how long a literature review should be

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,

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.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

4-minute read

• 7th October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you know how important it is to include a thorough, comprehensive literature review. But exactly how long should your literature review be in relation to the rest of your work? While there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to that question, there are some factors that will help determine the length of your review. In this post, we’ll discuss what information to include in your literature review and how long it should be.

Keep reading to learn more.

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the current resources (e.g., books and journal articles) on a specific topic or research question. It is a crucial part of academic writing, such as dissertations, in all categories and fields. Essentially, literature reviews help contextualize your investigations and show how your work is building on existing research.

No matter how long your literature review is, it should generally:

●  Establish context for your research (i.e., provide relevant background information so your reader understands the historical significance of your study ).

●  Identify gaps in the existing literature (such as unaddressed questions or aspects of your topic).

●  Highlight significant concepts related to your topic.

●  Cite relevant studies.

●  Support your argument.

It’s also essential that a literature review critically analyze the sources cited in your study, considering factors such as sample size, research design, and potential biases. Be sure to structure your literature review using the same referencing style as the rest of your research paper (e.g., APA , Chicago , MLA ).

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

The length of your literature review depends on several factors, including the scope and purpose of your research. In general, the length of the review should be proportionate to your overall paper. For example, if you’re writing a fifty-thousand-word dissertation, then your literature review will likely be an entire chapter comprising about 20 pages. If it’s for a 15-page research paper, your literature review may only be a few pages.

Here are several factors that could affect the length of your literature review:

●  Institutional guidelines : Always check the guidelines provided by your institution or journal (such as an APA journal ). There may be a specific length or word count required for publication.

●  Scope : If your research topic is narrow and focused, your literature review may be shorter. Conversely, if your topic is broad and encompasses a large body of literature, your review may need to be longer.

●  Field of study : Different academic fields may have different expectations regarding the length of literature reviews. For example, literature reviews in the humanities might be longer than those in the natural sciences.

Also, consider your audience. If your literature review is for a general audience or a class assignment, it can probably be shorter and less specialized. However, if it’s for an academic audience in your field of study, you may need to be more thorough and provide an extensive review of the existing literature.

Most literature reviews follow the same basic structure of an introduction, body, and conclusion. Most of the time, they are part of a larger work, so the introduction and conclusion paragraphs will be relatively brief.

However, if the review is a standalone piece, then your introduction and conclusion will be longer since you will need to discuss your research objectives, methods, and findings as well as analyze the literature used in your study.

To ensure your literature review makes an impression, have it professionally proofread by our expert literature review editing services . Submit your free sample of 500 words or less to get started today!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature 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

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

How religious scientists balance work and faith

Career Feature 20 MAY 24

How to set up your new lab space

Career Column 20 MAY 24

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

Vice President, Nature Communications Portfolio

This is an exciting opportunity to play a key leadership role in the market-leading journal Nature Portfolio and help drive its overall contribution.

New York City, New York (US), Berlin, or Heidelberg

Springer Nature Ltd

Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow required to lead exciting projects in Cancer Cell Cycle Biology and Cancer Epigenetics.

Melbourne University, Melbourne (AU)

University of Melbourne & Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

Overseas Talent, Embarking on a New Journey Together at Tianjin University

We cordially invite outstanding young individuals from overseas to apply for the Excellent Young Scientists Fund Program (Overseas).

Tianjin, China

Tianjin University (TJU)

Chair Professor Positions in the School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology

SPST seeks top Faculty scholars in Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Chair Professor Positions in the School of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronic Engineering

We are committed to accomplishing the mission of achieving a world-top-class engineering school.

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

Quick links

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

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: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

• Undergraduate courses
• Postgraduate courses
• Foundation courses
• Apprenticeships
• Part-time and short courses
• Apply undergraduate
• Apply postgraduate

Search for a course

Search by course name, subject, and more

• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• (suspended) - Available in Clearing Not available in Clearing location-sign UCAS

Fees and funding

• Tuition fees
• Scholarships
• Funding your studies
• Student finance
• Cost of living support

Why study at Kent

Student life.

• Careers and employability
• Student support and wellbeing
• Our locations
• Placements and internships
• Year abroad
• Student stories
• Schools and colleges
• International
• International students
• Your country
• Applicant FAQs
• International scholarships
• University of Kent International College
• Campus Tours
• Applicant Events
• Postgraduate events
• Maps and directions
• Research strengths
• Research centres
• Research impact

Research institutes

• Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
• Institute of Cyber Security for Society
• Institute of Cultural and Creative Industries
• Institute of Health, Social Care and Wellbeing

Research students

• Graduate and Researcher College
• Research degrees
• Find a supervisor
• How to apply

Popular searches

• Visits and Open Days
• Jobs and vacancies
• Accommodation
• Student guide
• Library and IT
• Partner with us
• Student Guide
• Student Help
• Health & wellbeing
• Student voice
• Living at Kent
• Careers & volunteering
• Diversity at Kent
• Finance & funding
• Life after graduation

Literature reviews

Writing a literature review.

The following guide has been created for you by the  Student Learning Advisory Service . For more detailed guidance and to speak to one of our advisers, please book an  appointment  or join one of our  workshops . Alternatively, have a look at our  SkillBuilder  skills videos.   

Preparing a literature review involves:

• Searching for reliable, accurate and up-to-date material on a topic or subject
• Reading and summarising the key points from this literature
• Synthesising these key ideas, theories and concepts into a summary of what is known
• Discussing and evaluating these ideas, theories and concepts
• Identifying particular areas of debate or controversy
• Preparing the ground for the application of these ideas to new research

Finding and choosing material

Ensure you are clear on what you are looking for. ask yourself:.

• What is the specific question, topic or focus of my assignment?
• What kind of material do I need (e.g. theory, policy, empirical data)?
• What type of literature is available (e.g. journals, books, government documents)?

What kind of literature is particularly authoritative in this academic discipline (e.g. psychology, sociology, pharmacy)?

How much do you need?

This will depend on the length of the dissertation, the nature of the subject, and the level of study (undergraduate, Masters, PhD). As a very rough rule of thumb – you may choose 8-10 significant pieces (books and/or articles) for an 8,000 word dissertation, up to 20 major pieces of work for 12-15,000 words, and so on. Bear in mind that if your dissertation is based mainly around an interaction with existing scholarship you will need a longer literature review than if it is there as a prelude to new empirical research. Use your judgement or ask your supervisor for guidance.

Where to find suitable material

Your literature review should include a balance between substantial academic books, journal articles and other scholarly publications. All these sources should be as up-to-date as possible, with the exception of ‘classic texts’ such as major works written by leading scholars setting out formative ideas and theories central to your subject. There are several ways to locate suitable material:

Module bibliography: for undergraduate dissertations, look first at the bibliography provided with the module documentation. Choose one or two likely looking books or articles and then scan through the bibliographies provided by these authors. Skim read some of this material looking for clues: can you use these leads to identify key theories and authors or track down other appropriate material?

Library catalogue search engine: enter a few key words to capture a range of items, but avoid over-generalisations; if you type in something as broad as ‘social theory’ you are likely to get several thousand results. Be more specific: for example, ‘Heidegger, existentialism’. Ideally, you should narrow the field to obtain just a few dozen results. Skim through these quickly to identity texts which are most likely to contribute to your study.

Library bookshelves: browse the library shelves in the relevant subject area and examine the books that catch your eye. Check the contents and index pages, or skim through the introductions (or abstracts, in the case of journal articles) to see if they contain relevant material, and replace them if not. Don’t be afraid to ask one of the subject librarians for further help. Your supervisor may also be able to point you in the direction of some of the important literature , but remember this is your literature search, not theirs.

Online: for recent journal articles you will almost certainly need to use one of the online search engines. These can be found on the ‘Indexing Services’ button on the Templeman Library website. Kent students based at Medway still need to use the Templeman pages to access online journals, although you can get to these pages through the Drill Hall Library catalogue. Take a look as well at the Subject Guides on both the Templeman and DHL websites.

Check that you have made the right selection by asking:

• Has my search been wide enough to ensure that I have identified all the relevant material, but narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material?
• Is there a good enough sample of literature for the level (PhD, Masters, undergraduate) of my dissertation or thesis?
• Have I considered as many alternative points of view as possible?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant and useful?

Assessing the literature

Read the material you have chosen carefully, considering the following:

• The key point discussed by the author: is this clearly defined
• What evidence has the author produced to support this central idea?
• How convincing are the reasons given for the author’s point of view?
• Could the evidence be interpreted in other ways?
• What is the author's research method (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, experimental, etc.)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g. psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship assumed by the author between theory and practice?
• Has the author critically evaluated the other literature in the field?
• Does the author include literature opposing their point of view?
• Is the research data based on a reliable method and accurate information?
• Can you ‘deconstruct’ the argument – identify the gaps or jumps in the logic?
• What are the strengths and limitations of this study?
• What does this book or article contribute to the field or topic?
• What does this book or article contribute to my own topic or thesis?

As you note down the key content of each book or journal article (together with the reference details of each source) record your responses to these questions. You will then be able to summarise each piece of material from two perspectives:     

Content: a brief description of the content of the book or article. Remember, an author will often make just one key point; so, what is the point they are making, and how does it relate to your own research project or assignment?

Critical analysis: an assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the evidence used, and the arguments presented. Has anything conveniently been left out or skated over? Is there a counter-argument, and has the author dealt with this adequately? Can the evidence presented be interpreted another way? Does the author demonstrate any obvious bias which could affect their reliability? Overall, based on the above analysis of the author’s work, how do you evaluate its contribution to the scholarly understanding and knowledge surrounding the topic?    

Structuring the literature review

In a PhD thesis, the literature review typically comprises one chapter (perhaps 8-10,000 words), for a Masters dissertation it may be around 2-3,000 words, and for an undergraduate dissertation it may be no more than 2,000 words. In each case the word count can vary depending on a range of factors and it is always best, if in doubt, to ask your supervisor.

The overall structure of the section or chapter should be like any other: it should have a beginning, middle and end. You will need to guide the reader through the literature review, outlining the strategy you have adopted for selecting the books or articles, presenting the topic theme for the review, then using most of the word limit to analyse the chosen books or articles thoroughly before pulling everything together briefly in the conclusion.

Some people prefer a less linear approach. Instead of simply working through a list of 8-20 items on your book review list, you might want to try a thematic approach, grouping key ideas, facts, concepts or approaches together and then bouncing the ideas off each other. This is a slightly more creative (and interesting) way of producing the review, but a little more risky as it is harder to establish coherence and logical sequencing.

Whichever approach you adopt, make sure everything flows smoothly – that one idea or book leads neatly to the next. Take your reader effortlessly through a sequence of thought that is clear, accurate, precise and interesting. 

Writing up your literature review

As with essays generally, only attempt to write up the literature review when you have completed all the reading and note-taking, and carefully planned its content and structure. Find an appropriate way of introducing the review, then guide the reader through the material clearly and directly, bearing in mind the following:

• Be selective in the number of points you draw out from each piece of literature; remember that one of your objectives is to demonstrate that you can use your judgement to identify what is central and what is secondary.
• Summarise and synthesise – use your own words to sum up what you think is important or controversial about the book or article.
• Never claim more than the evidence will support. Too many dissertations and theses are let down by sweeping generalisations. Be tentative and careful in the way you interpret the evidence.
• Keep your own voice – you are entitled to your own point of view provided it is based on evidence and clear argument.
• At the same time, aim to project an objective and tentative tone by using the 3rd person, (for example, ‘this tends to suggest’, ‘it could be argued’ and so on).
• Even with a literature review you should avoid using too many, or overlong, quotes. Summarise material in your own words as much as possible. Save the quotes for ‘punch-lines’ to drive a particular point home.
• Revise, revise, revise: refine and edit the draft as much as you can. Check for fluency, structure, evidence, criticality and referencing, and don’t forget the basics of good grammar, punctuation and spelling.

• Jump to menu
• Student Home
• Accept your offer
• How to enrol
• Student ID card
• Set up your IT
• Orientation Week
• Fees & payment
• Academic calendar
• Special consideration
• Transcripts
• The Nucleus: Student Hub
• Referencing
• Essay writing
• Learning abroad & exchange
• Professional development & UNSW Advantage
• Employability
• Financial assistance
• International students
• Equitable learning
• Postgraduate research
• Health Service
• Events & activities
• Emergencies
• Volunteering
• Clubs and societies
• Accommodation
• Health services
• Sport and gym
• Arc student organisation
• Security on campus
• Maps of campus
• Careers portal
• Change password

Literature Review

What is a literature review.

Students are often unsure of how to write a literature review. This is usually because, unlike other stages of a thesis such as Methods and Results, they have never written a literature review before.

FAQs about literature reviews

In the table below, you will find some of the questions that students ask, and some suggested answers.

Examples of literature reviews: organisation

Here you will find some examples from past Honours theses. The first set of examples shows part of the Table of Contents, so that you can see the kind of information included in a literature review. What can you notice about how the students have organised their reviews? 

From the School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

1.1 HEPATITIS C VIRUS................................. 1

1.1.1 Genome ................................................ 1  1.1.2 Pathogenesis.......................................... 2  1.1.3 Transmission.......................................... 3  1.1.4 Epidemiology.......................................... 5 1.1.5 Treatment.............................................. 5

1.2 QUASISPECIES............................................ 7

1.2.1 Quasispecies and Treatment Outcome....... 7

1.3 METHODS TO ANLAYSE QUASISPECIES........... 8

1.3.1 Cloning and Sequencing........................... 9 1.3.2 Heteroduplex Mobility Analysis (HMA)........ 9 1.3.3 Capillary Electrophoresis......................... 11 

1.4 HYPOTHESIS AND AIMS ............................... 11 

(Oon 2005, p.ii)

What organisational approach has the student taken in example A?

Example B 

From the school of photovoltaic and renewable energy engineering.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 2-1

2.1 CLASSIC DIFFUSION CONCEPT....................... 2-1

2.1.1diffusion mechanisms................................ 2-1  2.1.2 Fick’s law .................................................. 2-4

2.2 BORON DIFFUSION ........................................ 2-9

2.2.1 diffusivity ................................................ 2-9 2.2.2 segregation coefficient ............................. 2-10 2.2.3 silicon self-interstitial and diffusion rate....... 2-12  2.2.4 formation of boron rich layer (brl).............. 2-12 2.2.5 boron diffusion systems............................. 2-14

2.3 BORON NITRIDE SOLID SOURCE DIFFUSION..... 2-15

2.3.1 benefits and challenges.............................. 2-15  2.3.2 diffusion process........................................ 2-16

2.4 SOLAR CELL CHARACTERISATION..................... 2-18

What organisational approach has the student taken in example B?

Examples of literature reviews: language

Here you will find some more examples of literature reviews, showing how the students refer to and comment on previous research. Look at the following examples and see how the students summarise a number of studies and contrast differing findings. Also notice the use of evaluative language to show the student's evaluation of the previous research.

• Summarising language
• Contrast language 
• Evaluative language

"Several studies [5, 6, 7] have reported the benefits of using boron solid sources over other types of boron diffusion source. … On the contrary, Warabisako et al [9] demonstrated that obtaining high efficiencies with boron solid source was no easy task. They reported severe degradation of bulk minority carrier lifetime after boron solid source diffusion" (Chen, 2003, pp.2-14-2-15).

"On evaluation of the studies performed thus far, genotype 1b RdRp proteins have been studied extensively while RdRp proteins from other genotypes have been somewhat ignored.  Kim et al. was the only group to have published a 3a RdRp paper, although their focus was on the template requirement for the NS5B gene as opposed to polymerase activity" (Tan, 2004, pp.15-16)

See next: Exercise for getting started on your literature review

Engineering & science.

• Report writing
• Technical writing
• Writing lab reports
• Introductions
• Literature Review Exercise
• Writing up results
• Discussions
• Conclusions
• Writing tools
• Case study report in (engineering)
• ^ More support

News and notices

Guide to Using Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection for UNSW Students Published:  20 May 2024

Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence at UNSW Published:  17 May 2024

Scholarly Resources 4 Students | scite.ai 21 May 2024

Discover your Library: Main Library 21 May 2024

• 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

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

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 .

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

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

Literature reviews

• Starting your literature review
• Introduction

Structuring your reading

When to stop reading, how to organise a literature review, writing your literature review.

• Developing your literature review
• Writing systematic reviews

Useful links for literature reviews

• Study Advice Helping students to achieve study success with guides, video tutorials, seminars and one-to-one advice sessions.

• Doing your literature review (video) Watch this brief video tutorial for more on the topic.
• Doing your literature review (transcript) Read the transcript.
• Literature searching guide A guide to finding articles, books and other materials on your subject. Includes tips on constructing a comprehensive search using search operators (AND/OR), truncation and wildcards.
• Doing your literature search video - University of Reading Brief video on literature searching from our Academic Liaison Librarians.
• Royal Literary Fund: Writing a Literature Review A guide to writing literature reviews from the Royal Literary Fund
• What it means to be a critical student A brief and very useful video tutorial from the University of Leicester.
• Reading and notemaking LibGuide Expert guidance on managing your reading and making effective notes.
• Dissertations and major projects LibGuide Expert guidance on planning, researching and writing dissertations and major projects.

If you have thought about the areas you need to research and have conducted some searches for literature, you should be ready to set down some draft topic headings to structure your literature review.

Select one of your headings and choose a few key texts to read first - three is ideal to start with. Remember that you may eventually be writing about the same text under different headings, so bear that in mind when you are reading and making notes.

When you have finished reading your chosen texts, write a draft section summarising and commenting on what you have read, taking special care to show how it is relevant to your research. Then look to see what you need to discuss further, and do more reading to enable you to plug the gaps.

Try to set limits on how long you will spend reading. Then plan backwards from your deadline and decide when you need to move on to other parts of your investigation e.g. gathering the data.

You need to show you have read the major and important texts in your topic, and that you have also explored the most up-to-date research. If you have demonstrated both of these, you are on the right lines.

If you keep coming across very similar viewpoints and your reading is no longer providing new information, this is a sign you have reached saturation point and should probably stop.

Be guided by your research questions. When reading, ask yourself, "How does this relate to my investigation?" If you are going off into unrelated areas, stop reading and refocus on your topic.

Another thing you can do is to group what you have read into different topics or themes . These can provide useful headings when you come to write up your literature review. Use different coloured highlighters to identify which topic or heading each article fits into.

Be selective - you don't have to include everything you have read in your literature review. Only include research which is relevant and which helps you understand more about your own investigation. What you leave out won't be wasted as it helped you refine your understanding of the wider issues and identify what was relevant to your own investigation.

You don't have to refer to everything in the same depth in your literature review. You are usually expected to prioritise recent research. Some scientific research that was crucial in the past is now out of date. For instance, there may be a few older studies that were important in starting research in the field, but their methods have been surpassed by more accurate methods. You only need to demonstrate your awareness of these older, dated studies in a few sentences, then move on to discussing in greater depth the up-to-date methods and why they are more accurate.

Like an essay, a literature review has an introduction, main body, and conclusion.

Introduction : This explains the broad context of your research area and the main topics you are investigating. It briefly highlights the relevant issues or debates that have characterised your field of research.

It should also include some signposting for the reader, explaining the organisation / sequence of topics covered, and the scope of your survey.

Main body : An analysis of the literature according to a number of themes or topics that overlap with your research. It may have headings.

You can write your literature review one section at a time, but make sure you read through them all to check they link together and tell a coherent "story".

This should show how your research builds on what has been done before. Based on previous research, you provide justifications for what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how you are going to do it.

Conclusion : This should summarise the current state of the research in your field as analysed in the main body. It should identify any gaps or problems with the existing research, and explain how your investigation is going to address these gaps or build on the existing research.

• The structure of a literature review (Royal Literary Fund) Guidance on structuring a literature review.
• << Previous: Starting your literature review
• Next: Developing your literature review >>
• Last Updated: May 14, 2024 8:47 AM
• URL: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview

• Learning Tips
• Exam Guides
• School Life

Best Length for Literature Review: Thesis, Essays or Papers

• by Joseph Kenas
• November 30, 2023
• Writing Tips

Literature reviews are surveys on different topics using scholarly sources. Literature reviews help understand the current knowledge on different topics and hence identify gaps, methods, and relevant theories existing in an area of study.

To write a literature review, one needs to search for relevant literature, evaluate sources, identify themes and gaps, and outline structures. A good literature review will analyze, synthesize, and evaluate a study critically to give a clear picture of knowledge on that subject. 

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

The length of a literature review depends on the audience and its purpose. The level of study also determines the length of a literature review.

Literature reviews of topics done by undergraduate students are expected to be shorter than literature reviews of postgraduate students.

Literature reviews of essays are also expected to be shorter than literature reviews done for a thesis or dissertation. But how long should it be?

Overall, The length of a literature review should be between 20% and 40% of the total project. This is because the length of your paper also determines the length of the literature review.

Papers with a lot of content have longer literature reviews than papers with lesser amounts of content.

There is a general rule that the length of the literature review should be proportional to the length of your paper.

Optimal Length of a Literature Review for Different Projects

1. optimal literature for thesis.

A thesis can be defined as a long essay that includes personal research done by undergraduate and post-graduate students. The length of a thesis depends on the level of study.

A thesis written by bachelor’s degree students should be between 40-60 pages, while a thesis written for master’s and doctorate studies should be between 60-100 pages.

The length of the literature review for a thesis should be at least 8 pages to the minimum. The optimal length of the literature review for this should be 20% of the total length of the thesis project.

The length varies with the length of the thesis a student is writing. For example, in a 40-page thesis, the literature review should be not less than 8 pages.

Not less than 12 pages for a 60-page thesis and not less than 16 pages for an 80-page thesis. The literature review for a thesis should at least be a whole chapter. 

2. Literature Review Length for Dissertation

A dissertation is a research project that is completed as part of a postgraduate or undergraduate degree. Dissertations allow students to present their findings on areas of research that they choose themselves. The length of a dissertation varies depending on the field of study.

The discipline, type of analysis, and area of research all determine the length of a dissertation.

The general length of a dissertation is usually between 150-300 pages. 

A literature review for a dissertation should at least be between 40-60 pages. There is no specific set length for dissertation literature reviews. The length depends largely on your area of study.

If you have a short literature review, ask yourself whether there is other relevant research that you have not explored or if the information you have provided for what you explored is enough. 

For proper preparation when writing a dissertation literature review, do the following:

• Search using key terms

Using key terms will help you do proper research and find many key terms to search. You will also find articles that are directly related to your area of study. 

• Immerse yourself in literature

Immersing yourself in literature helps you massively explore your area of study and choose the right approach for your dissertation. 

• Consider the research gaps

Focus on an area that has not been studied for your research. Recommendations made by authors can help you identify gaps in different areas of study. 

• Organize what you find

Note down what you find in sections to avoid mixing of ideas. Copy and paste your findings to avoid losing them. Note the references of each researched work to avoid inconveniences later. 

To write a literature review of your dissertations, create an outline, write the paragraphs, analyze the study, and justify the methodology.

3. Literature review length for Published Journal Articles

These are articles that are shorter than books and are written about very specific topics.

Journal articles are written regularly throughout the year and are written by experts for experts.

Journal articles can be original research, short reports or letters, review articles, case studies, or methodologies.

A published journal article should have an average of 5000 words. 

The best length of the literature review section of published journal articles should be at least 2 pages or a few pages. This depends on t he length of the journal. Different topics vary in content which determines the length of the journal article.

The literature review of a 5000-word journal article should be between 1200 and 2000 words. 

4. Literature review length for Research Paper

A research paper argues a point and analyses perspectives. It is centered on the writer’s thinking which is backed by other ideas and information. To write a research paper , pick a topic if you are not provided with one, do research, and present it.

Conduct the research, organize the research, form a thesis, create an outline, and then write your research. After writing, edit the content and re-read it to make sure that your research is ready for submission.

The length of a research paper should be at least 25% of the research paper or term paper. However, this usually depends on the area of study. There are also short research papers and long research papers. Short research papers are between 5 and 8 pages long and are usually direct to the point.

The literature review of research papers depends on the length of the research papers. Short research papers can have 2-3-page research reviews. The longer the research paper gets, the longer the literature review should be.

Research papers are common and instructors can give a maximum length of the literature review. In such cases, the instructions of the instructor have to be followed. 

5. Best length for Capstone Paper Literature

This is a form of academic paper that students write to summarize their experiences. They are usually written in the last year of high school or middle school as part of a university or college course.

To write a capstone research paper, think of the topic you want to write, create a capstone project proposal, gather information, and come up with a structure.

After writing your paper, proofread the text and prepare the defense. The average length of a capstone paper is between 20-25 pages. A capstone paper should not exceed the length of 45 pages. 

A literature review of a capstone paper depends on its length and the instructions given by your faculty. For instance, a 20-25-page capstone paper should have a 5 to 6-page long literature review. The longer the paper gets, the longer the literature review should be.

After writing the literature review, submit a draft to your capstone adviser for corrections before proceeding. 

Optimal Length for Essays

An essay is a piece of writing that can be used to support an argument, present an idea, express emotion, or initiate debate. Ideas are presented in essays in a non-fictional way. There are many different types of essays. Essays can be as short as 500 words and as long as 10,00 words.

The length of the literature review section for an essay depends on the length of your essay. A 15-page essay can have a 3-page long literature review. The lesser the pages the lesser the literature review. Therefore, there is no universal length for the literature review of an essay.

The more the pages, the longer the literature review. Literature reviews of essays should have an introduction, main body, and conclusion.

The introduction part should introduce your topic, introduce your point of view, review the literature and state the scope of the literature.

The main body should organize the literature into themes, show the relation between the chosen topic and the wider subject, and move from a general view to a specific view.

The conclusion should summarize the important aspects of the main body, identify areas for future study, and link your research to existing knowledge. 

Factors Determining the Length of a Literature Review

1. type of the project.

The type of project you have determines the length of your literature review.

Dissertations have longer literature reviews than published journal articles.

A thesis has a longer literature review compared to essays.

One, therefore, will need to know the type of project at hand before starting and writing the literature review to avoid making mistakes.

Each type of project has its specified length of the literature review. 

2. The Number of Sources

The number of sources one has regarding a certain topic will determine the length of the work they right. Longer writings have longer literature reviews and shorter writing has shorter literature reviews.

Sources of information determine the content one will gather before writing an essay. It is the sources of information that will help you gain knowledge of the topic you are handling.

The less content and knowledge about a topic one has, the lesser the content and knowledge one will write. Without content and knowledge about a topic, even formulating a literature review becomes hard.

When one has many sources of information, ideas will flow and understanding of the area of study will increase. This helps one formulate accurate literature reviews and include the majority of information obtained from the sources in them. 

3. Your Experience in Writing

You can have everything needed to write a literature review of the required length, but without experience writing, it may prove to be hard. If one has never written a literature review before, he or she will experience difficulties in writing it.

In most cases, one may write literature reviews that are too short or too long. Transforming the information gathered into a literature review is hard.

This is why one may use too much or less information in the literature review. Such writers are advised to go through beginner tutorials to explain the writing of literature reviews to avoid too many mistakes.

Experienced writers, on the other hand, know how to utilize every piece of information gathered and transform it into a literature review of the required size. Amateur literature review writers are also advised to seek help from experienced writers. 

4. The Length of the Entire Project

In most academic assignments, instructors give students the length required in different projects. This length should guide students in determining the length of the literature review.

A literature review should not take the majority of your project. Longer assignments have longer literature reviews, while shorter assignments have shorter literature reviews.

Students should consider the number of words or pages provided by the instructor for certain assignments and gauge the length that the literature review.

The literature review reflects the whole content of your project. You can’t have a short literature review and a very long essay. You will probably include things that do not relate to your literature review in the essay.

Short projects like essays and term papers mostly have mini-reviews. Read this guide on how long a mini literature review is so that you can get the point.

5. The Topic Involved

Different topics usually have different sources of information. Some topics are majorly researched on the internet, and some topics are rarely researched.

The topics that many people have looked into have a lot of information that one can use in writing literature reviews. This is contrary to the topics that have been looked into by few people and have little content.

A writer will usually find it hard to write long literature reviews on such topics. When you are asked for a specific length of an essay and given the mandate to choose a topic yourself, never choose a topic that has not been majorly researched which is likely to cause you problems writing the length required by the instructor. 

6. The Technicality of the Research

Some topics are usually hard for students to understand, while others are easy for students to understand. This usually varies among students.

Some students will find history projects harder than science projects, while to other students, it is different.

It is hard for students to write long literature reviews or essays on subjects or topics that they find hard to understand. This is different in the subjects and topics that students enjoy. 

7. Level of Study

This is the most obvious reason that influences the length of literature reviews. Postgraduate students will always be required to write longer essays than undergraduate students. Their level of knowledge and understanding is different.

Though the post-graduate level is more complex, the students are expected to be able to handle the problems that the project poses. Postgraduate students are also required to conduct research that provides them with more information about their projects, unlike undergraduate students. 

8. Professor Factors

Professor factors that determine the length of the of literature review include:

• The number of words expected.

Most professors usually give the length that they expect the assignment they give to be. This length determines the length of the literature review. Some professors can be specific and give the length they expect the literature review of projects to be. 

• Availability.

If the professor feels like he will not have enough time to deal with the projects of all students, he can give shorter projects that he will be able to handle. If the professor is available, he can give longer assignments to the students. 

• Gauging students’ understanding.

Professors can give long assignments to students to establish their level of understanding of an already tackled area. They use this to find out how well can students apply the knowledge gained in different areas. 

Types of Literature Reviews

The most common types of literature reviews include argumentative reviews, integrative reviews, historical reviews, systematic reviews, systematic reviews, methodological reviews, and theoretical reviews. Argumentative and historical reviews are usually longer than the other types of reviews. 

Projects Deadlines

Shorter deadlines usually limit students from conducting enough research. The lesser the research one conducts the lesser the amount of information one has to write about.

This leads to short literature reviews. When one is given enough time to conduct research, they gather all the information needed to write full-length projects hence longer literature reviews as well.

FAQs on Optimal Literature Review

How long should a literature review be in a research proposal .

Research proposals vary in length depending on the level of study and the topics involved. Longer literature proposals should have longer literature reviews, whereas shorter research proposals should have shorter literature reviews.

Literature reviews are usually the longest part of research proposals. The introduction and the methodology parts are always shorter. If your introduction part is 2 pages long and the methodology part is 4 pages long, the research proposal should be longer than the two.

How long does it take to write a literature review?

Most students do not know how long it should take to write a literature review because the deadlines are determined by the professors.

Most believe that the time the professor sets the deadline is the time required to write a literature review. The time one uses to write a literature review usually depends on the hours allocated per day to do the work.

The more hours, the fewer days it will take. The fewer the hours, the longer it will take. A literature review can take between 2-6 months to be completed. 

How long should a literature review be for a PhD

A Ph.D. literature review is the main chapter of your Ph.D. thesis. Your Ph.D. literature review should assess your field of research critically and present the current knowledge that you have gained from previous work.

The literature review should help you identify the gaps in your knowledge of your field. Most Ph.D. literature reviews are always between 6000-12000 words. The main focus of Ph.D. literature reviews is the quality of the work and not the quantity.

Joseph is a freelance journalist and a part-time writer with a particular interest in the gig economy. He writes about schooling, college life, and changing trends in education. When not writing, Joseph is hiking or playing chess.

Literature Reviews

• 2. Plan your search
• Getting started
• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question

Before you begin

Planning your approach, select your database(s).

• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

• How many databases you are expected to use? Depending on your field and scope of your review, you may be expected to search multiple databases.
• What types of sources should be evaluated? Examples: peer-reviewed journal articles, books/chapters, grey literature, etc.
• How in-depth should you evaluate and explore your sources? In other words, is the literature review just a section of your overall assignment (less in-depth) OR  is the literature review the entire assignment (more in-depth)?

Report animated icons created by Freepik - Flaticon

Here are some other questions to ask yourself before beginning your literature search:

• Is there a page limit or page requirement? About how many citations do you need?
• Consider whether your review will encompass  all relevant material  or if you’ll focus on more recent sources (e.g., the last five years).
• What is your focus—theoretical issues, methodological approaches, qualitative vs. quantitative?
• Do you need to set any limitations, such as age, gender, location, nationality, etc.?

Before you can begin searching for literature, you need to decide what types of resources you will be searching.

If you'd like to perform a search that looks across different media, start with the scholarly databases . This is a fantastic starting place as databases have collected and curated relevant resources all in one place for more efficient searching.

Not sure where to start when selecting a scholarly database to search? Here are some top databases:

• << Previous: 1. Define your research question
• Next: 3. Search the literature >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Understanding the Length of a Literature Review

A literature review is an academic piece of writing acknowledging the authenticity and comprehension of academic literature in light of the topic. It summarizes the key elements of the research and previous research and demonstration in a specific field of study. In a literature review, you use historical data and available information to generate a new understanding. It will guide you throughout your research to understand your limits and your position. From  writing an introduction  to concluding your paper, the literature review can be your best friend. However, the question is, how long should a literature review be for a research paper?

Table of Contents

Understanding the ideal length of a research paper’s literature review

There is no one answer to how long a literature review should be. Every field of study has its requirements and conventions, which dictate the appropriate length for a given type of literature review. In general, however, a good rule of thumb is that the deeper the  research topic , the more detailed and extensive the literature review should be.

For example, a literature review for a business research topic might be relatively short and to the point, focusing mostly on key figures and data points. On the other hand, a literature review for a  history research topic  could be much longer and more detailed, delving into the various interpretations and implications of the research.

Ultimately, the decision of how long a literature review should be is up to the individual researcher and the specific requirements of the research project. However, no matter the length, a literature review should be comprehensive, clear, and concise, providing a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge on the chosen research topic.

Let’s talk about literature lengths for the various types of writings.

Literature Review Ideal Length for A Research Paper

What is your purpose, and who are your readers? That is the first question you must ask yourself when writing a research paper. Interestingly, this question will be valid for every aspect of your research. You are choosing a topic; you must consider your purpose and target audience. When writing an introduction for a research paper, you must think about the same question.

A literature review is an important part of any research paper. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic and helps to identify areas where further research is needed.

The length of a literature review varies depending on the depth and purpose of the research. For example, a literature review for a PhD thesis will be much longer than one for a high school research paper. The length also depends on the scope of the research, with broader topics requiring more extensive reviews.

Generally speaking, a literature review should be at least 20 pages long. However, this will vary depending on the specific requirements of your assignment. A few paragraphs may suffice for high school paper topics, while a more comprehensive review is necessary for longer papers.

No matter the length, a literature review must be well-written and provide a critical overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic. It should identify gaps in the literature and offer suggestions for further research.

Ideal Length Of A Stand-alone literature review

A literature review can be a very impeccable treat to read as a stand-alone article. As a stand-alone write-up, a literature review can cover as many aspects as to provide much thorough background. It includes providing full background and contemporary backgrounds to provide authentic value to your topic. Still, the inspiration is like a river; sooner or later, you must have built a dam around it somewhere. A too-short stand-alone literature review will fail to provide enough insights.

On the other hand, the too-long literature review will wear the reader out and undermine your stance. The ideal length for a literature review as a stand-alone article is at least 20 pages. You can add more pages if you need to, but remember that there is a limit.

How long a literature review should be for a research paper could be answered in various ways. However, it all comes down to the type and the scope of your research paper and how you decide the length. By now, we are confident that you can answer this question and ace your literature review. You can consult us at Paper Perk if you still need  paper writing help .

How to decide the length of a literature review for a research paper?

There can be different lengths for a literature review for a research paper. You can not have an absolute answer for how long should a literature review be for a research paper. It would be best if you decided on your target audience and the scope of your research topic. Writing an outline for your research paper is one of the things that can give you an idea.

How many pages should a literature review be on average?

A literature review should be at least 20 pages for a dissertation or thesis. High school research or short research papers can be up to a few paragraphs. At the same time, when you're writing a scientific review research paper , you need to change the length critically.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review can provide a comprehensive understanding of a particular topic. It can also be used as a tool for educational purposes. A literature review can also help you in your career search.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

A literature review can be made up of either primary or secondary sources. Primary sources are the original documents that were used to produce the research that is being reviewed. Secondary sources are any sources that have been added after the original documents were used.

What is the goal of a literature review

A literature review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

• What Is a PhD Literature Review?
• Doing a PhD

A literature review is a critical analysis of published academic literature, mainly peer-reviewed papers and books, on a specific topic. This isn’t just a list of published studies but is a document summarising and critically appraising the main work by researchers in the field, the key findings, limitations and gaps identified in the knowledge.

• The aim of a literature review is to critically assess the literature in your chosen field of research and be able to present an overview of the current knowledge gained from previous work.
• By the conclusion of your literature review, you as a researcher should have identified the gaps in knowledge in your field; i.e. the unanswered research questions which your PhD project will help to answer.
• Quality not quantity is the approach to use when writing a literature review for a PhD but as a general rule of thumb, most are between 6,000 and 12,000 words.

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

First, to be clear on what a PhD literature review is NOT: it is not a ‘paper by paper’ summary of what others have done in your field. All you’re doing here is listing out all the papers and book chapters you’ve found with some text joining things together. This is a common mistake made by PhD students early on in their research project. This is a sign of poor academic writing and if it’s not picked up by your supervisor, it’ll definitely be by your examiners.

The biggest issue your examiners will have here is that you won’t have demonstrated an application of critical thinking when examining existing knowledge from previous research. This is an important part of the research process as a PhD student. It’s needed to show where the gaps in knowledge were, and how then you were able to identify the novelty of each research question and subsequent work.

The five main outcomes from carrying out a good literature review should be:

• An understanding of what has been published in your subject area of research,
• An appreciation of the leading research groups and authors in your field and their key contributions to the research topic,
• Knowledge of the key theories in your field,
• Knowledge of the main research areas within your field of interest,
• A clear understanding of the research gap in knowledge that will help to motivate your PhD research questions .

When assessing the academic papers or books that you’ve come across, you must think about the strengths and weaknesses of them; what was novel about their work and what were the limitations? Are different sources of relevant literature coming to similar conclusions and complementing each other, or are you seeing different outcomes on the same topic by different researchers?

When Should I Write My Literature Review?

In the structure of your PhD thesis , your literature review is effectively your first main chapter. It’s at the start of your thesis and should, therefore, be a task you perform at the start of your research. After all, you need to have reviewed the literature to work out how your research can contribute novel findings to your area of research. Sometimes, however, in particular when you apply for a PhD project with a pre-defined research title and research questions, your supervisor may already know where the gaps in knowledge are.

You may be tempted to skip the literature review and dive straight into tackling the set questions (then completing the review at the end before thesis submission) but we strongly advise against this. Whilst your supervisor will be very familiar with the area, you as a doctoral student will not be and so it is essential that you gain this understanding before getting into the research.

How Long Should the Literature Review Be?

As your literature review will be one of your main thesis chapters, it needs to be a substantial body of work. It’s not a good strategy to have a thesis writing process here based on a specific word count, but know that most reviews are typically between 6,000 and 12,000 words. The length will depend on how much relevant material has previously been published in your field.

A point to remember though is that the review needs to be easy to read and avoid being filled with unnecessary information; in your search of selected literature, consider filtering out publications that don’t appear to add anything novel to the discussion – this might be useful in fields with hundreds of papers.

How Do I Write the Literature Review?

Before you start writing your literature review, you need to be clear on the topic you are researching.

1. Evaluating and Selecting the Publications

After completing your literature search and downloading all the papers you find, you may find that you have a lot of papers to read through ! You may find that you have so many papers that it’s unreasonable to read through all of them in their entirety, so you need to find a way to understand what they’re about and decide if they’re important quickly.

A good starting point is to read the abstract of the paper to gauge if it is useful and, as you do so, consider the following questions in your mind:

• What was the overarching aim of the paper?
• What was the methodology used by the authors?
• Was this an experimental study or was this more theoretical in its approach?
• What were the results and what did the authors conclude in their paper?
• How does the data presented in this paper relate to other publications within this field?
• Does it add new knowledge, does it raise more questions or does it confirm what is already known in your field? What is the key concept that the study described?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study, and in particular, what are the limitations?

2. Identifying Themes

To put together the structure of your literature review you need to identify the common themes that emerge from the collective papers and books that you have read. Key things to think about are:

• Are there common methodologies different authors have used or have these changed over time?
• Do the research questions change over time or are the key question’s still unanswered?
• Is there general agreement between different research groups in the main results and outcomes, or do different authors provide differing points of view and different conclusions?
• What are the key papers in your field that have had the biggest impact on the research?
• Have different publications identified similar weaknesses or limitations or gaps in the knowledge that still need to be addressed?

Structuring and Writing Your Literature Review

There are several ways in which you can structure a literature review and this may depend on if, for example, your project is a science or non-science based PhD.

One approach may be to tell a story about how your research area has developed over time. You need to be careful here that you don’t just describe the different papers published in chronological order but that you discuss how different studies have motivated subsequent studies, how the knowledge has developed over time in your field, concluding with what is currently known, and what is currently not understood.

Alternatively, you may find from reading your papers that common themes emerge and it may be easier to develop your review around these, i.e. a thematic review. For example, if you are writing up about bridge design, you may structure the review around the themes of regulation, analysis, and sustainability.

As another approach, you might want to talk about the different research methodologies that have been used. You could then compare and contrast the results and ultimate conclusions that have been drawn from each.

As with all your chapters in your thesis, your literature review will be broken up into three key headings, with the basic structure being the introduction, the main body and conclusion. Within the main body, you will use several subheadings to separate out the topics depending on if you’re structuring it by the time period, the methods used or the common themes that have emerged.

The important thing to think about as you write your main body of text is to summarise the key takeaway messages from each research paper and how they come together to give one or more conclusions. Don’t just stop at summarising the papers though, instead continue on to give your analysis and your opinion on how these previous publications fit into the wider research field and where they have an impact. Emphasise the strengths of the studies you have evaluated also be clear on the limitations of previous work how these may have influenced the results and conclusions of the studies.

In your concluding paragraphs focus your discussion on how your critical evaluation of literature has helped you identify unanswered research questions and how you plan to address these in your PhD project. State the research problem you’re going to address and end with the overarching aim and key objectives of your work .

When writing at a graduate level, you have to take a critical approach when reading existing literature in your field to determine if and how it added value to existing knowledge. You may find that a large number of the papers on your reference list have the right academic context but are essentially saying the same thing. As a graduate student, you’ll need to take a methodological approach to work through this existing research to identify what is relevant literature and what is not.

You then need to go one step further to interpret and articulate the current state of what is known, based on existing theories, and where the research gaps are. It is these gaps in the literature that you will address in your own research project.

• Decide on a research area and an associated research question.
• Decide on the extent of your scope and start looking for literature.
• Review and evaluate the literature.
• Plan an outline for your literature review and start writing it.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Find This link opens in a new window
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Not every source you found should be included in your annotated bibliography or lit review. Only include the most relevant and most important sources.

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Summarize your Sources

Summarize each source: Determine the most important and relevant information from each source, such as the findings, methodology, theories, etc.  Consider using an article summary, or study summary to help you organize and summarize your sources.

Paraphrasing

• Use your own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract
• The library's tutorials about plagiarism are excellent, and will help you with paraphasing correctly

Annotated Bibliographies

     Annotated bibliographies can help you clearly see and understand the research before diving into organizing and writing your literature review.        Although typically part of the "summarize" step of the literature review, annotations should not merely be summaries of each article - instead, they should be critical evaluations of the source, and help determine a source's usefulness for your lit review.  

Definition:

A list of citations on a particular topic followed by an evaluation of the source’s argument and other relevant material including its intended audience, sources of evidence, and methodology

• Explore your topic.
• Appraise issues or factors associated with your professional practice and research topic.
• Help you get started with the literature review.
• Think critically about your topic, and the literature.

Steps to Creating an Annotated Bibliography:

• Find Your Sources
• Read Your Sources
• Identify the Most Relevant Sources
• Cite your Sources
• Write Annotations

Annotated Bibliography Resources

• Purdue Owl Guide
• Cornell Annotated Bibliography Guide
• << Previous: Evaluate
• Next: Synthesize >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Cookies: We use our own and third-party cookies to improve your experience of our website. Cookies remember your preferences and track site usage. By continuing, you accept their use.

Typewriter. Ring-binder. Scrapbook. Everything you need to craft your first draft.

Get your thoughts onto the page and explore the connections between them.

Join the conversation. Ask a question or just get to know your fellow users.

What we’re working on, interviews with users, and general prolixity.

How Much Should You Write Each Day; and When Should You Stop Writing?

Kirk McElhearn  /  15 MAY 2024

When you’re writing a novel or another long project, it’s a good idea to have a daily target. How many words should you write, and when should you finish your writing session?

When you’re writing a novel or another long work, it’s like running a marathon, not a sprint. You won’t finish it in a few days or a week, and you have to work at a rhythm that allows you to remain creative and achieve the appropriate word count over time. Slow and steady writing will eventually get you to your goal.

How much should you write each day?

If possible, it’s a good idea to write every day, even if you can’t write very much each day. You can set a target, which isn’t a hard goal, but which is something to aim for. Some writers are happy with 500 words a day, others with 1,000 words, and some, who write full time, may even strive to write 2,000 words a day. If you do the math, even if you only write five 500 words a day, that comes to 130,000 words in a year. That means you can write the first draft of a novel - with room to spare - in twelve months, if you remain consistent.

Many writers can’t write every day, so they set aside a couple of days a week to write. If you plan to write 1,000 words a day for two full days a week, that’s more than 100,000 words a year. The key is consistency and maintaining your momentum.

How do you decide how many words to write a day? A lot depends on how experienced you are, and what your writing rhythm is. In On Writing , Stephen King says, “As with physical exercise, it would be best to set this goal low at first, to avoid discouragement. I suggest a thousand words a day, and because I’m feeling magnanimous, I’ll also suggest that you can take one day a week off, at least to begin with. No more; you’ll lose the urgency and immediacy of your story if you do.“

Anthony Trollope had a day job at the General Post Office, but he would write before going to work . “It was my practice to be at my table every morning at 5.30; and it was also my practice to allow myself no mercy. [...] It had at this time become my custom, and it still is my custom, though of late I have become a little lenient to myself, to write with my watch before me, and to require from myself 250 words every quarter of an hour.“ This meant that he could write up to 3,000 words each morning, and this is how he wrote dozens of novels and other works.

Scrivener has useful tools to help you set and meet targets . You can view the word count of your current document in the app’s footer, and you can view the total word count of your project by hovering your cursor over the Quick Search box in the toolbar.

You can also get detailed statistics of your project by choosing Project > Statistics:

And you can set and view targets for each writing session, and for your overall project.

When should you end your writing sessions?

So when should you stop writing? Should you set an alarm, time yourself, or write precisely for one or two hours? If your target is a word count, should you stop once you hit that number, or keep going if you feel the juices flowing?

Some writers push on to reach their daily sessions, but this can be counterproductive. When you’ve lost your mojo, there’s no point trying to force it. Sometimes, you just can’t meet your target.

Other writers may choose to end their writing session when they finish the chapter or a scene. The fact of completing something, even if you haven’t hit your session target, can be very satisfying.

However, some other writers like to end their writing session in the middle of a scene, paragraph, or even a sentence. Ernest Hemingway said , “The best way is always to stop when you are going good and when you know what will happen next. If you do that every day … you will never be stuck.“

And consider Anthony Trollope, who, if he finished a novel by 8:30 would immediately start writing the next one. This is probably not practical for most writers who need to work on multiple drafts to finish a novel. Trollope was immensely prolific, and, in his time, novels were not revised extensively, so he could easily move on to the next one at will.

It’s up to each writer to determine how much they should write and when they should end. Many factors influence this decision: how much time you have to write, how many days you can write, and what your writing goals are. It's a good idea to develop a rhythm, and you can take advantage of Scrivener’s features to set session and project targets to help you meet your goals.

Kirk McElhearn is a writer , podcaster , and photographer . He is the author of Take Control of Scrivener , and host of the podcast Write Now with Scrivener .

How to Give and Receive Feedback on Creative Writing

You may also like to read..., track statistics and targets in your scrivener projects.

Scrivener can provide detailed statistics about your projects, and allow you to set targets for texts and the entire project.

Keep up to date

Sign up for the latest news, writing tips and product announcements. Delivered straight to your inbox.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Challenge of Leaving a Long-Term Job to Start Something New

• Dorie Clark
• Natalie Nixon

Making a big change can feel both thrilling and perilous. Here’s now to navigate these conflicting emotions.

Leaving a company that’s been your professional home for years, or decades, is a major shift that can feel both thrilling and perilous. In this article, the authors outline six challenges that often come up when making this transition: 1) Ruminating and second-guessing; 2) Feeling guilty; 3) Being afraid of losing status; 4) Needing to adapt; 5) Managing the perceptions of your new colleagues; and 6) Balancing opposing emotions. They offer advice for how to overcome these six challenges and share strategies to ensure that your new job or career is just as successful as the last one.

Retiring from a job you’ve been at for most of your career is bittersweet — relishing a chapter successfully concluded, while grappling with the transition into a new phase of life.

• Dorie Clark is a marketing strategist and keynote speaker who teaches at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and has been named one of the Top 50 business thinkers in the world by Thinkers50. Her latest book is The Long Game: How to Be a Long-Term Thinker in a Short-Term World (HBR Press, 2021) and you can receive her free Long Game strategic thinking self-assessment .
• Natalie Nixon , PhD, is a creativity strategist, CEO of Figure 8 Thinking , and author of The Creativity Leap: Unleash Curiosity, Improvisation. and Intuition at Work . She’s ranked in the 2024 Thinkers50 Radar cohort and one of the top 50 keynote speakers in the world by Real Leaders. You can receive her Ever Wonder…? newsletter and WonderRigor™ Tip Sheet .

Partner Center

10 rules for reading from someone who does it for a living

Where to read, when to read and why you need a pencil in hand: The Post’s Michael Dirda offers some advice from his years as a critic.

How do you read a book? Like most people, I still decipher the meaning of words printed on sheets of paper bound together, but you may prefer to peer at pixels on a screen or listen through ear buds to a favorite narrator. They are all reading, in my book. Each of us, I think, seeks what the critic Roland Barthes called “the pleasure of the text,” though finding delight in what we read doesn’t necessarily mean a steady diet of romance novels and thrillers. Scholarly works, serious fiction, poetry, a writer’s distinctive prose style — all of these deliver their own kinds of textual pleasure.

As someone who has been lucky enough to earn his living in the rarefied world of book reviewing, I’ve gradually developed reading-related habits as part of my work. Some of them — listed below — may even be similar to yours. At the least, I hope a few of my customary routines and practices will be useful in your own reading life.

Be choosy, but not too choosy

I spend a lot of time, often way too much, dithering about what to read next. A book has to fit my mood or even the season. Spooky stories are for winter, comic novels for spring. What’s more, I like to mix it up, the old with the new, a literary biography this week, a science fiction classic the next. I can adjust my expectations up or down — you don’t read Thomas Mann’s “Doctor Faustus” in the same way you read Ian Fleming ’s “Dr. No.” — but the book must be, on some level, exciting. I try to avoid wasting time on anything that leaves me indifferent. As Jesus memorably told the Laodiceans: “Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Editions matter

In my youth, I could read paperbacks printed in tiny type on pages you could see through. No more. These days, I opt for hardcovers whenever possible, if only because they’re generally easier on aging eyes. For classics, I want a good scholarly edition; for translated works, I try to acquire the best English version. This just makes sense. As a reviewer, I often work with a galley or advance reading copy of a forthcoming title, but these are simply tools of the trade. I generally don’t keep them. I want the finished book.

Check the small stuff

Before turning to Chapter 1, I glance at a book’s cover art, check out the author’s dust jacket biography and photo, and read through the back page endorsements. Unlike many people, I pay close attention to copyright dates, introductions, dedications, acknowledgments and bibliographies. All these provide hints to the kind of book one is dealing with.

When to read

Mine is a simple system: I read from morning till bedtime, with breaks for my job, family, meetings with friends, exercise, household chores and periodic review of my life’s greatest blunders. On the days I don’t read, I write. As I say, it’s a simple system. Many people complain that they have no time for books, yet somehow they manage to spend three or more hours a day watching television or scrolling through social media on their phones. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Where to read

Even though I know better, I still read more often than not while sprawled in an overstuffed armchair or on an old couch. You probably do something similar. Not only ergonomically bad, these soft options invite dozing. Realistically, the best place to read is at a table or desk with lots of good light. Other good locations include the public library, an outside table at a coffee shop away from background music and other customers, and the quiet car on the train to New York. In truth, though, don’t expect to find an ideal place to read. Trust me: You never will. Instead, as the Nike slogan says, Just Do It.

Don’t read in a vacuum

To read any book well often requires knowledge of its author, context, history. So I surround myself, when possible or appropriate, with collateral texts to help me better appreciate the writer’s artistry or arguments. These can be biographies, volumes of criticism, competing titles on the same subject or, most basically, other books by the same author. For example, if I’m reading E. Nesbit’s “Five Children and It,” I want to have the sequels, “The Phoenix and the Carpet” and “The Story of the Amulet,” close at hand for possible comparison. This is one justification for building a personal library. I also keep within easy reach a notebook, magnifying glass and Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. Other reference books are shelved near where I type these words.

Attention must be paid

As I read, I do all I can to live up to Henry James’s dictum: “Be one on whom nothing is lost.” This vigilance means that I seldom lose myself in the story, which is the devil’s bargain I made by becoming a professional reviewer. As it is, I track the clues in whodunits and the symbolic events or objects in literary fiction. I note oddities of style, repetitions, possible foreshadowings and anomalies that might be meaningful. I frequently flip back to previous pages to check details. In every way, then, I try to make my first reading as intensive and comprehensive as possible, knowing I may not pass this way again.

Be prepared to take notes

I can’t open a book without a pencil either in my hand or nestled conveniently in that space between my right ear and skull. For a long time, my weapon of choice was a No. 2 Ticonderoga pencil, but it now tends to be a Paper Mate disposable mechanical pencil. As a boy, I took to heart the lessons of Mortimer J. Adler’s essay “How to Mark a Book.” I place two or three vertical lines next to key passages, scribble notes to myself in the margins, sometimes make longer comments on the blank end papers. I never underline words or phrases — this seems too much like sophomoric highlighting, plus it just looks ugly. All these practices serve one end: to keep me actively engaged mentally with the words on the page. For the same reason, I scorn bookmarks: If you can’t remember where you stopped reading, you haven’t been paying close enough attention.

Make some noise

I don’t skim or speed read, though I envy people, like the late Harold Bloom, who can zip through a novel in 20 minutes. When I try to pick up my own reading pace, I end up constantly flogging myself not to slow down. Where’s the fun in that? Woody Allen once said that he’d taken a speed-reading course and had finished “War and Peace” in half an hour; he gathered that it was about Russia. As an exceptionally slow reader, I mentally murmur every word on the page, which allows me to savor the author’s style and to remember what he or she has said. Sometimes I also pause to copy a striking passage into my commonplace book. Here’s a fairly recent example from the poet John Ashbery: “I am aware of the pejorative associations of the word ‘escapist,’ but I insist that we need all the escapism we can get and even that isn’t going to be enough.”

Find a shelf

After finishing a book, I tend to keep it. While not a frequent rereader, I do like to refresh my acquaintance with old favorites, if only by opening one up occasionally to enjoy a page or a passage. When I look at my living room’s bookcases, while sleepily sipping coffee in the morning, I see not only my past laid out before me but also my future: Someday I will read David Cecil’s “Melbourne,” a biography of the Victorian prime minister that was said to be John F. Kennedy’s favorite book. Someday, I will get to — hangs head in shame — Willa Cather’s “The Professor’s House.” Other shelves remind me of the books I want to reread: Angela Carter’s “Nights at the Circus,” Dawn Powell’s “The Locusts Have No King,” Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man,” Frederick Exley’s “A Fan’s Notes.”

Long ago, one of my teachers in high school told me that he didn’t feel right unless he spent at least three hours a day reading. This seemed incredible to me then. Not anymore.

More from Book World

Love everything about books? Make sure to subscribe to our Book Club newsletter , where Ron Charles guides you through the literary news of the week.

Check out our coverage of this year’s Pulitzer winners: Jayne Anne Phillips won the fiction prize for her novel “ Night Watch .” The nonfiction prize went to Nathan Thrall, for “ A Day in the Life of Abed Salama .” Cristina Rivera Garza received the memoir prize for “ Liliana’s Invincible Summer .” And Jonathan Eig received the biography prize for his “ King: A Life .”

Best books of 2023: See our picks for the 10 best books of 2023 or dive into the staff picks that Book World writers and editors treasured in 2023. Check out the complete lists of 50 notable works for fiction and the top 50 nonfiction books of last year.

Find your favorite genre: Three new memoirs tell stories of struggle and resilience, while five recent historical novels offer a window into other times. Audiobooks more your thing? We’ve got you covered there, too . If you’re looking for what’s new, we have a list of our most anticipated books of 2024 . And here are 10 noteworthy new titles that you might want to consider picking up this April.

• Case report
• Open access
• Published: 18 May 2024

Detection of two synchronous histologically different renal cell carcinoma subtypes in the same kidney: a case report and review of the literature

• Mohamed Sakr 1 ,
• Merhan Badran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1337-5165 1 ,
• Sarah Ahmed Hassan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5032-5223 1 ,
• Mohamed Elsaqa 1 ,
• Mohamed Anwar Elwany 1 ,
• Nevine M. F. El Deeb 1 &
• Mohamed Sharafeldeen 1  

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume  18 , Article number:  250 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

120 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the dominant primary renal malignant neoplasm, encompassing a significant portion of renal tumors. The presence of synchronous yet histologically distinct ipsilateral RCCs, however, is an exceptionally uncommon phenomenon that is rather under-described in the literature regarding etiology, diagnosis, management, and later outcomes during follow-up.

Case presentation

We aim to present the 9th case of a combination chromophobe RCC (ChRCC) and clear cell RCC (ccRCC) in literature, according to our knowledge, for a 69-year-old North African, Caucasian female patient who, after complaining of loin pain and hematuria, was found to have two right renal masses with preoperative computed tomography (CT) and underwent right radical nephrectomy. Pathological examination later revealed the two renal masses to be of different histologic subtypes.

The coexistence of dissimilar RCC subtypes can contribute to diverse prognostic implications. Further research should focus on enhancing the complex, yet highly crucial, preoperative detection and pathological examination to differentiate multiple renal lesions. Planning optimal operative techniques (radical or partial nephrectomy), selecting suitable adjuvant regimens, and reporting long-term follow-up outcomes of patients in whom synchronous yet different RCC subtypes were detected are of utmost importance.

Peer Review reports

The simultaneous coexistence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with other renal neoplasms is a rare occurrence. Literature has described many cases of benign tumors occurring synchronously with RCC in the same kidney. Even more uncommon is the presence of multiple different RCC subtypes as separate tumors or sometimes even within a single tumor [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] . This simultaneous occurrence of different RCC subtypes poses challenges in preoperative detection, operative techniques, postoperative follow-up, and adjuvant regimens. In this case report, we present a unique instance of synchronous clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC), contributing to the existing literature on this subject. We also review similar cases reported previously, discuss and compare methods for preoperative diagnosis of multifocal RCCs and their differentiation, explore operative approaches, and address challenges in the postoperative period and prognosis estimation.

Due to the rarity of this condition, there is a lack of literature reports detailing both its preoperative course, including detection and differentiation, and its postoperative course regarding adjuvant therapy and long-term follow-up. Therefore, we aim to present this case and review similar cases in the literature to underscore the urgent need for further research in this area.

A 69-year-old North African Caucasian female patient presented to the Urology department at Alexandria Medical Center, Egypt, with complaints of right loin pain and hematuria. The patient's medical history was notable for hypertension, which had been managed with lisinopril 10 mg once daily for the past eight years. Prior to this medication, her blood pressure had been controlled through dietary and lifestyle modifications, including salt restriction and exercise. There was no significant surgical history. The patient was G1P1, with one living offspring. She is a homemaker and does not smoke or consume alcohol. Her father had hypertension, but otherwise, her family history was unremarkable.

On admission, her vitals were within normal range, including a blood pressure of 135/90 mmHg, a pulse rate of 88 beats per minute, and a temperature of 36.7°C. Abdominal examination showed only right flank tenderness without a palpable mass. Otherwise, the physical examination was unremarkable, and there were no abnormalities found during the neurological examination.

The lab results showed anemia, indicated by a hemoglobin level of 9.5 g/dL, and a normal serum creatinine level of 0.7 mg/dL [ 6 , 7 ]. Liver function tests were within normal ranges, and urinalysis showed trace protein and numerous red blood cells without casts. Multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) revealed two right renal masses. The first one was an upper polar mainly anterior, totally endophytic, enhancing soft tissue mass lesion measuring 6.5 cm and invading the middle calyx with a RENAL score [ 8 ] of 11A (Fig.  1 A). The other smaller mass was a lower polar exophytic lesion measuring 1.3cm (Fig.  1 B). An apparent left paraaortic lymph node measuring 10 × 8.3 mm was detected. Multiple calyceal filling defects at the delayed phase suggesting blood clots were also reported. Metastatic workup was free.

Multi-slice computed tomography displaying two right renal masses. A The first mass was an upper polar mainly anterior, totally endophytic, enhancing soft tissue mass lesion measuring 6.5 cm and invading the middle calyx. B The second smaller mass was a lower polar exophytic lesion measuring 1.3 cm

Considering the history of hematuria, diagnostic cystoscopy, and right retrograde contrast study were done intraoperatively to exclude upper tract urothelial tumor (Fig.  2 ), the latter showing no filling defect of the pelvicalyceal system. The patient then underwent laparoscopic right radical nephrectomy with a presumptive clinical diagnosis of multicentric neoplastic renal process, mostly RCC.

Intraoperative right retrograde contrast study showing no filling defect of the pelvicalyceal system. This right retrograde contrast study was performed since the patient originally presented with hematuria. After no pelvicalyceal filling defect was detected, the surgical team proceeded to the right laparoscopic radical nephrectomy

Serial sectioning of the specimen grossly revealed two distinct well-circumscribed masses. The larger mass extended from the upper pole to the midzone of the kidney and measured 4.6 × 4 × 4 cm. Its cut surface was solid hemorrhagic brown with few yellowish areas. The tumor did not invade the renal sinus, renal vein, pelvicalyceal system, or perinephric fat grossly (Fig.  3 A). Microscopic examination of the larger mass revealed a well-circumscribed nonencapsulated neoplastic growth formed of sheets and trabeculae of polygonal cells having abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and well-defined cell outlines with plant-like cell borders. The cells had round to oval nuclei, showing mild to moderate pleomorphism with occasional prominent nucleoli. Irregular raisinoid nuclei with irregular nuclear membranes and occasional perinuclear halos were also noted (Fig.  3 B–D). No necrosis, sarcomatoid, or rhabdoid features were detected. The tumor was morphologically diagnosed as ChRCC, confirmed by immunohistochemical positivity for CK-7 and CD117 (Fig.  3 E and F).

Pathological gross and microscopic examination of the larger, upper polar right renal mass (chromophobe renal cell carcinoma). A Macroscopic examination revealed a well-circumscribed non-encapsulated mass having a hemorrhagic brown cut section extending from the upper pole to the midzone of the kidney. B Low power examination revealed a well-circumscribed neoplastic growth formed of sheets of oncocytic cells with focal tubular pattern (H & E: × 40). C The tumor cells have well-defined cell borders and eosinophilic cytoplasm. Their nuclei are rounded to oval with occasional prominent nucleoli (arrows), perinuclear halos are also seen (arrowheads) (H &E, × 200). D The neoplastic cells are arranged in trabeculae; they have abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm and round to oval nuclei with occasional raisinoid nuclei (arrows) and perinuclear halos (arrowheads). (H &E, × 400). E The tumor cells are strongly positive for CK-7 (CK-7, × 100), and F The tumor cells are positive for CD117 (CD117, × 200)

The second smaller mass was located at the lower pole of the kidney, it measured 1.3 × 1 × 0.8 cm and was partially exophytic. Its cut section was light brown with minute cystic spaces. Again, no invasion of the renal sinus, renal vein, pelvicalyceal system, or perinephric fat was detected grossly (Fig.  4 A). Histopathological examination revealed a different histologic subtype of renal cell carcinoma forming a well-circumscribed neoplastic growth and having a fibrous pseudo-capsule. It was formed of clear cells arranged in solid sheets as well as nests / alveolar pattern separated by delicate vascular spaces. Focally, a tubular pattern was also seen. The cells had clear cytoplasm and mildly pleomorphic nuclei with conspicuous nucleoli at high power examination. No necrosis, rhabdoid, or sarcomatoid features were noted (Fig.  4 B-D). This tumor was morphologically diagnosed as ccRCC, with a nuclear grade of 2 (according to the WHO/ISUP grading system) and was confirmed by negative immunohistochemical staining of the neoplastic cells for both CK-7 and CD117 (Fig.  4 E and F). Both tumors did not invade the renal sinus, renal vein, renal pelvis, or perinephric fat microscopically. One unit of packed red blood cells was administered intraoperatively.

Pathological gross and microscopic examination of the smaller, lower polar right renal mass (clear cell renal cell carcinoma). A Macroscopic examination revealed a partially exophytic mass at the lower pole of the kidney (arrows). The mass is light brown and shows minute cystic spaces. B The tumor is formed of clear cells arranged as nests and tubules (lower part of the image) separated from the non-neoplastic renal parenchyma (upper part of the image) by a fibrous pseudo-capsule (asterisks) (H &E: × 40). C Nests of tumor cells separated by thin stroma (H &E: × 200). D The neoplastic cells have clear cytoplasm, and mildly pleomorphic nuclei, with occasional conspicuous nucleoli (nuclear grade 2) (arrows). Note the evident intervening richly vascular septae between tumor cells (H & E, × 400). E The tumor cells are negative for CK-7 (Right) with positive internal control detected in the normal renal tubules (left) (CK-7, × 100), and the tumor cells are negative for CD117 (CD117, × 200) ( F )

After surgery, the patient received 500 mL of isotonic saline every 12 h for one day and intravenous ceftriaxone 1 gm every 12 h for five days, along with paracetamol as needed for pain management. Her postoperative recovery was favorable, with a repeat hemoglobin level of 10.4 g/dL and serum creatinine level of 0.8 mg/dL. No specific adjuvant therapy was prescribed, and she was discharged one week later with prescriptions for levofloxacin 750 mg once daily for two weeks and ibuprofen tablets for pain relief as needed.

She was scheduled for 3 monthly follow-up visits. During the 3-month and 6-month follow-up appointments, laboratory and imaging tests, including complete blood count, renal function tests, and computed tomographic (CT) studies of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis were all unremarkable.

The coexistence of two histologically distinct renal cell carcinomas (RCC) within the same kidney is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. Most documented instances of synchronously coexisting neoplasms with RCC in the literature have involved benign neoplasms [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. However, our case presents a unique occurrence involving a combination of chromophobe RCC (ChRCC) and clear cell RCC (ccRCC) simultaneously occurring in the same kidney. To the best of our knowledge, this is the ninth reported case of such a combination in the literature. Furthermore, unlike many cases reported in the literature where intraoperative detection was the case, the multifocal RCC in our patient was successfully identified through preoperative imaging.

RCC constitutes 85% of all renal neoplasms. It arises from the renal tubular epithelium and is frequently asymptomatic upon diagnosis [ 5 , 9 ]. RCCs are categorized into clear-cell, papillary, chromophobe, collecting duct, and unclassified carcinomas [ 10 ]. Clear cell (ccRCC) is the most common subtype, accounting for 75% of RCC cases, followed by papillary (pRCC) at 10% and chromophobe (ChRCC) at 5% [ 2 , 11 ]. Accurately distinguishing between these RCC subtypes is vital and essential to guarantee the most appropriate treatment plan and prognosis for the patient [ 5 ].

The coexistence of RCC in the same kidney with other neoplasms, whether benign or malignant, is rare, and the presence of different RCC histologic subtypes together is even more exceptionally uncommon [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. The most frequently reported combinations include RCC with oncocytoma, angiomyolipoma (rarely without tuberous sclerosis), or even an adrenal adenoma [ 12 ]. The synchronous presence of multiple dissimilar histologic subtypes of RCC is even rarer and can present as two spatially separate, histologically distinct RCCs or a single discrete tumor composed of two types of RCC tumor components.

Many theories were proposed to explain the phenomenon of multiple yet different RCCs coexisting: the theory of cancer stem cells (CSCs) provides a potential explanation for the emergence of two or three dissimilar renal tumors [ 2 , 4 , 9 ]. Other hypotheses are the evolution of one subtype into another [ 2 ], as oncocytomas transforming into pRCC [ 13 ] , or the infiltration of an aggressive tumor into another tumor, as collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) infiltrating pRCC [ 4 ].

We constituted a thorough literature review of reports of cases with synchronous dissimilar RCC histologic subtypes in Table  1 . We believe that our case adds to the literature on the topic. Our patient is considered the 9th case presenting with the combination of ccRCC and ChRCC in the literature. We also discussed the authors’ approach to preoperative detection and differentiation, selection of operative technique, and postoperative follow-up problems in terms of difficulties in estimating prognosis and unclear follow-up outcomes in the literature.

Regarding differentiation using histological features under light microscopy, ccRCC is characterized by a solid to alveolar growth pattern with abundant vascular networks and occasional tubule formation, with cytoplasm of tumor cells varying from clear to eosinophilic granular. These findings were in accordance with those found in our ccRCC. ChRCC is identified by polygonal cells forming sheets and trabeculae with eosinophilic granular cytoplasm, with occasional irregular raisinoid nuclei, irregular nuclear membranes, and perinuclear halos, again consistent with our findings in the ChRCC. Furthermore, electron microscopy revealed the presence of numerous characteristic small cytoplasmic vesicles in the chromophobe areas [ 9 ].

In our case, the larger tumor was ChRCC and showed positive immunohistochemical staining for CK7 and CD117, while the smaller tumor was ccRCC and displayed negative immunohistochemical staining for both CK-7 and CD117. These results are in accordance with the reported immunohistochemical profile of both tumors in literature [ 14 , 15 ].

Preoperative knowledge of the coexistence of multiple RCC subtypes in the same kidney is important not only for planning the surgical approach, especially if nephron-sparing surgery is opted for, but also for postoperative determination of prognosis, since not all RCC subtypes are of similar aggressive tendencies, and applicability of possible neoadjuvant regimens.

Imaging, thus, is a cornerstone tool in our armamentarium to determine this coexistence. In a report by Capaccio et al ., ultrasound (US) was able to recognize the presence of multiple renal tumors in 1 of 5 cases versus CT in 4 of 5 cases [ 16 ]; the lower number of cases in which multiplicity of renal lesions is detected by the US may be explained by the lower sensitivity of US in detecting small renal nodules than that of CT [ 17 ] . Although CT has proven useful in detecting multifocal lesions, its ability to do so is limited. As a result, it is still relatively common to discover unsuspected multifocal disease during surgery. Capaccio et al . also concluded that different enhancement patterns on CT may enable the preoperative detection of tumors with different histology within the same kidney [ 16 ]; however, distinguishing different renal tumors on CT presents challenges, as the image is influenced not only by the main histologic type but also by factors such as the degree of differentiation, size, and presence of necrosis. Our MSCT successfully identified a multifocal neoplastic renal process, revealing two lesions: a 6.5 cm predominantly anterior endophytic upper polar lesion and a 1.3 cm exophytic lower polar lesion.

Treatment strategies for renal tumors vary based on the patient's overall condition, as well as tumor characteristics, including size, position, relationship, number, and aggressiveness [ 16 ]. In terms of aggressiveness, clear-cell renal cancers have the highest malignant potential and a 5-year survival rate of 50–60%, while papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas are associated with lower metastatic potential and an overall 5-year survival of 80–90% [ 18 , 19 ].

While most literature favors radical nephrectomy for treating synchronous dissimilar coexisting RCCs, recent studies have shown that patients with sporadic single or multiple ipsilateral renal tumors may opt for nephron-sparing surgery, which yields comparable oncological results with low morbidity and recurrence rates [ 20 ]. Our patient underwent radical nephrectomy, with negative margins for both tumors and no invasion of the renal pedicle or Gerota's fascia.

Due to the relatively short follow-up periods (typically 3–6 months) in case reports of patients with multifocal synchronous RCC found in the literature, estimating prognosis can be challenging, with insufficient information about long-term outcomes [ 5 ]. The presence of multifocal pathology may increase the risk of recurrence for the patient [ 1 ]. Additionally, the various subtypes of renal tumors can influence disease-free survival after radical nephrectomy, making it difficult to assign patients to specific adjuvant therapy protocols when two separate and distinct carcinomas are present in a nephrectomy specimen [ 5 ]. Our patient showed no involvement of the renal arterial and venous pedicle, suprarenal glands, Gerota's fascia, or distant organs on preoperative imaging. In addition, her follow-up plan, consisting of a CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis and laboratory estimation of hemoglobin and serum creatinine levels every three months, was unremarkable. However, estimating the prognosis is still challenging due to the limited information on follow-up in the literature. In addition, our case was not assigned adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy, reflecting the difficulty in selecting specific adjuvant regimens when multiple dissimilar RCCs coexist also reported in the literature [ 5 ].

Given the scarcity of reports, challenges in preoperative detection and differentiation, the possible intraoperative discovery of multifocality, and the dilemma in selecting appropriate adjuvant regimens for cases with multiple dissimilar RCCs, further research on this topic is urgently needed. This research should focus on enhancing preoperative detection and differentiation of multiple renal lesions, planning optimal operative techniques (radical or partial nephrectomy), selecting suitable adjuvant regimens, and reporting long-term follow-up outcomes. Since the management, prognosis, and long-term survival of different histological subtypes of RCC may be different, accurate recognition of the possible coexistence of these tumors is extremely critical and mandates multidisciplinary involvement, including meticulous preoperative imaging by radiologists and proper, thorough grossing of nephrectomy specimens by pathologists.

Availability of data and materials

Data included in the manuscript.

Abbreviations

Renal cell carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma

Multi-slice computed tomography

Papillary renal cell carcinoma

Cancer stem cells

Collocting duct carcinoma

Delto J, Hussein SE, Fukuma B, Abello A, Alexis J, Mastrogiovanni L, et al . Multifocal synchronous chromophobe, papillary, and clear cell renal cell carcinoma in a single kidney. J Urol Surg. 2018;5:200–2.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tyritzis SI, Alexandrou PT, Migdalis V, Koritsiadis G, Anastasiou I. Synchronous chromophobe and papillary renal cell carcinoma. First report and review of the pathogenesis theories. Pathol Int. 2009;59:193–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Harlow BL, Klaassen Z, Holzman SA, Reinstatler L, Franken AA, Kavuri S, et al . Multiple discordant histology after nephrectomy: descriptive analysis and outcomes. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016;14:e171–5.

Arık D, Açıkalın M, Can C. Papillary renal cell carcinoma and collecting duct carcinoma combination. A case report and review of synchronous renal cell carcinoma subtypes in the same kidney. Arch Med Sci AMS. 2015;11:686–90.

Kang S, Ko Y, Kang S, Kim J, Kim C, Park H, et al . Two different renal cell carcinomas and multiple angiomyolipomas in a patient with tuberous sclerosis. Korean J Urol. 2010;51:729.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ceriotti F, Boyd JC, Klein G, Henny J, Queralto J, Kairisto V, et al . Reference intervals for serum creatinine concentrations: assessment of available data for global application. Clin Chem. 2008;54(3):559–66.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Turner J, Parsi M, Badireddy M. Anemia. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL) ineligible companies. StatPearls Publishing. Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023.

Parsons RB, Canter D, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG. RENAL nephrometry scoring system: the radiologist’s perspective. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(3):W355–9.

Roehrl MHA, Selig MK, Nielsen GP, Dal Cin P, Oliva E. A renal cell carcinoma with components of both chromophobe and papillary carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2007;450:93–101.

Na K, Kim HS, Park YK, Chang SG, Kim YW. Multifocal renal cell carcinoma of different histological subtypes in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Korean J Pathol. 2012;46:382.

Li G, Cottier M, Sabido O, Gentil-Perret A, Lambert C, Genin C, et al . Different DNA Loidy patterns for the differentiation of common subtypes of renal tumors. Cell Oncol. 2005;27:51–6.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yin G, Zheng S, Zhou C, Li Y. Concurrent angiomyolipoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma in the same kidney: a case report. Asian J Surg. 2023;46(5):2268–9.

Al-Saleem T, Balsara B, Liu Z, Feder M, Testa J, Wu H, et al . Renal oncocytoma with loss of chromosomes Y and 1 evolving to papillary carcinoma in connection with gain of chromosome 7. Coincidence or progression? Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2005;163:81–5.

Zhao W, Tian B, Wu C, Peng Y, Wang H, Gu W-L, et al . DOG1, cyclin D1, CK7, CD117 and vimentin are useful immunohistochemical markers in distinguishing chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma. Pathol Res Pract. 2015;211(4):303–7.

Kim M, Joo JW, Lee SJ, Cho YA, Park CK, Cho NH. Comprehensive immunoprofiles of renal cell carcinoma subtypes. Cancers. 2020;12(3):602.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Capaccio E, Varca V, Simonato A, Toncini C, Carmignani G, Derchi LE. Synchronous parenchymal renal tumors of different histology in the same kidney. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(10):1187–92.

Jamis-Dow C, Choyke P, Jennings SB, Linehan W, Thakore KN, Walther M. Small (< or = 3-cm) renal masses: detection with CT versus US and pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;198(3):785–8.

Cheville J, Lohse C, Zincke H, Weaver A, Blute M. Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:612–24.

Renshaw A, Henske E, Loughlin K, Shapiro C, Weinberg D. Aggressive variants of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;78:1756–61.

Krambeck AE, Iwaszko MR, Leibovich BC, Cheville JC, Frank I, Blute ML. Long-term outcome of multiple ipsilateral renal tumours found at the time of planned nephron-sparing surgery. BJUI. 2008;101:1375–9.

Kuroda N, Shiotsu T, Kawada C, Shuin T, Hes O, Michal M, et al . Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma arising in acquired cystic disease of the kidney: an immunohistochemical and genetic study. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2011;15:282–5.

Lee T, Kim W, Lee S, Kang K, Jeong Y, Kang M, et al . Double synchronous primary renal cell carcinoma with different histotypes. Clin Nephrol. 2010;74:164–5.

Jun S-Y, Cho K-J, Kim C-S, Ayala AG, Ro JY. Triple synchronous neoplasms in one kidney: report of a case and review of the literature. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2003;7:374–80.

Auguet T, Molina JC, Lorenzo A, Vila J, Sirvent JJ, Richart C. Synchronus renal cell carcinoma and Bellini duct carcinoma: a case report on a rare coincidence. World J Urol. 2000;18:449–51.

Daniel L, Zattara-Cannoni H, Lechevallier E, Pellissier J. Association of a renal papillary carcinoma with a low grade tumour of the collecting ducts. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(8):637–9.

Gong Y, Sun X, Haines GK III, Pins MR. Renal cell carcinoma, chromophobe type, with collecting duct carcinoma and sarcomatoid components. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(1):e38–40.

Lindgren V, Paner GP, Flanigan RC, Clark JI, Campbell SC, Picken MM. Renal tumor with overlapping distal nephron morphology and karyotype. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(11):1274–8.

Cho N, Kim S, Ha M, Kim HJ. Simultaneous heterogenotypic renal cell carcinoma: immunohistochemical and karyoptic analysis by comparative genomic hybridization. Urol Int. 2004;72(4):344–8.

Matei D-V, Rocco B, Varela R, Verweij F, Scardino E, Renne G, et al . Synchronous collecting duct carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(1B):579–86.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kawano N, Inayama Y, Nakaigawa N, Yao M, Ogawa T, Aoki I, et al . Composite distal nephron-derived renal cell carcinoma with chromophobe and collecting duct carcinomatous elements. Pathol Int. 2005;55:360–5.

Tsai T-H, Tang S-H, Chuang F-P, Wu S-T, Sun G-H, Yu D-S, et al . Ipsilateral synchronous neoplasms of kidney presenting as acute pyelonephritis and bladder metastasis. Urology. 2009;73(5):1163.e9-e11.

Quiroga-Garza G, Piña-Oviedo S, Cuevas-Ocampo K, Goldfarb R, Schwartz MR, Ayala AG, et al . Synchronous clear cell renal cell carcinoma and tubulocystic carcinoma: genetic evidence of independent ontogenesis and implications of chromosomal imbalances in tumor progression. Diagn Pathol. 2012;7(1):1–7.

Esposito M, Varca V, Simonato A, Toncini C, Carmignani G, Derchi L. Coexistence of different histotypes of renal carcinoma: our experience and literature review. Rivista Urol. 2009;76:130–2.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Champollion Street, Alexandria, Egypt

Mohamed Sakr, Merhan Badran, Sarah Ahmed Hassan, Mohamed Elsaqa, Mohamed Anwar Elwany, Nevine M. F. El Deeb & Mohamed Sharafeldeen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MS and MB shared in the conception and design of the work, data acquisition and analysis, drafting and revising the manuscript, and literature review. NMFE and SAH performed the pathological investigation of the kidney. ME and MS shared in the conception, design of the work, data acquisition, and supervision. MAE interpreted data and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merhan Badran .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The ethical research board committee of Alexandria Main University Hospital waived the ethical approval for reporting this case. Written informed consent was provided by our patient for medical care, research, and publishing. The patient is not identified. This case was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration contents.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sakr, M., Badran, M., Hassan, S.A. et al. Detection of two synchronous histologically different renal cell carcinoma subtypes in the same kidney: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Reports 18 , 250 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04527-x

Download citation

Received : 25 December 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 18 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04527-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)
• Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC)
• Synchronous renal cell carcinoma
• Different histology

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

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

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Book Reviews

Two new novels investigate what makes magic, what is real and imagined.

Marcela Davison Avilés

In an enchanted world, where does mystery begin? Two authors pose this question in new novels out this spring.

In Pages of Mourning by the Mexican magical realism interrogator-author Diego Gerard Morrison, the protagonist is a Mexican writer named Aureliano Más II who is at war with his memory of familial sorrow and — you guessed it — magical realism. And the protagonist Alma Cruz in Julia Alvarez's latest novel, The Cemetery of Untold Stories, is also a writer. Alma seeks to bury her unpublished stories in a graveyard of her own making, in order to find peace in their repose — and meaning from the vulnerability that comes from unheard stories.

Both of these novels, one from an emerging writer and one from a long celebrated author, walk an open road of remembering love, grief, and fate. Both find a destiny not in death, but in the reality of abandonment and in dreams that come from a hope for reunion. At this intersection of memory and meaning, their storytelling diverges.

Pages of Mourning

Pages of Mourning, out this month, is set in 2017, three years after 43 students disappear from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers' College after being abducted in Iguala , Guerrero, Mexico. The main character, Aureliano, is attempting to write the Great Mexican Novel that reflects this crisis and his mother's own unexplained disappearance when he was a boy. He's also struggling with the idea of magical realism as literary genre — he holds resentment over being named after the protagonist in 100 Years of Solitude, which fits squarely within it. He sets out on a journey with his maternal aunt to find his father, ask questions about his mother, and deal with his drinking problem and various earthquakes.

Morrison's voice reflects his work as a writer, editor and translator based in Mexico City, who seeks to interrogate "the concept of dissonance" through blended art forms such as poetry and fiction, translation and criticism. His story could be seen as an archetype, criticism, or a reflection through linguistic cadence on Pan American literature. His novel name drops and alludes to American, Mexican and Latin American writers including Walt Whitman, Juan Rulfo, Gabriel Garcia Márquez — and even himself. There's an earnest use of adjectives to accompany the lived dissonance of his characters.

There's nothing magical, in the genre sense, in Morrison's story. There are no magical rivers, enchanted messages, babies born with tails. Morrison's dissonance is real — people get disappeared, they suffer addictions, writer's block, crazy parents, crazier shamans, blank pages, corruption, the loss of loved ones. In this depiction of real Pan-American life — because all of this we are also explicitly suffering up North — Morrison finds his magic. His Aureliano is our Aureliano. He's someone we know. Probably someone we loved — someone trying so hard to live.

The Cemetery of Untold Stories

From the author of In the Time of the Butterflies and How the García Girls Lost Their Accents , The Cemetery of Untold Stories is Julia Alvarez's seventh novel. It's a story that's both languorous and urgent in conjuring a world from magical happenings. The source of these happenings, in a graveyard in the Dominican Republic, is the confrontation between memories and lived agendas. Alvarez is an acclaimed storyteller and teacher, a writer of poetry, non-fiction and children's books, honored in 2013 with the National Medal of Arts . She continues her luminous virtuosity with the story of Alma Cruz.

Author Interviews

Julia alvarez: literature tells us 'we can make it through'.

Alma, the writer at the heart of The Cemetery of Untold Stories , has a goal - not to go crazy from the delayed promise of cartons of unpublished stories she has stored away. When she inherits land in her origin country — the Dominican Republic — she decides to retire there, and design a graveyard to bury her manuscript drafts, along with the characters whose fictional lives demand their own unrequited recompense. Her sisters think she's nuts, and wasting their inheritance. Filomena, a local woman Alma hires to watch over the cemetery, finds solace in a steady paycheck and her unusual workplace.

Alma wants peace for herself and her characters. But they have their own agendas and, once buried, begin to make them known: They speak to each other and Filomena, rewriting and revising Alma's creativity in order to reclaim themselves.

Code Switch

How julia alvarez wrote her many selves into existence.

In this new story, Alvarez creates a world where everyone is on a quest to achieve a dream — retirement, literary fame, a steady job, peace of mind, authenticity. Things get complicated during the rewrites, when ambitions and memories bump into the reality of no money, getting arrested, no imagination, jealousy, and the grace of humble competence. Alma's sisters, Filomena, the townspeople — all make a claim over Alma's aspiration to find a final resting place for her memories. Alvarez sprinkles their journey with dialogue and phrases in Spanish and one — " no hay mal que por bien no venga " (there is goodness in every woe) — emerges as the oral talisman of her story. There is always something magical to discover in a story, and that is especially true in Alvarez's landing place.

Marcela Davison Avilés is a writer and independent producer living in Northern California.