literature in the research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What 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 September 3, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Dissertation
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

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 summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Why write 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, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will 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 scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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 objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. 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 if 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 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 use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

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?
How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
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 find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

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’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference 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.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to 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 organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

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 summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse 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 organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

Methodological

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.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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, make sure to follow these tips:

Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, 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 transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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 dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

To familiarise 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 dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

UConn Library
Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

Getting Started
How to Pick a Topic
Strategies to Find Sources
Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
Citation Resources
Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D. The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review? A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
Identify a problem in a field of research

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews . Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

A research paper assigned in a course
A thesis or dissertation
A grant proposal
An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework: 10.1177/08948453211037398

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review: 10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis: 10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis: 10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
<< Previous: Getting Started
Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

Planning the Review
The Research Question
Choosing Where to Search
Organizing the Review
Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read.

Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

Next: Planning the Review >>
Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram for "What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters"

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

Collections
Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

Biomedical Databases
Global (Public Health) Databases
Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
Grey Literature
Trials Registers
Data and Statistics
Public Policy
Google Tips
Recommended Books
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

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

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

Explains the background of research on a topic.
Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?

This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.

Where to find databases:

use the tabs on this guide
Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
More on the Medical Library web page
... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
Ask your librarian for help at any time.
Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips:

Review the abstracts carefully.
Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
<< Previous: Recommended Books
Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review?
Steps in the Literature Review Process
Define your research question
Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
Choose databases and search
Review Results
Synthesize Results
Analyze Results
Librarian Support
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field.

A literature review should:

Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
Explain why this review has taken place;
Articulate a position or hypothesis;
Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

Organizes or describes a topic
Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area. We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

Living reference work entry
First Online: 09 May 2023
Cite this living reference work entry

Dennis Thomas 2 ,
Elida Zairina 3 &
Johnson George 4

750 Accesses

1 Citations

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article Google Scholar

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter Google Scholar

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

What (exactly) is a literature review
What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
How to find high-quality resources
How to structure your literature review chapter
Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then summarise and catalogue these for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter.

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an overview of the key literature that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an integrated review of the state of knowledge around your research topic.

Starting point for the literature review

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be more than just a summary of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next).

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to show what’s currently missing from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review.

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut!

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework.

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales.

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is built on credible research .

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the most popular pieces of research are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites.

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research.

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer.

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

A good literature review should synthesise the existing research in relation to the research aims, not simply summarise it.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

Strategies to Find Sources
Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
Citation Resources
Other Academic Writings
Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

What is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
Identify a problem in a field of research

- Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
When writing a research paper
When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Research Findings – Types Examples and Writing...

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process.

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
Select Databases for Searches:
Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
Review the Literature:
Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Frequently asked questions

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge.

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research.

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered.

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research.

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature.

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic.

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements.

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources.

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning.

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements.

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review.

Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field.
Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address.
Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research.
Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic.
Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review.

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria.

Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement.
Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic.
Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature.
Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps.
Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review.

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research.

Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective.
Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field.
Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice.
Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field.
Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community.

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study.
Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore?

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview?
Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region?
Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude?

Select Databases for Searches:

Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic.

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques.
Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability.
Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references.

Review the Literature:

Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies.
Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research.
Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives.
Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions.
Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research?

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches.
Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered.
Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research.

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.

Here’s how to use the Research feature:

Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations.

Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access.
Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review.

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic.

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods.

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers. Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved. Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic. Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings. Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject. It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review: Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic. Define the scope and purpose of the literature review. State the research question or objective. Body: Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology. Critically analyze and evaluate each source. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Highlight any methodological limitations or biases. Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review. Highlight the research gap. Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows:

	Annotated Bibliography	Literature Review
Purpose	List of citations of books, articles, and other sources with a brief description (annotation) of each source.	Comprehensive and critical analysis of existing literature on a specific topic.
Focus	Summary and evaluation of each source, including its relevance, methodology, and key findings.	Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular subject and identifies gaps, trends, and patterns in existing literature.
Structure	Each citation is followed by a concise paragraph (annotation) that describes the source’s content, methodology, and its contribution to the topic.	The literature review is organized thematically or chronologically and involves a synthesis of the findings from different sources to build a narrative or argument.
Length	Typically 100-200 words	Length of literature review ranges from a few pages to several chapters
Independence	Each source is treated separately, with less emphasis on synthesizing the information across sources.	The writer synthesizes information from multiple sources to present a cohesive overview of the topic.

References

Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234.
Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis.
Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center .

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

University Libraries

Literature review.

What is a Literature Review?
What is Its Purpose?
1. Select a Topic
2. Set the Topic in Context
3. Types of Information Sources
4. Use Information Sources
5. Get the Information
6. Organize / Manage the Information
7. Position the Literature Review
8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research. The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research. It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research. The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived. It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field. This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research.

"In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

Roughly how many sources should you include?
What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
Should you evaluate your sources?
Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

Avoiding Plagiarism
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University, https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted, and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.
Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later.

2. Decide on the scope of your review.

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?

This may depend on your assignment.
Consider these things when planning your time for research.

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

By Research Guide

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature.

Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations.

5. Review the literature.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

What was the research question you are reviewing? What are the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze the literature review, samples and variables used, results, and conclusions. Does the research seem complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicted studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Are they experts or novices? Has the study been cited?

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida, https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic.

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

Could be material that answers the question directly
Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

You are now working with fewer words/passages
Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them

The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis

This is now the outline for your literature review.

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center, https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following:

the methodology
the quality of the findings or conclusions
major strengths and weaknesses
any other important information

Writing Tips:

Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
Use quotes sparingly.
Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .
Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University, https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

<< Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
Next: Citing Your Sources >>
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

Research Process :: Step by Step

Introduction
Select Topic
Identify Keywords
Background Information
Develop Research Questions
Refine Topic
Search Strategy
Popular Databases
Evaluate Sources
Types of Periodicals
Reading Scholarly Articles
Primary & Secondary Sources
Organize / Take Notes
Writing & Grammar Resources
Annotated Bibliography
Literature Review
Citation Styles
Paraphrasing
Privacy / Confidentiality

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.

What is a literature review?

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

A literature review must do these things:

be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
identify areas of controversy in the literature
formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

<< Previous: Annotated Bibliography
Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 1:38 PM
URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

Internet Privacy
Accessibility
Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 2: Getting Started in Research

Reviewing the Research Literature

Learning Objectives

Define the research literature in psychology and give examples of sources that are part of the research literature and sources that are not.
Describe and use several methods for finding previous research on a particular research idea or question.

Reviewing the research literature means finding, reading, and summarizing the published research relevant to your question. An empirical research report written in American Psychological Association (APA) style always includes a written literature review, but it is important to review the literature early in the research process for several reasons.

It can help you turn a research idea into an interesting research question.
It can tell you if a research question has already been answered.
It can help you evaluate the interestingness of a research question.
It can give you ideas for how to conduct your own study.
It can tell you how your study fits into the research literature.

What Is the Research Literature?

The research literature in any field is all the published research in that field. The research literature in psychology is enormous—including millions of scholarly articles and books dating to the beginning of the field—and it continues to grow. Although its boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, the research literature definitely does not include self-help and other pop psychology books, dictionary and encyclopedia entries, websites, and similar sources that are intended mainly for the general public. These are considered unreliable because they are not reviewed by other researchers and are often based on little more than common sense or personal experience. Wikipedia contains much valuable information, but the fact that its authors are anonymous and may not have any formal training or expertise in that subject area, and its content continually changes makes it unsuitable as a basis of sound scientific research. For our purposes, it helps to define the research literature as consisting almost entirely of two types of sources: articles in professional journals, and scholarly books in psychology and related fields.

Professional Journals

Professional journals are periodicals that publish original research articles. There are thousands of professional journals that publish research in psychology and related fields. They are usually published monthly or quarterly in individual issues, each of which contains several articles. The issues are organized into volumes, which usually consist of all the issues for a calendar year. Some journals are published in hard copy only, others in both hard copy and electronic form, and still others in electronic form only.

Most articles in professional journals are one of two basic types: empirical research reports and review articles. Empirical research reports describe one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors. They introduce a research question, explain why it is interesting, review previous research, describe their method and results, and draw their conclusions. Review articles summarize previously published research on a topic and usually present new ways to organize or explain the results. When a review article is devoted primarily to presenting a new theory, it is often referred to as a theoretical article .

Figure 2.6 Small Sample of the Thousands of Professional Journals That Publish Research in Psychology and Related Fields

Most professional journals in psychology undergo a process of double-blind peer review . Researchers who want to publish their work in the journal submit a manuscript to the editor—who is generally an established researcher too—who in turn sends it to two or three experts on the topic. Each reviewer reads the manuscript, writes a critical but constructive review, and sends the review back to the editor along with his or her recommendations. The editor then decides whether to accept the article for publication, ask the authors to make changes and resubmit it for further consideration, or reject it outright. In any case, the editor forwards the reviewers’ written comments to the researchers so that they can revise their manuscript accordingly. This entire process is double-blind, as the reviewers do not know the identity of the researcher(s), and vice versa. Double-blind peer review is helpful because it ensures that the work meets basic standards of the field before it can enter the research literature. However, in order to increase transparency and accountability some newer open access journals (e.g., Frontiers in Psychology) utilize an open peer review process wherein the identities of the reviewers (which remain concealed during the peer review process) are published alongside the journal article.

Scholarly Books

Scholarly books are books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for use by other researchers and practitioners. A monograph is written by a single author or a small group of authors and usually gives a coherent presentation of a topic much like an extended review article. Edited volumes have an editor or a small group of editors who recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same topic. Although edited volumes can also give a coherent presentation of the topic, it is not unusual for each chapter to take a different perspective or even for the authors of different chapters to openly disagree with each other. In general, scholarly books undergo a peer review process similar to that used by professional journals.

Literature Search Strategies

Using psycinfo and other databases.

The primary method used to search the research literature involves using one or more electronic databases. These include Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and ProQuest for all academic disciplines, ERIC for education, and PubMed for medicine and related fields. The most important for our purposes, however, is PsycINFO, which is produced by the APA. PsycINFO is so comprehensive—covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books going back more than 100 years—that for most purposes its content is synonymous with the research literature in psychology. Like most such databases, PsycINFO is usually available through your university library.

PsycINFO consists of individual records for each article, book chapter, or book in the database. Each record includes basic publication information, an abstract or summary of the work (like the one presented at the start of this chapter), and a list of other works cited by that work. A computer interface allows entering one or more search terms and returns any records that contain those search terms. (These interfaces are provided by different vendors and therefore can look somewhat different depending on the library you use.) Each record also contains lists of keywords that describe the content of the work and also a list of index terms. The index terms are especially helpful because they are standardized. Research on differences between women and men, for example, is always indexed under “Human Sex Differences.” Research on notetaking is always indexed under the term “Learning Strategies.” If you do not know the appropriate index terms, PsycINFO includes a thesaurus that can help you find them.

Given that there are nearly four million records in PsycINFO, you may have to try a variety of search terms in different combinations and at different levels of specificity before you find what you are looking for. Imagine, for example, that you are interested in the question of whether women and men differ in terms of their ability to recall experiences from when they were very young. If you were to enter “memory for early experiences” as your search term, PsycINFO would return only six records, most of which are not particularly relevant to your question. However, if you were to enter the search term “memory,” it would return 149,777 records—far too many to look through individually. This is where the thesaurus helps. Entering “memory” into the thesaurus provides several more specific index terms—one of which is “early memories.” While searching for “early memories” among the index terms returns 1,446 records—still too many too look through individually—combining it with “human sex differences” as a second search term returns 37 articles, many of which are highly relevant to the topic.

Depending on the vendor that provides the interface to PsycINFO, you may be able to save, print, or e-mail the relevant PsycINFO records. The records might even contain links to full-text copies of the works themselves. (PsycARTICLES is a database that provides full-text access to articles in all journals published by the APA.) If not, and you want a copy of the work, you will have to find out if your library carries the journal or has the book and the hard copy on the library shelves. Be sure to ask a librarian if you need help.

Using Other Search Techniques

QR code that links to Google Scholar video

In addition to entering search terms into PsycINFO and other databases, there are several other techniques you can use to search the research literature. First, if you have one good article or book chapter on your topic—a recent review article is best—you can look through the reference list of that article for other relevant articles, books, and book chapters. In fact, you should do this with any relevant article or book chapter you find. You can also start with a classic article or book chapter on your topic, find its record in PsycINFO (by entering the author’s name or article’s title as a search term), and link from there to a list of other works in PsycINFO that cite that classic article. This works because other researchers working on your topic are likely to be aware of the classic article and cite it in their own work. You can also do a general Internet search using search terms related to your topic or the name of a researcher who conducts research on your topic. This might lead you directly to works that are part of the research literature (e.g., articles in open-access journals or posted on researchers’ own websites). The search engine Google Scholar is especially useful for this purpose. A general Internet search might also lead you to websites that are not part of the research literature but might provide references to works that are. Finally, you can talk to people (e.g., your instructor or other faculty members in psychology) who know something about your topic and can suggest relevant articles and book chapters.

What to Search For

When you do a literature review, you need to be selective. Not every article, book chapter, and book that relates to your research idea or question will be worth obtaining, reading, and integrating into your review. Instead, you want to focus on sources that help you do four basic things: (a) refine your research question, (b) identify appropriate research methods, (c) place your research in the context of previous research, and (d) write an effective research report. Several basic principles can help you find the most useful sources.

First, it is best to focus on recent research, keeping in mind that what counts as recent depends on the topic. For newer topics that are actively being studied, “recent” might mean published in the past year or two. For older topics that are receiving less attention right now, “recent” might mean within the past 10 years. You will get a feel for what counts as recent for your topic when you start your literature search. A good general rule, however, is to start with sources published in the past five years. The main exception to this rule would be classic articles that turn up in the reference list of nearly every other source. If other researchers think that this work is important, even though it is old, then by all means you should include it in your review.

Second, you should look for review articles on your topic because they will provide a useful overview of it—often discussing important definitions, results, theories, trends, and controversies—giving you a good sense of where your own research fits into the literature. You should also look for empirical research reports addressing your question or similar questions, which can give you ideas about how to operationally define your variables and collect your data. As a general rule, it is good to use methods that others have already used successfully unless you have good reasons not to. Finally, you should look for sources that provide information that can help you argue for the interestingness of your research question. For a study on the effects of cell phone use on driving ability, for example, you might look for information about how widespread cell phone use is, how frequent and costly motor vehicle crashes are, and so on.

How many sources are enough for your literature review? This is a difficult question because it depends on how extensively your topic has been studied and also on your own goals. One study found that across a variety of professional journals in psychology, the average number of sources cited per article was about 50 (Adair & Vohra, 2003) [1] . This gives a rough idea of what professional researchers consider to be adequate. As a student, you might be assigned a much lower minimum number of references to use, but the principles for selecting the most useful ones remain the same.

Key Takeaways

The research literature in psychology is all the published research in psychology, consisting primarily of articles in professional journals and scholarly books.
Early in the research process, it is important to conduct a review of the research literature on your topic to refine your research question, identify appropriate research methods, place your question in the context of other research, and prepare to write an effective research report.
There are several strategies for finding previous research on your topic. Among the best is using PsycINFO, a computer database that catalogs millions of articles, books, and book chapters in psychology and related fields.
Practice: Use the techniques discussed in this section to find 10 journal articles and book chapters on one of the following research ideas: memory for smells, aggressive driving, the causes of narcissistic personality disorder, the functions of the intraparietal sulcus, or prejudice against the physically handicapped.
Watch the following video clip produced by UBCiSchool about how to read an academic paper (without losing your mind):

Video Attributions

“ Sample PsycINFO Search on EBSCOhost ” by APA Publishing Training . Standard YouTube Licence.
“ Using Google Scholar (CLIP) ” by clipinfolit . CC BY (Attribution)
“ How to Read an Academic Paper ” by UBCiSchool . CC BY (Attribution)
Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58 , 15–23. ↵

All the published research in a particular field.

Periodicals that publish original research articles.

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

A type of research article that summarizes previously published research on a topic and usually presents new ways to organize or explain the results.

A type of review article primarily devoted to presenting a new theory.

Books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for sue by other researchers and practitioners.

Type of scholarly book written by a single author or small group of authors, coherently presents a topic much like an extended review article.

A type of scholarly book in which an editor or small group of editors recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same topic.

An electronic database covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books produced by the APA.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Request Info
Search Search Site Faculty/Staff
Open Navigation Menu Menu Close Navigation Menu
Literature Review Guidelines

Making sense of what has been written on your topic.

Goals of a literature review:.

Before doing work in primary sources, historians must know what has been written on their topic. They must be familiar with theories and arguments–as well as facts–that appear in secondary sources.

Before you proceed with your research project, you too must be familiar with the literature: you do not want to waste time on theories that others have disproved and you want to take full advantage of what others have argued. You want to be able to discuss and analyze your topic.

Your literature review will demonstrate your familiarity with your topic’s secondary literature.

GUIDELINES FOR A LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) LENGTH: 8-10 pages of text for Senior Theses (485) (consult with your professor for other classes), with either footnotes or endnotes and with a works-consulted bibliography. [See also the citation guide on this site.]

2) NUMBER OF WORKS REVIEWED: Depends on the assignment, but for Senior Theses (485), at least ten is typical.

3) CHOOSING WORKS:

Your literature review must include enough works to provide evidence of both the breadth and the depth of the research on your topic or, at least, one important angle of it. The number of works necessary to do this will depend on your topic. For most topics, AT LEAST TEN works (mostly books but also significant scholarly articles) are necessary, although you will not necessarily give all of them equal treatment in your paper (e.g., some might appear in notes rather than the essay). 4) ORGANIZING/ARRANGING THE LITERATURE:

As you uncover the literature (i.e., secondary writing) on your topic, you should determine how the various pieces relate to each other. Your ability to do so will demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of literature.

You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology. This list is not exhaustive. You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria. There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.

The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle. Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into. How do you do that? For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources. Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources? If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature. If not, you might still have a thesis.

Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature? For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period? Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic? Do interpretations change at some point? Does the major methodology being used change? Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

Follow these links for more help on analyzing historiography and historical perspective .

5) CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients:

a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature c) A clear argument, using the works on topic as evidence, i.e., you discuss the sources in relation to your thesis, not as a separate topic.

These ingredients must be presented in an essay with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

6) ARGUING YOUR THESIS:

The thesis of a literature review should not only describe how the literature has evolved, but also provide a clear evaluation of that literature. You should assess the literature in terms of the quality of either individual works or categories of works. For instance, you might argue that a certain approach (e.g. social history, cultural history, or another) is better because it deals with a more complex view of the issue or because they use a wider array of source materials more effectively. You should also ensure that you integrate that evaluation throughout your argument. Doing so might include negative assessments of some works in order to reinforce your argument regarding the positive qualities of other works and approaches to the topic.

Within each group, you should provide essential information about each work: the author’s thesis, the work’s title and date, the author’s supporting arguments and major evidence.

In most cases, arranging the sources chronologically by publication date within each section makes the most sense because earlier works influenced later ones in one way or another. Reference to publication date also indicates that you are aware of this significant historiographical element.

As you discuss each work, DO NOT FORGET WHY YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT. YOU ARE PRESENTING AND SUPPORTING A THESIS ABOUT THE LITERATURE.

When discussing a particular work for the first time, you should refer to it by the author’s full name, the work’s title, and year of publication (either in parentheses after the title or worked into the sentence).

For example, “The field of slavery studies has recently been transformed by Ben Johnson’s The New Slave (2001)” and “Joe Doe argues in his 1997 study, Slavery in America, that . . . .”

Your paper should always note secondary sources’ relationship to each other, particularly in terms of your thesis about the literature (e.g., “Unlike Smith’s work, Mary Brown’s analysis reaches the conclusion that . . . .” and “Because of Anderson’s reliance on the president’s personal papers, his interpretation differs from Barry’s”). The various pieces of the literature are “related” to each other, so you need to indicate to the reader some of that relationship. (It helps the reader follow your thesis, and it convinces the reader that you know what you are talking about.)

7) DOCUMENTATION:

Each source you discuss in your paper must be documented using footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography. Providing author and title and date in the paper is not sufficient. Use correct Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style form. [See Bibliography and Footnotes/Endnotes pages.]

In addition, further supporting, but less significant, sources should be included in content foot or endnotes . (e.g., “For a similar argument to Ben Johnson’s, see John Terry, The Slave Who Was New (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 3-45.”)

8 ) CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

Your conclusion should not only reiterate your argument (thesis), but also discuss questions that remain unanswered by the literature. What has the literature accomplished? What has not been studied? What debates need to be settled?

Additional writing guidelines

History and American Studies

About the Department
Major Requirements & Courses
What courses will I take as an History major?
What can I do with my History degree?
History 485
Methodology
Choosing a Topic
Book Reviews
Historiographic Clues
Understanding Historical Perspective
Sample Literature Review
Using Quotations
Ellipses and Brackets
Footnotes and Endnotes
Content Notes
Citation Guide
Citing Non-Print Resources
How to Annotate
Annotated Examples
Journals vs. Magazines
Understanding Plagiarism
Historians Define Plagiarism
Plagiarism Tutorial
UMW Honor System
Presentation Guidelines
Tips for Leading Seminars
Hints for Class Discussion
Speaking Center
Guidelines for a Research Paper
Library Research Plan
How to Use ILL
Database Guide
Guide to Online Research
Writing Guidelines
Recognizing Passive Voice
Introduction and Conclusion
MS Word’s Grammar and Spellcheck
Writing Center
What You Need to Know
Links to Online Primary Sources by Region
What will I learn from my American Studies major?
What courses will I take as an American Studies major?
What can I do with my American Studies degree?
American Studies 485
For Prospective Students
Honors and Award Recipients
Internships

Alumni Intros

How have History & American Studies majors built careers after earning their degrees? Learn more by clicking the image above.

What is a Living Literature Review?

Table of contents.

The number of academic papers doubles every 12 years. This wealth of new knowledge is exciting, but the pace of growth makes keeping up with the latest developments increasingly difficult.

One response to this challenge is “living literature reviews”. At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of accessible articles that synthesize academic research on a specific topic. These reviews are primarily written by a single expert who is responsible for its quality and accuracy.

Living literature reviews aim to be accessible to readers unfamiliar with a field while maintaining rigor. Unlike news articles that often focus on single, sensational studies, these reviews provide a broader perspective, synthesizing findings from multiple sources. They differ from traditional academic literature reviews by avoiding paywalls, dense jargon, and lengthy formats that pose barriers to non-specialists. Moreover, because they don’t assume familiarity with the assumptions of a field, living literature reviews aim to describe how conclusions were reached, not just what the conclusions are. This transparency allows readers to better understand the research methodology and form their own judgment on the strength of the findings.

Living literature reviews also help readers assess a field by relying on a single individual to provide a consistent voice, perspective, and expert curatorial taste. While these individuals collaborate with other experts in their fields, having one consistent author allows readers to gauge how much they trust the author’s judgment over time.

Finally, living literature reviews leverage digital platforms for hosting and distribution. Websites allow for post-publication corrections and updates, enabling a level of currency that traditional print reviews can’t match. Complementing these, email newsletters and podcasts extend the reach and convenience of learning about academic research.

By making research accessible to a broader audience, living literature reviews can facilitate interdisciplinary connections and inform policy work. They offer insights into work happening in adjacent fields, potentially inspiring collaborations and novel research directions.

Open Philanthropy supports several living literature reviews:

New Things Under the Sun by Matt Clancy: social science research on science and innovation
Existential Crunch by Florian Jehn: academic literature on societal collapse
Some Are Useful by Tom Gebhart: how AI and machine learning are used in different parts of science
Good Questions Review by Paul Kellner: the relationship between academic research and policy impact

We are now seeking pre-proposals from individuals to write living literature reviews . We are particularly interested in reviews on neglected topics relevant to policymaking. Ideal candidates will have a PhD or equivalent expertise in their proposed area. Our support typically allows authors to dedicate a quarter to a third of their time to the project.

If you’re interested in launching your own living literature review, we encourage you to reach out. For more information on how to submit a pre-proposal, please contact [email protected] .

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

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
28 August 2024
Update 02 September 2024

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

Richard Van Noorden &
Miryam Naddaf

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Computer rendered illustration of a lone figure watching as a towering house of blank white cards collapses.

Credit: Waldemar Thaut/Zoonar via Alamy

In January, a review paper 1 about ways to detect human illnesses by examining the eye appeared in a conference proceedings published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in New York City. But neither its authors nor its editors noticed that 60% of the papers it cited had already been retracted.

The case is one of the most extreme spotted by a giant project to find papers whose results might be in question because they cite retracted or problematic research. The project’s creator, computer scientist Guillaume Cabanac at the University of Toulouse in France, shared his data with Nature ’s news team, which analysed them to find the papers that most heavily cite retracted work yet haven’t themselves been withdrawn (see ‘Retracted references’).

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

“We are not accusing anybody of doing something wrong. We are just observing that in some bibliographies, the references have been retracted or withdrawn, meaning that the paper may be unreliable,” Cabanac says. He calls his tool a Feet of Clay Detector, referring to an analogy, originally from the Bible, about statues or edifices that collapse because of their weak clay foundations.

The IEEE paper is the second-highest on the list assembled by Nature , with 18 of the 30 studies it cites withdrawn. Its authors didn’t respond to requests for comment, but IEEE integrity director Luigi Longobardi says that the publisher didn’t know about the issue until Nature asked, and that it is investigating.

Cabanac, a research-integrity sleuth, has already created software to flag thousands of problematic papers in the literature for issues such as computer-written text or disguised plagiarism . He hopes that his latest detector, which he has been developing over the past two years and describes this week in a Comment article in Nature , will provide another way to stop bad research propagating through the scientific literature — some of it fake work created by ‘papermill’ firms .

Further scrutiny

Cabanac lists the detector’s findings on his website , but elsewhere online — on the paper-review site PubPeer and on social media — he has explicitly flagged more than 1,700 papers that caught his eye because of their reliance on retracted work. Some authors have thanked Cabanac for alerting them to problems in their references. Others argue that it’s unfair to effectively cast aspersions on their work because of retractions made after publication that, they say, don’t affect their paper.

Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers

Retracted references don’t definitively show that a paper is problematic, notes Tamara Welschot, part of the research-integrity team at Springer Nature in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, but they are a useful sign that a paper might benefit from further scrutiny. ( Nature ’s news team is independent of its publisher, Springer Nature.)

Some researchers argue that retraction of references in a narrative review — which describes the state of research in a field — doesn’t necessarily invalidate the original paper. But when studies assessed by a systematic review or meta-analysis are withdrawn, the results of that review should always be recalculated to keep the literature up to date, says epidemiologist Isabelle Boutron at Paris City University.

Retracted references

These studies have the highest proportion of retracted papers in their reference lists, according to Nature ’s analysis of articles flagged by the Feet of Clay Detector.

Year	Title of paper	Number of retracted studies in reference list
2012		33 of 51 (65%)
2023		18 of 30 (60%)
2024		46 of 77 (60%)
2012		25 of 53 (47%)
2001		25 of 53 (47%)
2016		15 of 33 (45%)
2012		40 of 125 (32%)
2013		18 of 57 (32%)
2012		47 of 225 (21%)
2023		12 of 58 (21%)

Source: Nature analysis of data from the Feet of Clay Detector . Figures for references and retractions were hand-checked and altered where necessary; detector data sources do not always give accurate counts.

Picking up fraudsters

Some of the papers that cite high proportions of retracted work are authored by known academic fraudsters who have had many of their own papers retracted.

These include engineering researcher Ali Nazari, who was dismissed from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, in 2019, after a university misconduct investigation into his activities. He previously worked at Islamic Azad University in Saveh, Iran, and his current whereabouts are unclear. After Nature told publishers about his extant papers 2 , 3 topping Cabanac’s lists — including Elsevier and Fap-Unifesp, a non-profit foundation that supports the Federal University of São Paulo in Brazil — they said that they would look into the articles. One of the relevant journals was discontinued in 2013, Elsevier noted.

Cabanac’s detector also flags papers 4 by Chen-Yuan Chen, a computer scientist who worked at the National Pingtung University of Education in Taiwan until 2014. He was behind a syndicate that faked peer review and boosted citations, which came to light in 2014 after an investigation by the publisher SAGE. Some of Chen’s papers that are still in the literature were published by Springer Nature, which says it hadn’t been aware of the issue but is now investigating. Neither Chen nor Nazari responded to Nature ’s requests for comment.

Another flagged study 5 is by Ahmad Salar Elahi, a physicist affiliated with the Islamic Azad University in Tehran who has already had dozens of his papers retracted, in many cases because of excessive self-citation and instances of faked peer review. In 2018, the website Retraction Watch (which also wrote about the Nazari and Chen cases) reported that according to Mahmoud Ghoranneviss, then-director of the Plasma Physics Research Centre where Elahi worked, Elahi was likely to be dismissed from the university. Now, Ghoranneviss — who has retired — says that Elahi was barred only from that centre and not the rest of the university. Elahi continues to publish papers, sometimes listing co-authors including Ghoranneviss, who says he wasn’t aware of this. Neither Elahi nor the university responded to Nature ’s queries. The IEEE and Springer Nature, publishers of the journals that ran the Elahi papers, say they’re investigating.

Unhappy authors

Some authors are unhappy about Cabanac’s work. In May 2024, editors of the journal Clinical and Translational Oncology placed an expression of concern on a 2019 review paper 6 about RNA and childhood cancers, warning that it might not be reliable because it cited “a number of articles that have been retracted”. The journal’s publishing editor, Ying Jia at Springer Nature in Washington DC, says the team was alerted by one of Cabanac’s posts on social media last year.

Guillaume Cabanac poses for a portrait on the Paul Sabatier University campus.

Computer scientist Guillaume Cabanac has flagged more than 1,700 papers that caught his eye because of their reliance on retracted work. Credit: Fred Scheiber/SIPA/Shutterstock

Cabanac’s analysis finds that just under 10% of the article’s 637 references have been retracted — almost all after the review was published. However, the paper’s corresponding author, María Sol Brassesco, a biologist at the University of São Paulo, says that removing these references doesn’t change the conclusions of the review, and that she has sent the journal an updated version, which it hasn’t published. Because the cited works were retracted after publication, the expression of concern “felt like we were being punished for something that we could not see ahead”, she says. Jia says that editors felt that adding the notice was the most appropriate action.

In other cases, authors disagree about what to do. Nature examined three papers 7 , 8 , 9 in which between 5 and 16% of the references have now been retracted, all co-authored by Mohammad Taheri, a genetics PhD student at Friedrich Schiller University of Jena in Germany. He says that criticisms of his work on PubPeer “lack solid scientific basis”. Yet, in May, a co-author of two of those works, Marcel Dinger, dean of science at the University of Sydney in Australia, told the website For Better Science and Retraction Watch that he was reassessing review papers that cited retracted articles. He now says that his team has submitted corrections for the works, but Frontiers, which published one paper, says it hasn’t received the correspondence and will investigate. Elsevier — which published the other two papers — also says that it is examining the issue.

Catching problems early

Examples in which papers cite already-retracted work suggest that publishers could do a better job of screening manuscripts. For instance, 20 studies cited by a 2023 review paper 10 about RNA and gynaecological cancers in Frontiers in Oncology had been retracted before the article was submitted. Review co-author Maryam Mahjoubin-Tehran, a pharmacist at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran, told Nature that her team didn’t know about the retractions, and does not plan to update or withdraw the paper. The publisher, Frontiers, says it is investigating.

Until recently, publishers have not flagged citations to retracted papers in submitted manuscripts. However, many publishers say they are aware of Cabanac’s tool and monitor issues he raises, and some are bringing in similar screening tools.

Last year, Wiley announced it was checking Retraction Watch’s database of retracted articles to flag issues in reference lists, and Elsevier says it is also rolling out a tool that assesses manuscripts for red flags such as self-citations and references to retracted work. Springer Nature is piloting an in-house tool to look for retracted papers in manuscript citations and Longobardi says the IEEE is considering including Feet of Clay or similar solutions in its workflow. A working group for the STM Integrity Hub — a collaboration between publishers — has also tested the Feet of Clay Detector and “found it useful”, says Welschot.

Medical trend

Medical reviews that cite studies in areas later shown to be affected by fraud are a recurring theme in Cabanac’s findings.

In theory, meta-analyses or systematic reviews should be withdrawn or corrected if work they have cited goes on to be retracted, according to a policy issued in 2021 by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international group known for its gold-standard reviews of medical treatments .

Boutron, who directs Cochrane France in Paris, is using Cabanac’s tool to identify systematic reviews that cite retracted work, and to assess the impact the retracted studies had on the overall results.

However, a 2022 study 11 suggests that authors are often reluctant to update reviews, even when they are told the papers cite retracted work. Researchers e-mailed the authors of 88 systematic reviews that cited now-retracted studies in bone health by a Japanese fraudster, Yoshihiro Sato . Only 11 of the reviews were updated, the authors told Nature last year.

Retraction alerts

Authors aren’t routinely alerted if work cited in their past papers is withdrawn — although in recent years, paper-management tools for researchers such as Zotero and EndNote have incorporated Retraction Watch’s open database of retracted papers and have begun to flag papers that have been taken down. Cabanac thinks publishers might use tools like his to create similar alerts.

In 2016, researchers at the University of Oxford, UK, began developing a tool called RetractoBot , which automatically notifies authors by e-mail when a study that they have previously cited has been retracted. The software currently monitors 20,000 retracted papers and about 400,000 papers, published after 2000, that cite them. The team behind it is running a randomized trial to see whether papers flagged by RetractoBot are subsequently cited less than those not flagged by the tool, and will publish its results next year, says project lead Nicholas DeVito, a integrity researcher at Oxford.

The team has alerted more than 100,000 researchers so far. DeVito says that a minority of authors are annoyed about being contacted, but that others are grateful. “We are merely trying to provide a service to the community to reduce this practice from happening,” he says.

Nature 633 , 13-15 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02719-5

Updates & Corrections

Update 02 September 2024 : This story has been updated to include mention of a website that reported Marcel Dinger’s comments relating to the citation of retracted papers.

Sandhiya, M. & Aneetha, A. S. 9th Intl Conf. Smart Struct. Syst . 1–4 (2023).

Nazari, A. Mater. Res. 15 , 383–396 (2012).

Article Google Scholar

Nazari, A., Khalaj, G. & Riahi, S. Math. Comput. Model. 55 , 1339–1353 (2012).

Shih, B.-Y., Chen, T.-H., Cheng, M.-H., Chen, C.-Y. & Chen, B.-W. Nat. Hazards 65 , 1637–1652 (2013).

Salar Elahi, A. & Ghoranneviss, M. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 41 , 334–340 (2013).

Viera, G. M. et al. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 21 , 1583–1623 (2019); editorial expression of concern 26 , 1806 (2024).

Taheri, M. et al. Exp. Molec. Pathol . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexmp.2021.104602 (2021).

Taheri, M. et al. Front. Mol. Biosci . https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.665199 (2021).

Ghafouri-Fard, S. et al. Biomed. Pharmacotherapy 137 , 111279 (2021).

Rezaee, A. et al. Front. Oncol. 13 , 1215194 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Avenell, A., Bolland, M. J., Gamble, G. D. & Grey, A. Account. Res. 31 , 14–37 (2022).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Supplementary Information

NEWS Retracted references Supplementary Information 2024

Peer review

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Cash for errors: project offers bounty for spotting mistakes in published papers

Technology Feature 19 AUG 24

Who will make AlphaFold3 open source? Scientists race to crack AI model

News 23 MAY 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Environmental Epidemiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Open Faculty Positions at the State Key Laboratory of Brain Cognition & Brain-inspired Intelligence

The laboratory focuses on understanding the mechanisms of brain intelligence and developing the theory and techniques of brain-inspired intelligence.

Shanghai, China

CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT)

Research Associate - Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)

Faculty position in pathology research.

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Director, Clinical Translational Program, Center for Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias

The Intramural Research Programs (IRPs) of the National Institute on Aging (NIA)

Bethesda, Maryland (US)

National Institutes of Health

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Open access
Published: 03 September 2024

Trends and insights in dengue virus research globally: a bibliometric analysis (1995–2023)

Yumeng Liu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3124-0627 1 ,
MengMeng Wang 2 ,
Ning Yu 2 ,
Wenxin Zhao 2 ,
Peng Wang 2 ,
He Zhang 2 ,
Wenchao Sun 3 ,
Ningyi Jin 1 , 2 &
Huijun Lu 2

Journal of Translational Medicine volume 22 , Article number: 818 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Dengue virus (DENV) is the most widespread arbovirus. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared dengue one of the top 10 global health threats in 2019. However, it has been underrepresented in bibliometric analyses. This study employs bibliometric analysis to identify research hotspots and trends, offering a comprehensive overview of the current research dynamics in this field.

We present a report spanning from 1995 to 2023 that provides a unique longitudinal analysis of Dengue virus (DENV) research, revealing significant trends and shifts not extensively covered in previous literature. A total of 10,767 DENV-related documents were considered, with a notable increase in publications, peaking at 747 articles in 2021. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases has become the leading journal in Dengue virus research, publishing 791 articles in this field—the highest number recorded. Our bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive mapping of DENV research across multiple dimensions, including vector ecology, virology, and emerging therapies. The study delineates a complex network of immune response genes, including IFNA1, DDX58, IFNB1, STAT1, IRF3, and NFKB1, highlighting significant trends and emerging themes, particularly the impacts of climate change and new outbreaks on disease transmission. Our findings detail the progress and current status of key vaccine candidates, including the licensed Dengvaxia, newer vaccines such as Qdenga and TV003, and updated clinical trials. The study underscores significant advancements in antiviral therapies and vector control strategies for dengue, highlighting innovative drug candidates such as AT-752 and JNJ-1802, and the potential of drug repurposing with agents like Ribavirin, Remdesivir, and Lopinavir. Additionally, it discusses biological control methods, including the introduction of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes and gene-editing technologies.

This bibliometric study underscores the critical role of interdisciplinary collaboration in advancing DENV research, identifying key trends and areas needing further exploration, including host-virus dynamics, the development and application of antiviral drugs and vaccines, and the use of artificial intelligence. It advocates for strengthened partnerships across various disciplines to effectively tackle the challenges posed by DENV.

The Dengue virus (DENV) is a global public health threat transmitted primarily by mosquitoes [ 1 ]. Dengue fever manifests with symptoms including fever, headache, eye pain, muscle and joint pain, and skin rash [ 2 , 3 ]. Dengue fever is prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions, resulting in millions of infections and thousands of deaths annually. It has expanded to non-traditional areas, including the United States and Europe, with significant case surges in the Americas in 2015 and 2019 and a notable outbreak in the Western Pacific in 2013. For a comprehensive overview of global dengue cases and related deaths since 1995, see Table S1 in the supplementary materials, which includes World Health Organization data, although some information may be incomplete due to COVID-19-related disruptions [ 3 ]. Recent epidemiological trends show a concerning expansion in Dengue’s geographic and demographic scope, exacerbated by climate change and urbanization that facilitate vector breeding and shorten the viral incubation period. Studies predict an increase in the global population at risk from 53% in 2015 to 63% by 2080 [ 4 ]. First identified in Myanmar in 1943 by American virologists Albert Sabin and Robert Phillips, DENV was isolated from a patient’s blood sample, laying the foundation for subsequent research on the virus [ 5 ]. The Dengue virus, a single-stranded RNA virus of the Flavivirus genus, comprises four serotypes (DENV-1, DENV-2, DENV-3, DENV-4). Each confers lifelong immunity against itself but leaves individuals susceptible to the other serotypes, complicating prevention efforts and contributing to the severity of outbreaks [ 6 ].

Many commonly used vector control strategies, such as insecticide spraying, have failed to curb disease incidence but continue to be employed in the absence of robust evidence for their effectiveness or optimal implementation. However, advancements in understanding dengue epidemiology, immune response, and innovative control measures, including effective management, vaccines, and novel mosquito control methods, could significantly enhance dengue control efforts.

To tackle the complex challenges posed by the Dengue virus (DENV), this study employs bibliometric analysis to assess the breadth and impact of DENV-related research across various disciplines. Integrating existing studies is crucial to encapsulate the comprehensive scope of DENV research, covering aspects such as transmission dynamics, clinical manifestations, treatment options, and preventive measures. This approach is vital to identify critical research gaps and new potential areas of study, which are essential for advancing our understanding of the virus.

Data source

Data for this bibliometric analysis were retrieved from two primary databases: Web of Science (WOS) Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Scopus. These databases are widely recognized and extensively utilized in academic research, providing access to a broad array of high-quality academic journals. The selection of these databases enhances the comprehensiveness and credibility of our findings. The SCI-EXPANDED offers extensive coverage of scientific literature, particularly within the natural sciences, and includes high-impact journals, thereby ensuring the quality and reliability of the data. Scopus, as a multidisciplinary database, spans a wide range of subjects including science, technology, medicine, social sciences, arts, and humanities. Its broad coverage and high-quality data make it an indispensable resource for academic research. However, it is important to note that both SCI-EXPANDED and Scopus have a higher representation of English-language literature and high-impact journals, which may result in the underrepresentation of non-English literature and research published in lower-impact journals. Additionally, despite their extensive coverage, literature from certain specific fields may be underrepresented in these databases.

These databases are particularly well-suited for research on the Dengue virus (DENV) due to their reliable indexing in disciplines such as virology and public health. This study, covering the period from 1995 to 2023, focuses on the increase in Dengue-related publications and advancements in scientific databases, with an emphasis on research articles and reviews.

Research methods

In this study, we employed a variety of software tools to conduct comprehensive bibliometric analyses. VOSviewer (versions 1.6.18 and 1.6.20) and Pajek were utilized to analyze countries, institutions, journals, co-cited journals, authors, co-cited authors, and keyword co-occurrence, facilitating the construction of collaboration, co-citation, and co-occurrence networks. The visualization maps produced by VOSviewer and Scimago Graphica provided insightful visual representations of these networks. Pajek offered additional network analysis capabilities, particularly effective for handling large networks with its advanced features for detailed analysis and visualization. CiteSpace (version 6.1.R1) was employed to generate dual-map overlays of journals and to analyze references with Citation Bursts. The R package “bibliometrix” (version 3.2.1) was used to analyze thematic evolution and identify the 15 most active authors in DENV research. Microsoft Office Excel 2019 facilitated the quantitative analysis of publications. Gene visualization analysis was conducted using VOSviewer, while keyword visualization was performed using the R packages ComplexHeatmap (version 2.16.0) and circlize (version 0.4.16). Gene information was sourced from the Citexs Big Data Analysis Platform ( https://www.citexs.com ), which generated relevant visualizations to delineate the current research landscape, identify key research areas, and discern trends. The document selection and analysis process is illustrated in Fig. 1 .

Despite their powerful capabilities, tools like VOSviewer, Pajek, CiteSpace, and various R packages have limitations such as steep learning curves, complexity in data integration, and challenges in interpretation. These tools may also face performance issues with large datasets and might not fully capture the qualitative aspects of research trends. Therefore, a combination of multiple tools and methodologies is often necessary to achieve a comprehensive and accurate bibliometric analysis.

Flowchart Illustrating the Document Selection and Analysis Process for Dengue Virus Research

Global trends and collaborative dynamics in dengue virus research

Over the past 30 years, Dengue virus research has shown a significant upward trend, peaking at 747 articles in 2021. This growth can be divided into three phases: slow (1991–2002, under 120 publications annually), fast (2003–2013, 120–600 publications annually), and rapid (2014–2023, over 640 publications annually), likely influenced by global infectious disease outbreaks (Fig. 2 a). From 2021 to 2023, 45.5% of these publications were in high-impact, Q1 journals (Fig. 2 b).

Overview of Dengue Virus (DENV) Research Publication Trends and Distributions. ( a ) Temporal trends in publications from 1980 to 2020; ( b ) classification of these publications into journal quartiles from 1995 to 2023, using Journal Citation Reports (JCR) rankings; ( c ) geographical distribution of these publications by continent, categorized by the same journal quartiles. Quartiles are determined by the journal’s rank within its category, divided by the total number of journals in that category, and expressed as a percentile: Q1 (top 25%), Q2 (25–50%), Q3 (50–75%), and Q4 (bottom 25%). For journals spanning multiple WOS categories, the harmonic mean of Category Expected Citations is used to determine quality

Analysis of the top 20 corresponding authors’ countries shows variations in self-citation percentage (SCP) and most cited paper (MCP) metrics. The United States leads with the highest SCP (1281) and MCP (885), highlighting its significant contribution to the field. China and India also emerge as key players, supported by robust research infrastructures and extensive funding (Fig. 3 a). Visual maps from VOSviewer and Scimago Graphic illustrate the collaborative landscape, with the United States, China, and India leading in publications and collaborations (Fig. 3 b). This global network underscores the importance of international partnerships in advancing Dengue virus research.

Global Collaboration in Dengue Virus (DENV) Research from 1995 to 2023. ( a ) Displays the top 20 countries ranked by the number of corresponding authors in DENV research. ( b ) Showcases a VOSviewer network visualization of international co-authorship among these countries, where each country is represented as a node. The size of each node indicates the quantity of publications or the centrality in the collaborative network—larger nodes suggest higher publication outputs or more extensive collaboration. Links between nodes illustrate collaborative relationships, and node colors denote clusters of countries with frequent research collaborations in DENV

Comprehensive gene and keyword analysis in dengue virus research

Using VOSviewer 1.6.18 for gene visualization and keyword co-occurrence analysis has revealed a complex landscape in Dengue virus research, covering six main clusters: vector ecology, clinical manifestations, virology, vaccine development, immune response, diagnostic methods, and disease epidemiology (Fig. 4 a and b). This extensive range highlights the breadth of research, from molecular interactions to epidemiological patterns. Specific attention is focused on the virus’s basic properties, including replication mechanisms and immune responses, as well as disease transmission and epidemic trends, emphasizing crucial aspects such as viral transmission routes and genetic diversity.

Keyword Analyses in Dengue Virus-Related Publications from 1995 to 2023. ( a ) A co-occurrence network of 16,833 unique keywords with 58 keywords occurring more than 200 times, organized into six color-coded clusters. ( b ) An overlay visualization showing the temporal progression of keywords, with early keywords in blue and more recent ones in yellow. ( c ) A heatmap detailing the trends of keyword usage over the study period. ( d ) A co-occurrence cluster analysis focusing on genes associated with the Dengue virus

The heatmap analysis from 1995 to 2023 shows an increased focus on keywords like “Aedes” (the primary vector), “antibody”, “ADE” (antibody-dependent enhancement), “dengue vaccine”, and “antiviral agents”, indicating heightened research activity in developing prevention and treatment methods (Fig. 4 c). Emerging keywords such as “covid-19” and “zika” indicate a shift towards research on new infectious diseases, with significant regional research activity in Brazil, Thailand, and Indonesia.

The co-occurrence clustering analysis of genes including IFNA1, DDX58, IFNB1, STAT1, IRF3, and NFKB1 has identified key molecular players in the immune response to Dengue infection. This analysis reveals complex networks of gene interactions via pathways such as Toll-like and RIG-I-like receptors, essential for recognizing viral components and initiating antiviral defenses (Fig. 4 d). Genes such as IFITM3, TBK1, and STAT2 have been identified as potential therapeutic targets for their roles in modulating the host’s immune response and controlling viral load.

Journal impact and citation dynamics in dengue virus research

Over 29.76% of Dengue virus-related publications have appeared in the top 10 journals, underscoring the significant concentration of research output in high-impact periodicals. For more information on these leading journals, refer to Table S2 in the supplementary materials, which lists the top 10 global journals in the field of Dengue. Notably, Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases leads with 791 articles, followed by the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene with 579 articles, Journal of Virology with 322 articles, and BMC Infectious Diseases with 207 articles. Predominantly classified within the Q1 and Q2 quartiles, these journals have a profound impact on the scientific community, covering areas such as virology, immunology, epidemiology, and public health. These leading journals contribute significantly to various research domains within the field. For instance, Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases and the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene are instrumental in advancing basic research and epidemiological research. The Journal of Virology plays a critical role in disseminating virological and immunological research, while BMC Infectious Diseases provides extensive coverage of clinical studies and the public health implications of research. This interdisciplinary approach is essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of Dengue research.

A dual-map overlay analysis provides further insights by visualizing the diversity of research topics covered in these journals and the co-citation relationships among articles in the Dengue virus research field (Fig. 5 ). This analysis highlights the interconnectedness of research activities, with molecular biology, immunology, and clinical medicine prominently featured. It also reveals extensive collaboration across research domains, underscoring the pivotal role of molecular biogenetics as a frequently cited area in Dengue virus research. This network illustrates the depth of collaborative efforts and showcases the journals’ roles in fostering a comprehensive understanding of and response to global Dengue fever challenges.

Dual Map Overlay of Journals in Dengue Virus Research. This visualization illustrates the thematic distribution and citation flows among disciplines involved in Dengue studies. It highlights key citation trajectories between journals in Molecular Biology, Genetics, and other related fields, showcasing the interconnectivity of medical, clinical, and biological research in advancing our understanding of Dengue

The inaugural bibliometric analysis of the global research landscape on the dengue virus reveals a field predominantly characterized by descriptive and observational studies. From 1995 to 2023, the number of published papers peaked in 2021, with 747 articles. This surge suggests a rapid advancement and increased interest in Dengue virus research, potentially driven by emerging challenges and advancements in the field. These pivotal moments have often been marked by disease outbreaks, policy changes, or scientific breakthroughs. For instance, severe outbreaks in the Philippines and Brazil during 2019–2021 led to an increased focus on studying transmission patterns and developing effective prevention strategies [ 7 , 8 ]. Global health organizations and national governments have implemented new policies to combat the rising threat of Dengue. The World Health Organization’s comprehensive Dengue control strategy, launched in 2020, emphasized the need for enhanced surveillance, improved diagnostics, and vaccine development. These policies spurred increased funding and research initiatives, contributing to the surge in publications. Advances in genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics have provided new tools and methodologies for studying the Dengue virus. Breakthroughs in vaccine development, such as the approval and rollout of the Dengvaxia vaccine, and innovative diagnostic methods have accelerated research efforts to evaluate efficacy and safety, understand virus-host interactions, and explore novel therapeutic targets. These pivotal events have directed research towards specific aspects of Dengue virus biology, immunology, and epidemiology, guiding the evolution of the field [ 9 ]. Initially dominated by basic research on viral properties, replication mechanisms, and vaccine development, the field has progressively expanded to encompass broader areas such as vector ecology [ 10 ], clinical manifestations [ 11 ], diagnostic methods [ 12 ], and disease epidemiology [ 13 , 14 ].

Geographical analysis reveals significant disparities in research quality across continents. Europe leads with 59.36% of its publications in the top quartile, followed by Central America and the Caribbean (57.14%), and North America (51.17%). These disparities are influenced by several factors. Research output is disproportionately lower in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of the Middle East, and smaller island nations in the Pacific. Despite the presence of Dengue in these areas, they contribute relatively few research publications compared to regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America. Many underrepresented regions lack the necessary infrastructure, funding, and trained personnel to conduct extensive research. Limited access to advanced technologies and laboratories hampers local research efforts. In regions burdened by multiple infectious diseases (e.g., malaria, HIV/AIDS), public health resources and research funding are often directed towards more immediate health threats, sidelining Dengue research. Variations in Dengue virus transmission dynamics and environmental conditions might influence the intensity and focus of research activities. Regions with sporadic outbreaks may not prioritize Dengue research as highly as those with continuous high transmission rates. These disparities impact global Dengue virus research and control efforts by creating gaps in knowledge and hindering the development of universally effective interventions. Underrepresentation in research limits the understanding of region-specific transmission patterns, vector behavior, and population immunity, which are crucial for designing targeted control measures.

Comparison with existing literature

Spanning from 1995 to 2023, this study provides a unique longitudinal analysis of Dengue virus research, revealing significant trends and shifts using advanced bibliometric and statistical techniques like network and trend analyses. Our findings are consistent with and build upon prior bibliometric studies on Dengue virus and related arboviruses. By integrating disciplines like epidemiology, biology, and environmental science, the study provides an in-depth view of the field’s evolution and the challenges posed by the Dengue virus. It particularly highlights the impact of global climate change on disease transmission, offering insights not extensively covered in previous literature. For instance, the study titled “Dengue,” published in The Lancet in February 2024, includes data only up until October 10, 2022 [ 15 ]. In contrast, our research incorporates updated data, extending our analysis from 1995 to 2023. This expansion enables a more comprehensive analysis and deeper insights into long-term trends that elucidate the development and impact of Dengue fever.

Hotspots and frontiers

The analysis of keywords and gene clustering patterns highlights emerging trends and research priorities in DENV research. Key research focuses include vaccine development [ 16 , 17 ], novel antiviral therapies, virus transmission and control strategies, climate change and disease distribution, epidemiology and model predictions [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], and immune responses and pathogenic mechanisms [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. The dynamic nature of DENV research is evident, with a recent pivot toward issues such as climate change and the emergence of viruses like Zika and chikungunya [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Since 2019, the focus has notably shifted toward antiviral activities [ 28 , 29 ] and the exploration of neutralizing antibodies [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ] as critical areas of investigation. Effective antiviral strategies are essential to control the rising prevalence of Dengue virus infection and reduce mortality. The identified trends indicate a growing reliance on interdisciplinary approaches in DENV research. To comprehensively understand the transmission mechanisms and pathological processes of the dengue virus, future studies should continue to foster collaborations across fields such as epidemiology, molecular biology, climate science, and public health. Additionally, the hotspots reveal the rapid development of new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies. Future research should further promote innovation in areas such as nanotechnology, gene editing, and vaccine development to discover more effective prevention and treatment methods. Moreover, enhancing global data sharing and applying big data analytics can enable researchers to more accurately predict dengue outbreaks and develop more effective interventions. The analysis of research trends and hotspots can also provide evidence-based support for policy-making. Understanding regional patterns of virus transmission and high-risk factors can help formulate targeted control strategies. Furthermore, public health strategies can be significantly improved by integrating community involvement and education, environmental management, and continuous monitoring. Environmental factors play a significant role in virus transmission, as indicated by hotspot analyses. Public health strategies should establish and refine monitoring systems and emergency plans to ensure swift and effective action during outbreaks.

Vaccine development

The development of an effective dengue vaccine has been hindered by the immunological complexities of its four serotypes, requiring uniform protection to prevent antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a significant challenge for vaccine efficacy [ 35 , 36 ]. Several vaccine candidates have emerged, targeting either the structural E protein or the non-structural protein NS1, with various stages of development currently underway [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Currently, three primary vaccines are in use: Sanofi Pasteur’s Dengvaxia (CYD-TDV), the first licensed vaccine; this vaccine has shown an efficacy rate of approximately 60% but has been associated with an increased risk of severe dengue in seronegative individuals. This risk led to its restricted use to those who have had a previous dengue infection. Recent studies have continued to monitor its long-term efficacy and safety, providing critical data on its performance in diverse populations. Takeda’s Qdenga (TAK-003), approved in the EU in December 2022 and in Brazil in March 2023; Qdenga has demonstrated a higher efficacy rate, with recent studies showing an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 90% reduction in severe dengue cases among vaccinated individuals. where the vaccine was approved for ages 4–60, corroborate these findings, showing substantial decreases in dengue-related hospitalizations and severe cases. and the NIH’s TV003 has shown promise, with phase II trials indicating strong immunogenicity and a balanced response against all four serotypes. Phase III trials are ongoing, and preliminary data suggest high efficacy across different age groups and regions [ 40 ]. This vaccine’s simpler dosing schedule and robust immune response make it a strong candidate for broad use. For a comparison of the efficacy of licensed and Phase 3 live attenuated tetravalent Dengue vaccines across targeted populations, refer to Table 1 . Additional candidates, such as attenuated live, inactivated, recombinant, and DNA vaccines, are currently under clinical or preclinical evaluation. For a comprehensive overview of these vaccine candidates, refer to Table S3 in the supplementary materials.

Novel antiviral therapies

The urgent need for effective antiviral agents against the Dengue virus is underscored by the limited efficacy of currently available treatments [ 41 , 42 ]. Substantial efforts have been invested in identifying potent antivirals, with a notable shift toward repurposing existing drugs as a viable strategy [ 43 ]. However, drugs such as balapiravir, chloroquine, lovastatin, and celgosivir have shown limited success in clinical trials, highlighting the need for a targeted approach in developing novel therapies. Many repurposed drugs were originally designed to target different pathogens or disease mechanisms, which do not align well with the unique biology of the Dengue virus. For instance, chloroquine, primarily an anti-malarial drug, failed to exhibit significant antiviral activity against Dengue in clinical settings [ 44 ]. The pharmacokinetic profiles of some repurposed drugs are not suitable for achieving effective concentrations in tissues affected by Dengue. Additionally, toxicity at the required doses for antiviral efficacy can limit their use. Balapiravir, for instance, showed hepatotoxicity in clinical trials, making it unsuitable for Dengue treatment [ 45 ]. The potential for the development of viral resistance is another concern. Drugs like lovastatin, initially considered for their antiviral properties, may induce resistance mechanisms in the virus, reducing their long-term efficacy [ 46 ]. Lessons learned for future drug development include the importance of tailoring drug design to the specific viral and host mechanisms involved in Dengue pathogenesis. Additionally, a better understanding of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic requirements for effective antiviral activity is crucial. Future efforts should focus on identifying compounds that specifically target Dengue virus replication and its interaction with host cells.

Detailed information on the most promising candidates(see Table 2 ), such as AT-752 and JNJ-1802, can shed light on the potential breakthroughs in antiviral treatments for Dengue. AT-752-This candidate has shown potent in vitro activity against all four DENV serotypes. Phase I trials have indicated favorable pharmacokinetics and safety profiles, making it a promising candidate for further development. AT-752 targets the viral RNA polymerase, inhibiting viral replication. Early clinical data suggest that AT-752 can achieve therapeutic concentrations in the blood with minimal side effects, paving the way for phase II trials to assess its efficacy in Dengue patients. JNJ-1802-An inhibitor of the DENV NS4B protein, JNJ-1802 has demonstrated robust antiviral activity in preclinical models. It disrupts the viral replication complex, effectively reducing viral load. Early-phase clinical trials have shown promising results, with significant reductions in viral RNA levels in treated individuals. The safety profile has also been favorable, with no serious adverse events reported. Ongoing trials aim to determine the optimal dosing regimen and confirm its efficacy in larger patient cohorts. Additionally, research into host-targeted therapies, such as those modulating the immune response or viral entry pathways, is ongoing, with several candidates showing promise in preclinical studies. These approaches aim to enhance the host’s ability to combat the virus or prevent the virus from entering and replicating within host cells. Continued interdisciplinary research and innovative methodologies are crucial in addressing the challenges of treating DENV infections. For detailed information on recent advances, refer to Table S4 in the supplementary materials, which outlines the development of new antiviral drugs for Dengue. The integration of novel therapeutic approaches, combined with a deeper understanding of the virus-host interactions, holds the potential for significant breakthroughs in managing Dengue virus infections.

Virus transmission and control strategies

Recent advances in biological control methods have significantly shaped strategies to mitigate dengue fever transmission via vector mosquitoes. One notable approach is infecting Aedes mosquitoes with Wolbachia, an endosymbiotic bacterium that effectively reduces the mosquitoes’ ability to transmit the dengue virus [ 47 ]. Another method is the release of sterile mosquitoes through radiation or genetic modification, which controls population numbers by preventing offspring production after mating with wild mosquitoes [ 48 ]. Additionally, the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology is emerging as a revolutionary approach to engineer mosquitoes that either cannot survive or transmit the dengue virus, although this remains experimental [ 48 ]. The application of nanotechnology in insecticides shows promise, enhancing the delivery and effectiveness of chemical controls with minimal environmental impact by targeting specific biological pathways in mosquitoes [ 49 ]. Furthermore, smart surveillance systems utilizing IoT (Internet of Things), AI (Artificial Intelligence), and big data are improving the monitoring and predictive analysis of vector populations and dengue transmission patterns, leading to more targeted and efficient control measures [ 50 ].

Epidemiology and model predictions

Recent advancements in epidemiological modeling have significantly enhanced our understanding of disease transmission in the context of climate change. Machine learning and AI models have become essential for processing large datasets and predicting disease spread patterns with high accuracy, leveraging complex nonlinear data to forecast trends and potential outbreaks [ 51 ]. Spatial statistical models, another critical tool, use geographic and environmental data to map the potential distribution of vectors like Aedes mosquitoes and predict regions at increased risk for dengue outbreaks [ 51 ]. Dynamic simulation models, such as the Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) model, simulate transmission dynamics within populations using differential equations to describe interactions between hosts, pathogens, and the environment, providing a detailed predictive framework [ 52 ]. Additionally, regression analysis identifies key factors influencing transmission, while Geographic Information Systems (GIS) assess how environmental factors, exacerbated by climate variability, affect disease patterns. Integrating GIS with epidemiological data helps guide targeted interventions and resource allocation [ 53 ].

Immune responses and pathogenic mechanisms

Gene co-occurrence analysis has highlighted critical molecular mechanisms in Dengue virus infection, pinpointing key genes such as IFNA1, DDX58, and STAT1 that play significant roles in the host immune response. IFNA1 enhances antiviral gene expression and adaptive immunity [ 54 ]. DDX58 activates innate immune signaling upon viral RNA recognition [ 55 ], and STAT1 is crucial for cytokine production and immune cell activation [ 56 , 57 ]. Dysregulation of these genes can lead to severe outcomes in Dengue fever. Other important genes in the Toll-like and RIG-I-like receptor pathways, such as TLR3, TLR7, TLR9, IFNAR1, and MAVS, have been linked to virus recognition and response mechanisms [ 58 ]. The dynamic host immune response to Dengue virus involves innate immune sensor activation, cytokine production, and adaptive immune response induction. The virus employs evasion strategies that can lead to dysregulated immune responses and severe disease manifestations such as cytokine storm and tissue damage [ 30 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. This understanding opens avenues for targeted therapies, such as viral RNA-sensor inhibitors or cytokine blockers, which could mitigate immune-mediated damage and improve outcomes in severe Dengue cases. Insights from gene co-occurrence studies suggest potential therapeutic targets in immune signaling, viral replication, and inflammation pathways, crucial for developing novel treatments to control viral replication and modulate immune responses in Dengue virus infection [ 62 ].

Strategic initiatives for global dengue research collaboration

Future research on Dengue virus (DENV) should prioritize international collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation to effectively address global challenges. Establishing international research consortia and networks is essential, aiming to foster partnerships among countries, institutions, and disciplines to facilitate knowledge exchange, resource sharing, and collaborative research efforts. Initiatives like joint funding programs, collaborative research projects, and researcher exchange programs are crucial for promoting cross-cultural collaborations and interdisciplinary approaches. Leveraging the strengths of diverse stakeholders, such as researchers, policymakers, public health agencies, and community organizations, is key to driving innovation and accelerating progress in understanding and combating DENV globally. Future studies should explore Dengue virus dynamics, leveraging advanced technologies and data analysis methods to predict outbreaks and identify key environmental, social, and biological factors. Collaborative efforts among epidemiologists, virologists, entomologists, climatologists, and public health experts can provide a holistic understanding of transmission mechanisms and accelerate the development of targeted interventions. Integrating real-time surveillance systems, geographic information systems (GIS), and mathematical modeling can enhance the accuracy and timeliness of outbreak predictions, optimizing resource allocation for prevention and control. Community-based interventions, such as vector control programs and health education campaigns, are crucial in reducing transmission and mitigating the impact of outbreaks. Despite advancements, challenges in rapid diagnostics, effective antiviral treatments, and developing vaccines that are efficacious across all DENV serotypes remain. Addressing these challenges through innovative diagnostic technologies, novel vaccine platforms, and interdisciplinary collaboration is vital for progress. Moreover, emerging technologies like gene editing and biotechnology hold promise for new therapeutic interventions, underscoring the importance of international and interdisciplinary efforts in advancing DENV research and developing sustainable solutions for its control and prevention.

Conclusions

This bibliometric analysis reveals key trends and research gaps in DENV studies from 1995 to 2023, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in understanding virus behavior, vaccine development, and prevention strategies. Although notable progress has been made, our analysis identifies several underexplored areas, including the interactions between DENV and its host, the socio-economic impacts of public health interventions, and the application of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence in epidemic prediction and management. Future research requires strengthened interdisciplinary collaboration, uniting experts from molecular biology, epidemiology, data science, and other fields to address comprehensively the challenges posed by DENV. By fostering such cooperation, we can bridge existing research gaps and pioneer new directions, ultimately achieving effective control and prevention of DENV.

Supplemental materials

To further enrich the understanding of our research, we have provided detailed Supplemental Materials. These include Table S1 , which presents data on global dengue cases and related deaths since 1995; Table S2 , which lists the top 10 global journals in the field of dengue; Table S3 , which details current dengue vaccine candidates under evaluation; and Table S4 , which summarizes recent advances in dengue antiviral drug development. These materials offer additional insights and broader context to the discussions presented in this paper.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Dengue virus

The World Health Organization

The Web of Science

Science Citation Index Expanded

Self-citation percentage (SCP)

Most cited paper (MCP)

Corona Virus Disease 2019

Antibody-dependent enhancement

Interferon Alpha 1

DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) Box Polypeptide 58

Interferon Beta 1

Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 1

Interferon Regulatory Factor 3

Nuclear Factor Kappa B Subunit 1

Toll-like Receptors

RIG-I-like Receptors

Interferon-Induced Transmembrane Protein 3

TANK-Binding Kinase 1

Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 2

National Institutes of Health

Internet of Things

Artificial Intelligence

Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (a compartmental model in epidemiology)

Geographic Information System

Guzman MG, Halstead SB, Artsob H, Buchy P, Farrar J, Gubler DJ et al. Dengue: a continuing global threat. NAT REV MICROBIOL. 2010 2010-12-01;8(12 Suppl):S7–16.

Katzelnick LC, Gresh L, Halloran ME, Mercado JC, Kuan G, Gordon A et al. Antibody-dependent enhancement of severe dengue disease in humans. Science. 2017 2017-11-17;358(6365):929–32.

Wilder-Smith A, Ooi EE, Horstick O, Wills B, Dengue. LANCET. 2019 2019-01-26;393(10169):350 – 63.

Messina JP, Brady OJ, Golding N, Kraemer M, Wint G, Ray SE et al. The current and future global distribution and population at risk of dengue. NAT MICROBIOL. 2019 2019-09-01;4(9):1508–15.

Dengue in the South Pacific. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 1990;65(33):255–6. 1990-08-17.

Google Scholar

Ng WC, Lin L, Siriphanitchakorn T, Jiang M, Tan HC, Ooi EE. A natural human cell-adapted dengue type 3 virus strain. MICROBIOL SPECTR. 2024 2024-06-07:e70124.

Bifani AM, Siriphanitchakorn T, Choy MM. Intra-host Diversity of Dengue Virus in Mosquito vectors. FRONT CELL INFECT MI. 2022 2022-01-20;12:888804.

Redoni M, Yacoub S, Rivino L, Giacobbe DR, Luzzati R, Di Bella S, Dengue. Status of current and under-development vaccines. REV MED VIROL. 2020 2020-07-01;30(4):e2101.

Malik S, Ahsan O, Mumtaz H, Tahir KM, Sah R, Waheed Y. Tracing down the Updates on Dengue Virus-Molecular Biology, Antivirals, and Vaccine Strategies. VACCINES-BASEL. 2023 2023-08-05;11(8).

Yuan K, Chen Y, Zhong M, Lin Y, Liu L. Risk and predictive factors for severe dengue infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2022 2022-01-20;17(4):e267186.

Sharp TM, Anderson KB, Katzelnick LC, Clapham H, Johansson MA, Morrison AC et al. Knowledge gaps in the epidemiology of severe dengue impede vaccine evaluation. LANCET INFECT DIS. 2022 2022-02-01;22(2):e42–51.

Sharp TM, Fischer M, Munoz-Jordan JL, Paz-Bailey G, Staples JE, Gregory CJ et al. Dengue and Zika Virus Diagnostic Testing for patients with a clinically compatible illness and risk for infection with both viruses. MMWR RECOMM REP. 2019 2019-06-14;68(1):1–10.

Roy SK, Bhattacharjee S. Dengue virus: epidemiology, biology, and disease aetiology. CAN J MICROBIOL. 2021 2021-10-01;67(10):687–702.

Rapaport S, Maurino M, Morales MA, Fabbri C, Luppo V, Buyayisqui MP et al. Epidemiology of Dengue in Argentina during the 2010/11 to 2019/20 Seasons: a contribution to the Burden of Disease. TROP MED INFECT DIS. 2024 2024-02-10;9(2).

Paz-Bailey G, Adams LE, Deen J, Anderson KB, Katzelnick LC, Dengue. LANCET. 2024 2024-02-17;403(10427):667 – 82.

Torres-Flores JM, Reyes-Sandoval A, Salazar MI. Dengue Vaccines: An Update. BIODRUGS. 2022 2022-05-01;36(3):325 – 36.

Huang CH, Tsai YT, Wang SF, Wang WH, Chen YH. Dengue vaccine: an update. EXPERT REV ANTI-INFE. 2021 2021-12-01;19(12):1495–502.

Liu Z, Zhang Q, Li L, He J, Guo J, Wang Z et al. The effect of temperature on dengue virus transmission by Aedes mosquitoes. FRONT CELL INFECT MI. 2023 2023-01-20;13:1242173.

Reed E, Byrd BD, Richards SL, Eckardt M, Williams C, Reiskind MH. A Statewide Survey of Container Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in North Carolina, 2016: a Multiagency Surveillance response to Zika Using Ovitraps. J MED ENTOMOL. 2019 2019-02-25;56(2):483–90.

Liu Z, Zhang Q, Li L, He J, Guo J, Wang Z et al. Corrigendum: the effect of temperature on dengue virus transmission by Aedes mosquitoes. FRONT CELL INFECT MI. 2023 2023-01-20;13:1320461.

Prapty C, Rahmat R, Araf Y, Shounak SK, Noor-A-Afrin, Rahaman TI et al. SARS-CoV-2 and dengue virus co-infection: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and management. REV MED VIROL. 2023 2023-01-01;33(1):e2340.

Kok BH, Lim HT, Lim CP, Lai NS, Leow CY, Leow CH. Dengue virus infection - a review of pathogenesis, vaccines, diagnosis and therapy. VIRUS RES. 2023 2023-01-15;324:199018.

Huang Y, Peng Q, Tian X, Chen C, Zhu X, Huang C et al. Nuclear membrane protein SUN2 promotes replication of flaviviruses through modulating cytoskeleton reorganization mediated by NS1. NAT COMMUN. 2024 2024-01-05;15(1):296.

Vouga M, Chiu YC, Pomar L, de Meyer SV, Masmejan S, Genton B et al. Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya during pregnancy: pre- and post-travel advice and clinical management. J TRAVEL MED. 2019 2019-12-23;26(8).

Christie C, Lue AM, Melbourne-Chambers RH. Dengue, Chikungunya and Zika Arbovirus infections in Caribbean children. CURR OPIN PEDIATR. 2023 2023-04-01;35(2):155–65.

Zanotto P, Leite L. The challenges imposed by Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya to Brazil. FRONT IMMUNOL. 2018 2018-01-20;9:1964.

Bastos FP, Francisco M, Santos CS, de Almeida BL, Souza M, Ribeiro D et al. High seroprevalence of antibodies against arboviruses in postpartum women in Salvador, Brazil. IJID Reg. 2023 2023-12-01;9:55 – 8.

Teixeira SC, Borges BC, Oliveira VQ, Carregosa LS, Bastos LA, Santos IA et al. Insights into the antiviral activity of phospholipases a(2) (PLA(2)s) from snake venoms. INT J BIOL MACROMOL. 2020 2020-12-01;164:616 – 25.

Loaiza-Cano V, Monsalve-Escudero LM, Filho C, Martinez-Gutierrez M, Sousa DP. Antiviral role of Phenolic compounds against Dengue Virus: a review. BIOMOLECULES. 2020 2020-12-24;11(1).

Sarker A, Dhama N, Gupta RD. Dengue virus neutralizing antibody: a review of targets, cross-reactivity, and antibody-dependent enhancement. FRONT IMMUNOL. 2023 2023-01-20;14:1200195.

Bournazos S, Gupta A, Ravetch JV. The role of IgG fc receptors in antibody-dependent enhancement. NAT REV IMMUNOL. 2020 2020-10-01;20(10):633–43.

Mikita CP, Padlan EA. Can we find a possible structural explanation for antibody-dependent enhancement of dengue virus infection resulting in hemorrhagic fever? MED HYPOTHESES. 2016 2016-03-01;88:49–52.

Chotiwan N, Roehrig JT, Schlesinger JJ, Blair CD, Huang CY. Molecular determinants of dengue virus 2 envelope protein important for virus entry in FcgammaRIIA-mediated antibody-dependent enhancement of infection. Virology. 2014 2014-05-01;456–457:238 – 46.

Gu W, Guo L, Yu H, Niu J, Huang M, Luo X et al. Involvement of CD16 in antibody-dependent enhancement of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection. J GEN VIROL. 2015 2015-07-01;96(Pt 7):1712–22.

Wilson ME, Chen LH. Dengue: update on epidemiology. CURR INFECT DIS REP. 2015 2015-01-01;17(1):457.

Bigay J, Le Grand R, Martinon F, Maisonnasse P. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease in humans and animal models: lessons and challenges for vaccine development. FRONT MICROBIOL. 2022 2022-01-20;13:932408.

Wang WH, Urbina AN, Lin CY, Yang ZS, Assavalapsakul W, Thitithanyanont A et al. Targets and strategies for vaccine development against dengue viruses. BIOMED PHARMACOTHER. 2021 2021-12-01;144:112304.

Blaney JJ, Durbin AP, Murphy BR, Whitehead SS. Development of a live attenuated dengue virus vaccine using reverse genetics. VIRAL IMMUNOL. 2006 2006-03-01;19(1):10–32.

Biswal S, Borja-Tabora C, Martinez VL, Velasquez H, Theresa AM, Sierra V et al. Efficacy of a tetravalent dengue vaccine in healthy children aged 4–16 years: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020 2020-05-02;395(10234):1423–33.

Pintado SJ, Fernandez-Sesma A. Challenges on the development of a dengue vaccine: a comprehensive review of the state of the art. J GEN VIROL. 2023 2023-03-01;104(3).

Capeding MR, Tran NH, Hadinegoro S, Ismail H, Chotpitayasunondh T, Chua MN, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of a novel tetravalent dengue vaccine in healthy children in Asia: a phase 3, randomised, observer-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9951):1358–65.

Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar

Salje H, Alera MT, Chua MN, Hunsawong T, Ellison D, Srikiatkhachorn A et al. Evaluation of the extended efficacy of the Dengvaxia vaccine against symptomatic and subclinical dengue infection. NAT MED. 2021 2021-01-01;27(8):1395.

Li S, Li H, Lian R, Xie J, Feng R. New perspective of small-molecule antiviral drugs development for RNA viruses. Virology. 2024 2024-03-07;594:110042.

Tricou V, Minh NN, Van TP, Lee SJ, Farrar J, Wills B et al. A randomized controlled trial of chloroquine for the treatment of dengue in Vietnamese adults. PLOS NEGLECT TROP D. 2010 2010-08-10;4(8):e785.

Nguyen NM, Tran CN, Phung LK, Duong KT, Huynh HA, Farrar J, et al. A randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial of balapiravir, a polymerase inhibitor, in adult dengue patients. J INFECT DIS. 2013;207(9):1442–50. 2013-05-01.

Boldescu V, Behnam M, Vasilakis N, Klein CD. Broad-spectrum agents for flaviviral infections: dengue, Zika and beyond. NAT REV DRUG DISCOV. 2017 2017-08-01;16(8):565–86.

Fox T, Sguassero Y, Chaplin M, Rose W, Doum D, Arevalo-Rodriguez I et al. Wolbachia-carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection. COCHRANE DB SYST REV. 2024 2024-04-10;4(4):CD15636.

Wang GH, Gamez S, Raban RR, Marshall JM, Alphey L, Li M, et al. Combating mosquito-borne diseases using genetic control technologies. NAT COMMUN. 2021;12(1):4388. 2021-07-19.

Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Athanassiou CG, Kavallieratos NG, Benelli G, Losic D, Rani PU, Desneux N. Nanoparticles for pest control: current status and future perspectives. J PEST SCI. 2018 2018-01-01;91(1):1–15.

Carrasco-Escobar G, Moreno M, Fornace K, Herrera-Varela M, Manrique E, Conn JE. The use of drones for mosquito surveillance and control. PARASITE VECTOR. 2022;15(1).

Sebastianelli A, Spiller D, Carmo R, Wheeler J, Nowakowski A, Jacobson LV et al. A reproducible ensemble machine learning approach to forecast dengue outbreaks. SCI REP-UK. 2024 2024-02-15;14(1):3807.

Williams CR, Mincham G, Ritchie SA, Viennet E, Harley D. Bionomic response of Aedes aegypti to two future climate change scenarios in far north Queensland, Australia: implications for dengue outbreaks. PARASITE VECTOR. 2014 2014-09-19;7:447.

Randhawa N, Mailhot H, Lang DT, Martinez-Lopez B, Gilardi K, Mazet J. Fine scale infectious disease modeling using satellite-derived data. SCI REP-UK. 2021 2021-03-25;11(1):6946.

Castillo RJ, Urcuqui-Inchima S. Dengue Virus Control of Type I IFN responses: a history of Manipulation and Control. J INTERF CYTOK RES. 2015 2015-06-01;35(6):421–30.

Chazal M, Beauclair G, Gracias S, Najburg V, Simon-Loriere E, Tangy F et al. RIG-I Recognizes the 5’ Region of Dengue and Zika Virus Genomes. CELL REP. 2018 2018-07-10;24(2):320–8.

DENV host interaction. and altered antiviral pathway during DENV infection.

Serrato-Salas J, Izquierdo-Sanchez J, Arguello M, Conde R, Alvarado-Delgado A, Lanz-Mendoza H. Aedes aegypti antiviral adaptive response against DENV-2. DEV COMP IMMUNOL. 2018 2018-07-01;84:28–36.

Siriphanitchakorn T, Kini RM, Ooi EE, Choy MM. Revisiting dengue virus-mosquito interactions: molecular insights into viral fitness. J GEN VIROL. 2021 2021-11-01;102(11).

Khanam A, Gutierrez-Barbosa H, Lyke KE, Chua JV. Immune-mediated pathogenesis in Dengue Virus infection. VIRUSES-BASEL. 2022 2022-11-21;14(11).

Cruz-Oliveira C, Freire JM, Conceicao TM, Higa LM, Castanho MA, Da PA. Receptors and routes of dengue virus entry into the host cells. FEMS MICROBIOL REV. 2015 2015-03-01;39(2):155–70.

Transmission. dynamics.

Sinha S, Singh K, Ravi KY, Roy R, Phadnis S, Meena V, et al. Dengue virus pathogenesis and host molecular machineries. J BIOMED SCI. 2024;31(1):43. 2024-04-22.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Alves L. Brazil to start widespread dengue vaccinations. Lancet. 2024;403(10422):133. 2024-01-13.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Izmirly AM, Pelletier AN, Connors J, Taramangalam B, Alturki SO, Gordon EA et al. Pre-vaccination frequency of circulatory tfh is associated with robust immune response to TV003 dengue vaccine. PLOS PATHOG. 2022 2022-01-01;18(1):e1009903.

Pintado SJ, Fenutria R, Bernal-Rubio D, Sanchez-Martin I, Hunziker A, Chebishev E, et al. The dengue virus 4 component of NIAID’s tetravalent TV003 vaccine drives its innate immune signature. EXP BIOL MED. 2022;247(24):2201–12. 2022-12-01.

Article Google Scholar

Huang Z, Zhang Y, Li H, Zhu J, Song W, Chen K et al. Vaccine development for mosquito-borne viral diseases. FRONT IMMUNOL. 2023 2023-01-20;14:1161149.

Coronel-Martinez DL, Park J, Lopez-Medina E, Capeding MR, Bonfanti AAC, Montalban MC et al. Immunogenicity and safety of booster CYD-TDV dengue vaccine after alternative primary vaccination schedules in healthy individuals aged 9–50 years: a randomised, controlled, phase 2, non-inferiority study. LANCET INFECT DIS. 2022 2022-01-01;22(6):901–11.

Tricou V, Eyre S, Ramjee M, Collini P, Mojares Z, Loeliger E et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of the immunogenicity and safety of coadministration of a live-attenuated tetravalent dengue vaccine (TAK-003) and an inactivated hepatitis a (HAV) virus vaccine in a dengue non-endemic country. VACCINE. 2023 2023-02-10;41(7):1398–407.

Patel SS, Winkle P, Faccin A, Nordio F, LeFevre I, Tsoukas CG. An open-label, phase 3 trial of TAK-003, a live attenuated dengue tetravalent vaccine, in healthy US adults: immunogenicity and safety when administered during the second half of a 24-month shelf-life. HUM VACC IMMUNOTHER. 2023 2023-08-01;19(2):2254964.

de Silva A, White L. Immunogenicity of a live Dengue Vaccine (TAK-003). J INFECT DIS. 2022 2022-12-28;227(1):163–4.

White LJ, Young EF, Stoops MJ, Henein SR, Adams EC, Baric RS et al. Defining levels of dengue virus serotype-specific neutralizing antibodies induced by a live attenuated tetravalent dengue vaccine (TAK-003). PLOS NEGLECT TROP D. 2021 2021-03-01;15(3):e9258.

Wilder-Smith A. TAK-003 dengue vaccine as a new tool to mitigate dengue in countries with a high disease burden. LANCET GLOB HEALTH. 2024 2024-02-01;12(2):e179–80.

Tricou V, Yu D, Reynales H, Biswal S, Saez-Llorens X, Sirivichayakul C et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of a tetravalent dengue vaccine (TAK-003): 4.5-year results from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. LANCET GLOB HEALTH. 2024 2024-02-01;12(2):e257–70.

Zhou X, Lickliter J, Montrond M, Ishak L, Pietropaolo K, James D et al. First-in-human trial evaluating safety and pharmacokinetics of AT-752, a novel nucleotide prodrug with pan-serotype activity against dengue virus. ANTIMICROB AGENTS CH. 2024 2024-03-25:e161523.

Kesteleyn B, Bonfanti JF, Bardiot D, De Boeck B, Goethals O, Kaptein S et al. Discovery of JNJ-1802, a first-in-class Pan-serotype Dengue Virus NS4B inhibitor. J MED CHEM. 2024 2024-03-14;67(5):4063–82.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2301704) and CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2020-12 M-5-001).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, China

Yumeng Liu & Ningyi Jin

Changchun Veterinary Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun, China

MengMeng Wang, Ning Yu, Wenxin Zhao, Peng Wang, He Zhang, Ningyi Jin & Huijun Lu

Wenzhou Key Laboratory for Virology and Immunology, Institute of Virology, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

Wenchao Sun

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have been involved in writing this editorial and contributing to the review of the manuscript. Yumeng Liu: Writing - Original Draft; Mengmeng Wang: Writing – Review Editing; Ning Yu and Wenxin Zhao: Conceptualization; Peng Wang: Methodology; He Zhang: Formal Analysis; Wenchao Sun: Project Administration; Ningyi Jin and Huijun Lu: Funding Acquisition.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yumeng Liu , Wenchao Sun , Ningyi Jin or Huijun Lu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liu, Y., Wang, M., Yu, N. et al. Trends and insights in dengue virus research globally: a bibliometric analysis (1995–2023). J Transl Med 22 , 818 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05561-5

Download citation

Received : 16 May 2024

Accepted : 30 July 2024

Published : 03 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05561-5

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

Dengue Virus (DENV)
Global Research Trends
Bibliometric Analysis
Vaccine Development
Antiviral therapies
Vector Control Strategies

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

IMAGES

What is Literature Review in Research Methodology?
Sample of Research Literature Review
How to write a literature review in research paper
A complete Guide to Literature Review in Research
Importance of literature review in research
The Importance of Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing

VIDEO

importance of Academic literature |Research literature review |Academic literature
What is Literature Review?
Common Core Literature Standard 7: How can Readers Analyze Literary and Artistic Subjects?
Common Core Writing 3.1: What is Narrative Writing?
Literature Review
Common Core Literature Standard 4: Determining Words' Meanings and Figurative Language in Literature

COMMENTS

How to Write a Literature Review
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.
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. Therefore, questions can be raised about the quality and trustworthiness of these types of reviews.
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. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources. Identify themes, debates and gaps.
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
What kinds of literature reviews are written? Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified.
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the ...
Literature Review Research
Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works. Also, we can define a literature review as the ...
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
What is a literature review?
A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important ...
Methodological Approaches to Literature Review
A literature review is defined as "a critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles." (The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison 2022) A literature review is an integrated analysis, not just a summary of scholarly work on a specific topic.
What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis ...
The word "literature review" can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature - i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or ...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies ("sleeping beauties" )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given ...
Home
What kinds of literature reviews are written? Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified.
Literature Review
Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ...
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing ...
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research. The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research. It should give a theoretical base for the ...
Literature Reviews
But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper? The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute.
(PDF) Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An overview and
This paper draws input from a study that employed a systematic literature review as its main source of data. A systematic review can be explained as a research method and process for identifying ...
Tips for Writing a Literature Review
A literature review is a compilation of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works. Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
Literature Review
In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your ...
Reviewing the Research Literature
The research literature in psychology is enormous—including millions of scholarly articles and books dating to the beginning of the field—and it continues to grow. Although its boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, the research literature definitely does not include self-help and other pop psychology books, dictionary and encyclopedia entries ...
Literature Review Guidelines
The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients: a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature
What is a Living Literature Review?
One response to this challenge is "living literature reviews". At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of accessible articles that synthesize academic research on a specific topic. These reviews are primarily written by a single expert who is responsible for its quality and accuracy.
Falling Fortunes: The Contingent and Asymmetric Effect of Rankings on
As rankings of organizations have proliferated in recent decades, much research has focused on organizational efforts to maintain a high position in rankings. A common theme in this literature is that changes in rank affect evaluations by external audiences and, consequently, organizational outcomes.
Oncology Research
Read the latest articles of Oncology Research at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature
Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies
Cabanac, a research-integrity sleuth, has already created software to flag thousands of problematic papers in the literature for issues such as computer-written text or disguised plagiarism.
Trends and insights in dengue virus research globally: a bibliometric
Background Dengue virus (DENV) is the most widespread arbovirus. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared dengue one of the top 10 global health threats in 2019. However, it has been underrepresented in bibliometric analyses. This study employs bibliometric analysis to identify research hotspots and trends, offering a comprehensive overview of the current research dynamics in this field ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Have a language expert improve your writing

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

What are Literature Reviews?

Goals of Literature Reviews

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

Libraries | Research Guides

Research Methods

Literature Review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

APA7 Style resources

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Review the literature

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

Purpose of a Literature Review

Limitations of a Literature Review

Librarian Assistance

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Author information

Corresponding author

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

What Is A Literature Review?

Literature Review 101

What is a literature review?

Reviewing the literature

The literature review chapter

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Example of a literature review

Wrapping Up