgaria, 22–25 June 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konecna, M.M. AKIS and Advisory Services in Czech Republic. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 28 January 2024).
• Kasdorferova, Z.; Palus, H.; Kadlecikova MSvikruhova, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Slovak Republic. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
• Boczek, K.; Ambryszewska, K.; Dabrowski, J.; Ulicka, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Poland. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
• Ingram, J.; Mills, J.; Black, J.E.; Chivers, C.-A.; Aznar-Sαnchez, J.A.; Elsen, A.; Frac, M.; Lσpez-Felices, B.; Mayer-Gruner, P.; Skaalsveen, K.; et al. Do Agricultural Advisory Services in Europe Have the Capacity to Support the Transition to Healthy Soils? Land 2022 , 11 , 599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herzog, F.; Neubauer, E. AKIS and Advisory Services in Austria. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
• Banninger, A. AKIS and Advisory Services in Switzerland. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
• Maher, P. AKIS and Advisory Services in Ireland. Report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2020. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 31 January 2024).
• Dunne, A.; Markey, A.; Kinsella, J. Examining the reach of public and private agricultural advisory services and farmers’ perceptions of their quality: The case of county Laois in Ireland. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2019 , 25 , 401–414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knuth, U.; Knierim, A. How to strengthen the link between advisors and research in a privatized advisory system?—The case of Brandenburg, Germany. In Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium, Berlin, Germany, 1–4 April 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konecna, M.M. The role of the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information in the Czech Agricultural Knowledge Information System. Rural Areas Dev. 2018 , 15 , 49–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klerkx, L.; Straete, E.P.; Kvam, G.T.; Ystad, E.; Harstad RM, B. Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: Case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017 , 23 , 213–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamsalu, H. AKIS and Advisory Services in Estonia. Report for the AKIS Inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect Project. i2connect INTERACTIVE INNOVATION 2021. Available online: https://i2connect-h2020.eu/resources/akis-country-reports/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
• Kania, J.; Zmija, J. Changes in Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems: Case Study of Poland. Visegrad J. Bioeconomy 2016 , 5 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xieyang, C.; Tongsheng, l. Diffusion of Agricultural Technology Innovation: Research Progress of Innovation Diffusion in Chinese Agricultural Science and Technology Praks. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 15008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Kountios, G.; Kanakaris, S.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Unio: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Kountios G, Kanakaris S, Moulogianni C, Bournaris T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Unio: A Literature Review. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Kountios, Georgios, Spyridon Kanakaris, Christina Moulogianni, and Thomas Bournaris. 2024. "Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Unio: A Literature Review" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167068

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

A new public database lists all the ways AI could go wrong

Its creators hope their work could lead to further research to determine which risks to take more seriously.

• Scott J Mulligan archive page

Adopting AI can be fraught with danger. Systems could be biased , or parrot falsehoods , or even become addictive . And that’s before you consider the possibility AI could be used to create new biological or chemical weapons, or even one day somehow spin out of our control. 

To manage these potential risks, we first need to know what they are. A new database compiled by the FutureTech group at MIT’s CSAIL with a team of collaborators and published online today could help. The AI Risk Repository documents over 700 potential risks advanced AI systems could pose. It’s the most comprehensive source yet of information about previously identified issues that could arise from the creation and deployment of these models. 

The team combed through peer-reviewed journal articles and preprint databases that detail AI risks. The most common risks centered around AI system safety and robustness (76%), unfair bias and discrimination (63%), and compromised privacy (61%). Less common risks tended to be more esoteric, such as the risk of creating AI with the ability to feel pain or to experience something akin to “death.” 

The database also shows that the majority of risks from AI are identified only after a model becomes accessible to the public. Just 10% of the risks studied were spotted before deployment. 

These findings may have implications for how we evaluate AI, as we currently tend to focus on ensuring a model is safe before it is launched. “What our database is saying is, the range of risks is substantial, not all of which can be checked ahead of time,” says Neil Thompson, director of MIT FutureTech and one of the creators of the database. Therefore, auditors, policymakers, and scientists at labs may want to monitor models after they are launched by regularly reviewing the risks they present post-deployment.

There have been many attempts to put together a list like this in the past, but they were concerned primarily with a narrow set of potential harms arising from AI, says Thompson, and the piecemeal approach made it hard to get a comprehensive view of the risks associated with AI.  

Even with this new database, it’s hard to know which AI risks to worry about the most, a task made even more complicated because we don’t fully understand how cutting-edge AI systems even work.

The database’s creators sidestepped that question, choosing not to rank risks by the level of danger they pose. 

“What we really wanted to do was to have a neutral and comprehensive database, and by neutral, I mean to take everything as presented and be very transparent about that,” says the database’s lead author, Peter Slattery, a postdoctoral associate at MIT FutureTech.

But that tactic could limit the database’s usefulness, says Anka Reuel, a PhD student in computer science at Stanford University and member of its Center for AI Safety, who was not involved in the project. She says merely compiling risks associated with AI will soon be insufficient. “They’ve been very thorough, which is a good starting point for future research efforts, but I think we are reaching a point where making people aware of all the risks is not the main problem anymore,” she says. “To me, it’s translating those risks. What do we actually need to do to combat [them]?”

This database opens the door for future research. Its creators made the list in part to dig into their own questions, like which risks are under-researched or not being tackled. “What we’re most worried about is, are there gaps?” says Thompson. 

Artificial intelligence

How generative AI could reinvent what it means to play

AI-powered NPCs that don’t need a script could make games—and other worlds—deeply immersive.

• Niall Firth archive page

Google DeepMind trained a robot to beat humans at table tennis

It was able to draw on vast amounts of data to refine its playing style and adjust its tactics as matches progressed.

• Rhiannon Williams archive page

Here’s how people are actually using AI

Something peculiar and slightly unexpected has happened: people have started forming relationships with AI systems.

• Melissa Heikkilä archive page

Synthesia’s hyperrealistic deepfakes will soon have full bodies

With bodies that move and hands that wave, deepfakes just got a whole lot more realistic.

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Shots - Health News

Fda gives thumbs down to mdma for now, demanding further research.

A dose of MDMA. The drug has been studied as a treatment for PTSD and FDA has declined to approve it so far, asking for further research. Travis Dove for The Washington Post/Getty Images hide caption

On Friday, drugmaker Lykos Therapeutics received word from the Food and Drug Administration that the agency has decided not to approve MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD at this time. Instead, the agency asked the drugmaker to further study the safety and efficacy of the treatment.

The heavily anticipated announcement came in the form of a “complete response letter” from the FDA to Lykos, according to a company press release.

It represents a significant setback for the company and the broader movement to bring psychedelics into the mainstream of mental health care.

“It’s a huge blow to the field,” says Dr. Boris Heifets , an anesthesiologist at Stanford University whose lab studies psychedelics.

Lykos said it plans to request a meeting with the FDA to ask for reconsideration of the decision.

Lykos’ CEO Amy Emerson called the FDA’s request for another phase 3 trial “deeply disappointing,” and said conducting the study “would take several years.”

She added that many of the requests from the agency “can be addressed with existing data, post-approval requirements or through reference to the scientific literature."

The treatment had garnered considerable support from patients, leaders in the field of mental health and psychedelics and politicians from both parties. In recent weeks, advocates mounted a major public pressure campaign, emphasizing the dire need for new and effective treatments for veterans and the millions of people affected by PTSD.

Many in the psychedelics industry had viewed this as a pivotal moment. The FDA decision on MDMA could be seen as a bellwether for other drugs that are in the pipeline like psilocybin and LSD, which are both considered “classic psychedelics” unlike MDMA.

But Dr. Mason Marks believes the FDA’s decision doesn’t spell trouble for the broader field because the agency has signaled repeatedly it’s open to psychedelic research.

“I think this is a unique case,” says Marks, a law professor and senior fellow with the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center.

“I don't think there's any sign that progress is going to be slowed. If anything, it might intensify because the other companies might see an opportunity to really get in there and compete,” he says.

The wave of enthusiasm around MDMA's therapeutic potential has come from research scientists at top academic centers and even the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Supporters of the drug were dismayed by Friday's decision.

“The FDA’s decision is disgraceful,” said Heroic Hearts Project, a veterans organization that had lobbied for FDA approval citing the many veteran suicides in a statement. “This is the epitome of bureaucratic red tape – and the result is people will keep dying.”

Opposition to the Lykos’ application had gained momentum in recent months, culminating in a contentious public meeting when advisors to the FDA voted against the evidence backing the treatment, largely based on concerns about shortcomings in the clinical research.

In its press release, Lykos said the FDA echoed the issues raised by the committee.

The committee's downvote put the FDA in a tricky spot, given that it historically sides with the advisors.

“As discussed at the advisory committee meeting, there are significant limitations to the data contained in the application that prevent the agency from concluding that this drug is safe and effective for the proposed indication,” an FDA spokesperson said to NPR in an email.

“We will continue to encourage research and drug development that will further innovation for psychedelic treatments and other therapies.”

Those hoping to see MDMA make it to market argue that concerns about the quality of the research were overblown and, in some cases, focused on issues with the study design that weren’t unique to MDMA.

The trials “undoubtedly had problems,” says Stanford's Heifets , but the FDA could have dealt with those concerns by approving the treatment with strict restrictions around how it’s administered and a requirement to do a post-market study.

He worries the decision to deny approval will stifle innovation and funding into other novel treatments, including MDMA-like drugs that are being developed.

“The FDA has gone against advisory committee advice [in the past]. It has approved drugs with abuse potential,” says Heifets. “None of this is that radical, so I think they could have done something else here.”

On the other hand, Marks says that approval would have required the FDA to “pile on” so many restrictions because of concerns about the Lykos’ application that ultimately it would have been “impractical” for the treatment to reach many people.

He also wonders whether the all-out publicity blitz by Lykos and its allies was, in the end, “counterproductive” because it put the FDA in an awkward position by making the decision so politicized.

“This is not the end of the road for Lykos,” he says, “It will cost them financially, but it doesn’t mean they can’t ultimately succeed.”

The push to establish MDMA-assisted therapy as a legitimate treatment for PTSD stretches back two decades.

Researchers affiliated with the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, or MAPS, pioneered the early studies and developed the therapy protocol embedded in the treatment. That work ultimately set the stage for the drugmaker, which was incubated by MAPS, to press forward with larger human trials and seek approval from federal regulators.

Lykos has raised more than $100 million in anticipation of FDA approval of its MDMA therapy.

Optimism around the treatment largely stems from the company’s promising phase 3 clinical trials, which together enrolled about 200 people. The most recent one, published last year, showed just over 70% of participants no longer met the diagnostics criteria for PTSD after three therapy sessions with MDMA, compared to about 48% who had the same talk therapy protocol but took a placebo.

Follow-up research from the company showed participants were still benefiting from the treatment at least half a year after their last dosing session.

“Although disappointing, this move by the FDA highlights the importance of conducting rigorous research into the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy,” says Alan Davis , director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education at the Ohio State University, “Despite this setback, I am hopeful that there will be a better outcome down the road after more research is completed in the coming years.”

Debate over the merits of the Lykos’ application has become increasingly divisive, with allegations that misconduct and bias in the clinical trials compromised the findings and undermined its safety. The drugmaker and many of the therapists involved in the research have steadfastly denied those claims.

It’s unclear to what extent any of this factored into the FDA’s deliberation on the therapy.

In response to Friday’s decision, Emerson reiterated the company’s plan to push the research forward, saying they’d “work tirelessly and use all available regulatory pathways to find a reasonable and expeditious path forward for patients.”

Given what’s required to conduct another trial, Heifets believes psilocybin is now poised to gain approval ahead of MDMA.

• mdma therapy
• psychedelics
• post traumatic stress disorder