example of methodological literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

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

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

example of methodological literature review

Which review is that? A guide to review types

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

Methodological Review

Systematic Search and Review

A methodological review is a type of systematic secondary research (i.e., research synthesis) which focuses on summarising the state-of-the-art methodological practices of research in a substantive field or topic" (Chong et al, 2021).

Methodological reviews "can be performed to examine any methodological issues relating to the design, conduct and review of research studies and also evidence syntheses". Munn et al, 2018)

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

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

Dennis Thomas 2 ,
Elida Zairina 3 &
Johnson George 4

716 Accesses

1 Citations

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

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

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

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

Article Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Article PubMed Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Dennis Thomas

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

Elida Zairina

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

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

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

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

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

Download citation

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

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

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

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

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

Methodological

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

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

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 19 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Literature Review Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Literature Review Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction . We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template . This includes:

The literature review opening/ introduction section
The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory)
The empirical research
The research gap
The closing section

We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master’s-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can access the free resources mentioned in this video below.

PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Literature review example: frequently asked questions, is the sample literature review real.

Yes. The literature review example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. It has not been edited in any way.

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every literature review will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a literature review here .

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

The best place to find more examples of literature review chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance.

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point.

How do I get the literature review template?

You can access our free literature review chapter template here .

Is the template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish.

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 .

What will it take for you to guide me in my Ph.D research work?

Thank you so much for all this information. I am unable to download the literature review template and the excel worksheet. When I click the button it takes me to the top of the page. I would really love to use this template, thank you again!

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

UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

Sample Literature Reviews
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
Finding "The Literature"
Organizing/Writing
APA Style This link opens in a new window
Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

Literature Review Sample 1
Literature Review Sample 2
Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

<< Previous: MLA Style
Next: Get Help! >>
Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Methodology
Research Methodology

Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An overview and guidelines

Erbil polytechnic university
This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
JANET ATIENO AUMA
J Baraero-Era

Rizky Amelia

Tutuk Indriyani
Andi Ibrahim Yunus
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

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

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

What is the purpose of literature review?
a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:
b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:
c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:
d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

How to write a good literature review

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:

Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations.
Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access.
Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review.

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

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

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

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to...

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...

Appendix in Research Paper – Examples and...

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

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

How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research

Angela carrera-rivera.

a Faculty of Engineering, Mondragon University

William Ochoa

Felix larrinaga.

b Design Innovation Center(DBZ), Mondragon University

Associated Data

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Performing a literature review is a critical first step in research to understanding the state-of-the-art and identifying gaps and challenges in the field. A systematic literature review is a method which sets out a series of steps to methodically organize the review. In this paper, we present a guide designed for researchers and in particular early-stage researchers in the computer-science field. The contribution of the article is the following:

• Clearly defined strategies to follow for a systematic literature review in computer science research, and
• Algorithmic method to tackle a systematic literature review.

Graphical abstract

Specifications table

Subject area:	Computer-science
More specific subject area:	Software engineering
Name of your method:	Systematic literature review
Name and reference of original method:
Resource availability:	Resources referred to in this article: ) )

Method details

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., articles, conference proceedings, books, dissertations) through a systematic procedure [12] . An SLR updates the reader with current literature about a subject [6] . The goal is to review critical points of current knowledge on a topic about research questions to suggest areas for further examination [5] . Defining an “Initial Idea” or interest in a subject to be studied is the first step before starting the SLR. An early search of the relevant literature can help determine whether the topic is too broad to adequately cover in the time frame and whether it is necessary to narrow the focus. Reading some articles can assist in setting the direction for a formal review., and formulating a potential research question (e.g., how is semantics involved in Industry 4.0?) can further facilitate this process. Once the focus has been established, an SLR can be undertaken to find more specific studies related to the variables in this question. Although there are multiple approaches for performing an SLR ( [5] , [26] , [27] ), this work aims to provide a step-by-step and practical guide while citing useful examples for computer-science research. The methodology presented in this paper comprises two main phases: “Planning” described in section 2, and “Conducting” described in section 3, following the depiction of the graphical abstract.

Defining the protocol is the first step of an SLR since it describes the procedures involved in the review and acts as a log of the activities to be performed. Obtaining opinions from peers while developing the protocol, is encouraged to ensure the review's consistency and validity, and helps identify when modifications are necessary [20] . One final goal of the protocol is to ensure the replicability of the review.

Define PICOC and synonyms

The PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Context) criteria break down the SLR's objectives into searchable keywords and help formulate research questions [ 27 ]. PICOC is widely used in the medical and social sciences fields to encourage researchers to consider the components of the research questions [14] . Kitchenham & Charters [6] compiled the list of PICOC elements and their corresponding terms in computer science, as presented in Table 1 , which includes keywords derived from the PICOC elements. From that point on, it is essential to think of synonyms or “alike” terms that later can be used for building queries in the selected digital libraries. For instance, the keyword “context awareness” can also be linked to “context-aware”.

Planning Step 1 “Defining PICOC keywords and synonyms”.

	Description	Example (PICOC)	Example (Synonyms)
Population	Can be a specific role, an application area, or an industry domain.	Smart Manufacturing	• Digital Factory • Digital Manufacturing • Smart Factory
Intervention	The methodology, tool, or technology that addresses a specific issue.	Semantic Web	• Ontology • Semantic Reasoning
Comparison	The methodology, tool, or technology in which the is being compared (if appropriate).	Machine Learning	• Supervised Learning • Unsupervised Learning
Outcome	Factors of importance to practitioners and/or the results that could produce.	Context-Awareness	• Context-Aware • Context-Reasoning
Context	The context in which the comparison takes place. Some systematic reviews might choose to exclude this element.	Business Process Management	• BPM • Business Process Modeling

Formulate research questions

Clearly defined research question(s) are the key elements which set the focus for study identification and data extraction [21] . These questions are formulated based on the PICOC criteria as presented in the example in Table 2 (PICOC keywords are underlined).

Research questions examples.

Research Questions examples
• : What are the current challenges of context-aware systems that support the decision-making of business processes in smart manufacturing? • : Which technique is most appropriate to support decision-making for business process management in smart factories? • : In which scenarios are semantic web and machine learning used to provide context-awareness in business process management for smart manufacturing?

Research Questions examples

• : What are the current challenges of context-aware systems that support the decision-making of business processes in smart manufacturing?
• : Which technique is most appropriate to support decision-making for business process management in smart factories?
• : In which scenarios are semantic web and machine learning used to provide context-awareness in business process management for smart manufacturing?

Select digital library sources

The validity of a study will depend on the proper selection of a database since it must adequately cover the area under investigation [19] . The Web of Science (WoS) is an international and multidisciplinary tool for accessing literature in science, technology, biomedicine, and other disciplines. Scopus is a database that today indexes 40,562 peer-reviewed journals, compared to 24,831 for WoS. Thus, Scopus is currently the largest existing multidisciplinary database. However, it may also be necessary to include sources relevant to computer science, such as EI Compendex, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. Table 3 compares the area of expertise of a selection of databases.

Planning Step 3 “Select digital libraries”. Description of digital libraries in computer science and software engineering.

Database	Description	Area	Advanced Search Y/N
Scopus	From Elsevier. sOne of the largest databases. Very user-friendly interface	Interdisciplinary	Y
Web of Science	From Clarivate. Multidisciplinary database with wide ranging content.	Interdisciplinary	Y
EI Compendex	From Elsevier. Focused on engineering literature.	Engineering	Y (Query view not available)
IEEE Digital Library	Contains scientific and technical articles published by IEEE and its publishing partners.	Engineering and Technology	Y
ACM Digital Library	Complete collection of ACM publications.	Computing and information technology	Y

Define inclusion and exclusion criteria

Authors should define the inclusion and exclusion criteria before conducting the review to prevent bias, although these can be adjusted later, if necessary. The selection of primary studies will depend on these criteria. Articles are included or excluded in this first selection based on abstract and primary bibliographic data. When unsure, the article is skimmed to further decide the relevance for the review. Table 4 sets out some criteria types with descriptions and examples.

Planning Step 4 “Define inclusion and exclusion criteria”. Examples of criteria type.

Criteria Type	Description	Example
Period	Articles can be selected based on the time period to review, e.g., reviewing the technology under study from the year it emerged, or reviewing progress in the field since the publication of a prior literature review.	: From 2015 to 2021 Articles prior 2015
Language	Articles can be excluded based on language.	: Articles not in English
Type of Literature	Articles can be excluded if they are fall into the category of grey literature.	Reports, policy literature, working papers, newsletters, government documents, speeches
Type of source	Articles can be included or excluded by the type of origin, i.e., conference or journal articles or books.	: Articles from Conferences or Journals Articles from books
Impact Source	Articles can be excluded if the author limits the impact factor or quartile of the source.	Articles from Q1, and Q2 sources : Articles with a Journal Impact Score (JIS) lower than
Accessibility	Not accessible in specific databases.	: Not accessible
Relevance to research questions	Articles can be excluded if they are not relevant to a particular question or to “ ” number of research questions.	Not relevant to at least 2 research questions

Define the Quality Assessment (QA) checklist

Assessing the quality of an article requires an artifact which describes how to perform a detailed assessment. A typical quality assessment is a checklist that contains multiple factors to evaluate. A numerical scale is used to assess the criteria and quantify the QA [22] . Zhou et al. [25] presented a detailed description of assessment criteria in software engineering, classified into four main aspects of study quality: Reporting, Rigor, Credibility, and Relevance. Each of these criteria can be evaluated using, for instance, a Likert-type scale [17] , as shown in Table 5 . It is essential to select the same scale for all criteria established on the quality assessment.

Planning Step 5 “Define QA assessment checklist”. Examples of QA scales and questions.

Do the researchers discuss any problems (limitations, threats) with the validity of their results (reliability)?	1 – No, and not considered (Score: 0) 2 – Partially (Score: 0.5) 3 – Yes (Score: 1)
Is there a clear definition/ description/ statement of the aims/ goals/ purposes/ motivations/ objectives/ questions of the research?	1 – Disagree (Score: 1) 2 – Somewhat disagree (Score: 2) 3 – Neither agree nor disagree (Score: 3) 4 – Somewhat agree (Score: 4) 5 – Agree (Score: 5)

Define the “Data Extraction” form

The data extraction form represents the information necessary to answer the research questions established for the review. Synthesizing the articles is a crucial step when conducting research. Ramesh et al. [15] presented a classification scheme for computer science research, based on topics, research methods, and levels of analysis that can be used to categorize the articles selected. Classification methods and fields to consider when conducting a review are presented in Table 6 .

Planning Step 6 “Define data extraction form”. Examples of fields.

Classification and fields to consider for data extraction	Description and examples
Research type	• focuses on abstract ideas, concepts, and theories built on literature reviews . • uses scientific data or case studies for explorative, descriptive, explanatory, or measurable findings . an SLR on context-awareness for S-PSS and categorized the articles in theoretical and empirical research.
By process phases, stages	When analyzing a process or series of processes, an effective way to structure the data is to find a well-established framework of reference or architecture. : • an SLR on self-adaptive systems uses the MAPE-K model to understand how the authors tackle each module stage. • presented a context-awareness survey using the stages of context-aware lifecycle to review different methods.
By technology, framework, or platform	When analyzing a computer science topic, it is important to know the technology currently employed to understand trends, benefits, or limitations. : • an SLR on the big data ecosystem in the manufacturing field that includes frameworks, tools, and platforms for each stage of the big data ecosystem.
By application field and/or industry domain	If the review is not limited to a specific “Context” or “Population" (industry domain), it can be useful to identify the field of application : • an SLR on adaptive training using virtual reality (VR). The review presents an extensive description of multiple application domains and examines related work.
Gaps and challenges	Identifying gaps and challenges is important in reviews to determine the research needs and further establish research directions that can help scholars act on the topic.
Findings in research	Research in computer science can deliver multiple types of findings, e.g.:
Evaluation method	Case studies, experiments, surveys, mathematical demonstrations, and performance indicators.

The data extraction must be relevant to the research questions, and the relationship to each of the questions should be included in the form. Kitchenham & Charters [6] presented more pertinent data that can be captured, such as conclusions, recommendations, strengths, and weaknesses. Although the data extraction form can be updated if more information is needed, this should be treated with caution since it can be time-consuming. It can therefore be helpful to first have a general background in the research topic to determine better data extraction criteria.

After defining the protocol, conducting the review requires following each of the steps previously described. Using tools can help simplify the performance of this task. Standard tools such as Excel or Google sheets allow multiple researchers to work collaboratively. Another online tool specifically designed for performing SLRs is Parsif.al 1 . This tool allows researchers, especially in the context of software engineering, to define goals and objectives, import articles using BibTeX files, eliminate duplicates, define selection criteria, and generate reports.

Build digital library search strings

Search strings are built considering the PICOC elements and synonyms to execute the search in each database library. A search string should separate the synonyms with the boolean operator OR. In comparison, the PICOC elements are separated with parentheses and the boolean operator AND. An example is presented next:

(“Smart Manufacturing” OR “Digital Manufacturing” OR “Smart Factory”) AND (“Business Process Management” OR “BPEL” OR “BPM” OR “BPMN”) AND (“Semantic Web” OR “Ontology” OR “Semantic” OR “Semantic Web Service”) AND (“Framework” OR “Extension” OR “Plugin” OR “Tool”

Gather studies

Databases that feature advanced searches enable researchers to perform search queries based on titles, abstracts, and keywords, as well as for years or areas of research. Fig. 1 presents the example of an advanced search in Scopus, using titles, abstracts, and keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY). Most of the databases allow the use of logical operators (i.e., AND, OR). In the example, the search is for “BIG DATA” and “USER EXPERIENCE” or “UX” as a synonym.

Example of Advanced search on Scopus.

In general, bibliometric data of articles can be exported from the databases as a comma-separated-value file (CSV) or BibTeX file, which is helpful for data extraction and quantitative and qualitative analysis. In addition, researchers should take advantage of reference-management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, Endnote, or Jabref, which import bibliographic information onto the software easily.

Study Selection and Refinement

The first step in this stage is to identify any duplicates that appear in the different searches in the selected databases. Some automatic procedures, tools like Excel formulas, or programming languages (i.e., Python) can be convenient here.

In the second step, articles are included or excluded according to the selection criteria, mainly by reading titles and abstracts. Finally, the quality is assessed using the predefined scale. Fig. 2 shows an example of an article QA evaluation in Parsif.al, using a simple scale. In this scenario, the scoring procedure is the following YES= 1, PARTIALLY= 0.5, and NO or UNKNOWN = 0 . A cut-off score should be defined to filter those articles that do not pass the QA. The QA will require a light review of the full text of the article.

Performing quality assessment (QA) in Parsif.al.

Data extraction

Those articles that pass the study selection are then thoroughly and critically read. Next, the researcher completes the information required using the “data extraction” form, as illustrated in Fig. 3 , in this scenario using Parsif.al tool.

Example of data extraction form using Parsif.al.

The information required (study characteristics and findings) from each included study must be acquired and documented through careful reading. Data extraction is valuable, especially if the data requires manipulation or assumptions and inferences. Thus, information can be synthesized from the extracted data for qualitative or quantitative analysis [16] . This documentation supports clarity, precise reporting, and the ability to scrutinize and replicate the examination.

Analysis and Report

The analysis phase examines the synthesized data and extracts meaningful information from the selected articles [10] . There are two main goals in this phase.

The first goal is to analyze the literature in terms of leading authors, journals, countries, and organizations. Furthermore, it helps identify correlations among topic s . Even when not mandatory, this activity can be constructive for researchers to position their work, find trends, and find collaboration opportunities. Next, data from the selected articles can be analyzed using bibliometric analysis (BA). BA summarizes large amounts of bibliometric data to present the state of intellectual structure and emerging trends in a topic or field of research [4] . Table 7 sets out some of the most common bibliometric analysis representations.

Techniques for bibliometric analysis and examples.

Publication-related analysis	Description	Example
Years of publications	Determine interest in the research topic by years or the period established by the SLR, by quantifying the number of papers published. Using this information, it is also possible to forecast the growth rate of research interest.	[ ] identified the growth rate of research interest and the yearly publication trend.
Top contribution journals/conferences	Identify the leading journals and conferences in which authors can share their current and future work.	,
Top countries' or affiliation contributions	Examine the impacts of countries or affiliations leading the research topic.	[ , ] identified the most influential countries.
Leading authors	Identify the most significant authors in a research field.	-
Keyword correlation analysis	Explore existing relationships between topics in a research field based on the written content of the publication or related keywords established in the articles.	using keyword clustering analysis ( ). using frequency analysis.
Total and average citation	Identify the most relevant publications in a research field.	Scatter plot citation scores and journal factor impact

Several tools can perform this type of analysis, such as Excel and Google Sheets for statistical graphs or using programming languages such as Python that has available multiple data visualization libraries (i.e. Matplotlib, Seaborn). Cluster maps based on bibliographic data(i.e keywords, authors) can be developed in VosViewer which makes it easy to identify clusters of related items [18] . In Fig. 4 , node size is representative of the number of papers related to the keyword, and lines represent the links among keyword terms.

[1] Keyword co-relationship analysis using clusterization in vos viewer.

This second and most important goal is to answer the formulated research questions, which should include a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis can make use of data categorized, labelled, or coded in the extraction form (see Section 1.6). This data can be transformed into numerical values to perform statistical analysis. One of the most widely employed method is frequency analysis, which shows the recurrence of an event, and can also represent the percental distribution of the population (i.e., percentage by technology type, frequency of use of different frameworks, etc.). Q ualitative analysis includes the narration of the results, the discussion indicating the way forward in future research work, and inferring a conclusion.

Finally, the literature review report should state the protocol to ensure others researchers can replicate the process and understand how the analysis was performed. In the protocol, it is essential to present the inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and rationality beyond these aspects.

The presentation and reporting of results will depend on the structure of the review given by the researchers conducting the SLR, there is no one answer. This structure should tie the studies together into key themes, characteristics, or subgroups [ 28 ].

SLR can be an extensive and demanding task, however the results are beneficial in providing a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on a given topic. For this reason, researchers should keep in mind that the entire process of the SLR is tailored to answer the research question(s). This article has detailed a practical guide with the essential steps to conducting an SLR in the context of computer science and software engineering while citing multiple helpful examples and tools. It is envisaged that this method will assist researchers, and particularly early-stage researchers, in following an algorithmic approach to fulfill this task. Finally, a quick checklist is presented in Appendix A as a companion of this article.

CRediT author statement

Angela Carrera-Rivera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Original. William Ochoa-Agurto : Methodology, Writing-Original. Felix Larrinaga : Reviewing and Supervision Ganix Lasa: Reviewing and Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

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.

Acknowledgments

Funding : This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant No. 814078.

Carrera-Rivera, A., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). Context-awareness for the design of Smart-product service systems: Literature review. Computers in Industry, 142, 103730.

1 https://parsif.al/

Data Availability

Research Methods: Literature Reviews

Annotated Bibliographies
Literature Reviews
Scoping Reviews
Systematic Reviews
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Persuasive Arguments
Subject Specific Methodology

A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal. A literature review helps the author learn about the history and nature of their topic, and identify research gaps and problems.

Steps & Elements

Problem formulation

Determine your topic and its components by asking a question
Research: locate literature related to your topic to identify the gap(s) that can be addressed
Read: read the articles or other sources of information
Analyze: assess the findings for relevancy
Evaluating: determine how the article are relevant to your research and what are the key findings
Synthesis: write about the key findings and how it is relevant to your research

Elements of a Literature Review

Summarize subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with objectives of the review
Divide works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, those offering alternative theories entirely)
Explain how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
Conclude which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of an area of research

Writing a Literature Review Resources

How to Write a Literature Review From the Wesleyan University Library
Write a Literature Review From the University of California Santa Cruz Library. A Brief overview of a literature review, includes a list of stages for writing a lit review.
Literature Reviews From the University of North Carolina Writing Center. Detailed information about writing a literature review.
Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), p.38-43

Literature Review Tutorial

<< Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
Next: Scoping Reviews >>
Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 3:13 PM
URL: https://guides.auraria.edu/researchmethods

1100 Lawrence Street Denver, CO 80204 303-315-7700 Ask Us Directions

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

What is a literature review?
Define your research question
Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
Choose databases and search
Review Results
Synthesize Results
Analyze Results
Librarian Support
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
Finalize your research question
Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
De-duplicate your search results
Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational
Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question
Develop your conclusions
Are there gaps in the literature?
Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
Which methodological approaches work best?
For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in
Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
BMJ Journals

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-9845 Irma Klerings 1 ,
Shannon Robalino 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-3880 Andrew Booth 3 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2903-6870 Camila Micaela Escobar-Liquitay 4 ,
Isolde Sommer 1 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5531-3678 Gerald Gartlehner 1 , 5 ,
Declan Devane 6 , 7 ,
Siw Waffenschmidt 8
On behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
1 Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation , University of Krems (Danube University Krems) , Krems , Niederösterreich , Austria
2 Center for Evidence-based Policy , Oregon Health & Science University , Portland , Oregon , USA
3 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) , The University of Sheffield , Sheffield , UK
4 Research Department, Associate Cochrane Centre , Instituto Universitario Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires , Buenos Aires , Argentina
5 RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center , RTI International , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina , USA
6 School of Nursing & Midwifery, HRB TMRN , National University of Ireland Galway , Galway , Ireland
7 Evidence Synthesis Ireland & Cochrane Ireland , University of Galway , Galway , Ireland
8 Information Management Department , Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare , Cologne , Germany
Correspondence to Irma Klerings, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Niederösterreich, Austria; irma.klerings{at}donau-uni.ac.at

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RR) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. In this paper, we address considerations for RR searches. We cover the main areas relevant to the search process: preparation and planning, information sources and search methods, search strategy development, quality assurance, reporting, and record management. Two options exist for abbreviating the search process: (1) reducing time spent on conducting searches and (2) reducing the size of the search result. Because screening search results is usually more resource-intensive than conducting the search, we suggest investing time upfront in planning and optimising the search to save time by reducing the literature screening workload. To achieve this goal, RR teams should work with an information specialist. They should select a small number of relevant information sources (eg, databases) and use search methods that are highly likely to identify relevant literature for their topic. Database search strategies should aim to optimise both precision and sensitivity, and quality assurance measures (peer review and validation of search strategies) should be applied to minimise errors.

Evidence-Based Practice
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Information Science

Data availability statement

No data are available.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112079

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Compared with systematic reviews, rapid reviews (RR) often abbreviate or limit the literature search in some way to accelerate review production. However, RR guidance rarely specifies how to select topic-appropriate search approaches.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This paper presents an overview of considerations and recommendations for RR searching, covering the complete search process from the planning stage to record management. We also provide extensive appendices with practical examples, useful sources and a glossary of terms.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for RR literature searching: review teams should consider what search approaches best fit their RR project.

Introduction

This paper is part of a series from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG) providing methodological guidance for rapid reviews (RRs). 1–3 While the RRMG’s guidance 4 5 on Cochrane RR production includes brief advice on literature searching, we aim to provide in-depth recommendations for the entire search process.

Literature searching is the foundation for all reviews; therefore, it is important to understand the goals of a specific RR. The scope of RRs varies considerably (from focused questions to overviews of broad topics). 6 As with conventional systematic reviews (SRs), there is not a one-size-fits-all approach for RR literature searches. We aim to support RR teams in choosing methods that best fit their project while understanding the limitations of modified search methods. Our recommendations derive from current systematic search guidance, evidence on modified search methods and practical experience conducting RRs.

This paper presents considerations and recommendations, described briefly in table 1 . The table also includes a comparison to the SR search process based on common recommendations. 7–10 We provide supplemental materials, including a list of additional resources, further details of our recommendations, practical examples, and a glossary (explaining the terms written in italics) in online supplemental appendices A–C .

Supplemental material

View inline

Recommendations for rapid review literature searching

Preparation and planning

Given that the results of systematic literature searches underpin a review, planning the searches is integral to the overall RR preparation. The RR search process follows the same steps as an SR search; therefore, RR teams must be familiar with the general standards of systematic searching . Templates (see online supplemental appendix B ) and reporting guidance 11 for SR searches can also be adapted to structure the RR search process.

Developing a plan for the literature search forms part of protocol development and should involve an information specialist (eg, librarian). Information specialists can assist in refining the research question, selecting appropriate search methods and resources, designing and executing search strategies, and reporting the search methods. At minimum, specialist input should include assessing information sources and methods and providing feedback on the primary database search strategy.

Two options exist for abbreviating the search process: (1) reducing time spent on conducting searches (eg, using automation tools, reusing existing search strategies, omitting planning or quality assurance steps) and (2) reducing the size of the search result (eg, limiting the number of information sources, increasing the precision of search strategies, using study design filters). Study selection (ie, screening search results) is usually more resource-intensive than searching, 12 particularly for topics with complex or broad concepts or diffuse terminology; thus, the second option may be more efficient for the entire RR. Investing time upfront in optimising search sensitivity (ie, completeness) and precision (ie, positive predictive value) can save time in the long run by reducing the screening and selection workload.

Preliminary or scoping searches are critical to this process. They inform the choice of search methods and identify potentially relevant literature. Texts identified through preliminary searching serve as known relevant records that can be used throughout the search development process (see sections on database selection, development and validation of search strategies).

In addition to planning the search itself, the review team should factor in time for quality assurance steps (eg, search strategy peer review) and the management of search results (eg, deduplication, full-text retrieval).

Information sources and methods

To optimise the balance of search sensitivity and precision, RR teams should prioritise the most relevant information sources for the topic and the type of evidence required. These can include bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE/PubMed), grey literature sources and targeted supplementary search methods. Note that this approach differs from the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Standards 9 where the same core set of information sources is required for every review and further supplemented by additional topic-specific and evidence-specific sources.

Choosing bibliographic databases

For many review topics, most evidence is found in peer-reviewed journal articles, making bibliographic databases the main resource of systematic searching. Limiting the number of databases searched can be a viable option in RRs, but it is important to prioritise topic-appropriate databases.

MEDLINE has been found to have high coverage for studies included in SRs 13 14 and is an appealing database choice because access is free via PubMed. However, coverage varies depending on topics and relevant study designs. 15 16 Additionally, even if all eligible studies for a topic were available in MEDLINE, search strategies will usually miss some eligible studies because search sensitivity is lower than database coverage. 13 17 This means searching MEDLINE alone is not a viable option, and additional information sources or search methods are required. Known relevant records can be used to help assess the coverage of selected databases (see also online supplemental appendix C ).

Further information sources and search techniques

Supplementary systematic search methods have three main goals, to identify (1) grey literature, (2) published literature not covered by the selected bibliographic databases and (3) database-covered literature that was not retrieved by the database searches.

When RRs search only a small number of databases, supplementary searches can be particularly important to pick up eligible studies not identified via database searching. While supplementary methods might increase the time spent on searching, they sometimes better optimise search sensitivity and precision, saving time in the long run. 18 Depending on the topic and relevant evidence, such methods can offer an alternative to adding additional specialised database searches. To decide if and what supplementary searches are helpful, it is important to evaluate what literature might be missed by the database searches and how this might affect the specific RR.

Study registries and other grey literature

Some studies indicate that the omission of grey literature searches rarely affects review conclusions. 17 19 However, the relevance of study registries and other grey literature sources is topic-dependent. 16 19–21 For example, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on newly approved drugs are typically identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. 20 For rapidly evolving topics such as COVID-19, preprints are an important source. 21 For public health interventions, various types of grey literature may be important (eg, evaluations conducted by local public health agencies). 22

Further supplementary search methods

Other supplementary techniques (eg, checking reference lists, reviewing specific websites or electronic table of contents, contacting experts) may identify additional studies not retrieved by database searches. 23 One of the most common approaches involves checking reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. This method may identify studies missed by limited database searches. 12 Another promising citation-based approach is using the ‘similar articles’ option in PubMed, although research has focused on updating existing SRs. 24 25

Considerations for RRs of RCTs

Databases and search methods to identify RCTs have been particularly well researched. 17 20 24 26 27 For this reason, it is possible to give more precise recommendations for RRs based on RCTs than for other types of review. Table 2 provides an overview of the most important considerations; additional information can be found in online supplemental appendix C .

Information sources for identification of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Search strategies

We define ‘search strategy’ as a Boolean search query in a specific database (eg, MEDLINE) using a specific interface (eg, Ovid). When several databases are searched, this query is usually developed in a primary database and interface (eg, Ovid MEDLINE) and translated to other databases.

Developing search strategies

Optimising search strategy precision while aiming for high sensitivity is critical in reducing the number of records retrieved. Preliminary searches provide crucial information to aid efficient search strategy development. Reviewing the abstracts and subject headings used in known relevant records will assist in identifying appropriate search terms. Text analysis tools can also be used to support this process, 28 29 for example, to develop ‘objectively derived’ search strategies. 30

Reusing or adapting complete search strategies (eg, from SRs identified by the preliminary searches) or selecting elements of search strategies for reuse can accelerate search strategy development. Additionally, validated search filters (eg, for study design) can be used to reduce the size of the search result without compromising the sensitivity of a search strategy. 31 However, quality assurance measures are necessary whether the search strategy is purpose-built, reused or adapted (see the ‘Quality assurance’ section.)

Database-specific and interface-specific functionalities can also be used to improve searches’ precision and reduce the search result’s size. Some options are: restricting to records where subject terms have been assigned as the major focus of an article (eg, major descriptors in MeSH), using proximity operators (ie, terms adjacent or within a set number of words), frequency operators (ie, terms have to appear a minimum number of times in an abstract) or restricting search terms to the article title. 32–34

Automated syntax translation can save time and reduce errors when translating a primary search strategy to different databases. 35 36 However, manual adjustments will usually be necessary.

The time taken to learn how to use supporting technologies (eg, text analysis, syntax translation) proficiently should not be underestimated. The time investment is most likely to pay off for frequent searchers. A later paper in this series will address supporting software for the entire review process.

Limits and restrictions

Limits and restrictions (eg, publication dates, language) are another way to reduce the number of records retrieved but should be tailored to the topic and applied with caution. For example, if most studies about an intervention were published 10 years ago, then an arbitrary cut-off of ‘the last 5 years’ will miss many relevant studies. 37 Similarly, limiting to ‘English only’ is acceptable for most cases, but early in the COVID-19 pandemic, a quarter of available research articles were written in Chinese. 38 Depending on the RR topic, certain document types (eg, conference abstracts, dissertations) might be excluded if not considered relevant to the research question.

Note also that preset limiting functions in search interfaces (eg, limit to humans) often rely on subject headings (eg, MeSH) alone. They will miss eligible studies that lack or have incomplete subject indexing. Using (validated) search filters 31 is preferable.

Updating existing reviews

One approach to RR production involves updating an existing SR. In this case, preliminary searches should be used to check if new evidence is available. If the review team decide to update the review, they should assess the original search methods and adapt these as necessary.

One option is to identify the minimum set of databases required to retrieve all the original included studies. 39 Any reused search strategies should be validated and peer-reviewed (see below) and optimised for precision and/or sensitivity.

Additionally, it is important to assess whether the topic terminology or the relevant databases have changed since the original SR search.

In some cases, designing a new search process may be more efficient than reproducing the original search.

Quality assurance and search strategy peer review

Errors in search strategies are common and can impact the sensitivity and comprehensiveness of the search result. 40 If an RR search uses a small number of information sources, such errors could affect the identification of relevant studies.

Validation of search strategies

The primary database search strategy should be validated using known relevant records (if available). This means testing if the primary search strategy retrieves eligible studies found through preliminary searching. If some known studies are not identified, the searcher assesses the reasons and decides if revisions are necessary. Even a precision-focused systematic search should identify the majority—we suggest at least 80%–90%—of known studies. This is based on benchmarks for sensitivity-precision-maximising search filters 41 and assumes that the set of known studies is representative of the whole of relevant studies.

Peer review of search strategies

Ideally, an information specialist should review the planned information sources and search methods and use the PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) checklist 42 to assess the primary search strategy. Turnaround time has to be factored into the process from the outset (eg, waiting for feedback, revising the search strategy). PRESS recommends a maximum turnaround time of five working days for feedback, but in-house peer review often takes only a few hours.

If the overall RR time plan does not allow for a full peer review of the search strategy, a review team member with search experience should check the search strategy for spelling errors and correct use of Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) at a minimum.

Reporting and record management

Record management requirements of RRs are largely identical to SRs and have to be factored into the time plan. Teams should develop a data management plan and review the relevant reporting standards at the project’s outset. PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) 11 is a reporting standard for SR searches that can be adapted for RRs.

Reference management software (eg, EndNote, 43 Zotero 44 ) should be used to track search results, including deduplication. Note that record management for database searches is less time-consuming than for many supplementary or grey literature searches, which often require manual entry into reference management software. 12

Additionally, software platforms for SR production (eg, Covidence, 45 EPPI-Reviewer, 46 Systematic Review Data Repository Plus 47 ) can provide a unified way to keep track of records throughout the whole review process, which can improve management and save time. These platforms and other dedicated tools (eg, SRA Deduplicator) 48 also offer automated deduplication. However, the time and cost investment necessary to appropriately use these tools have to be considered.

Decisions about search methods for an RR need to consider where time can be most usefully invested and processes accelerated. The literature search should be considered in the context of the entire review process, for example, protocol development and literature screening: Findings of preliminary searches often affect the development and refinement of the research question and the review’s eligibility criteria . In turn, they affect the number of records retrieved by the searches and therefore the time needed for literature selection.

For this reason, focusing only on reducing time spent on designing and conducting searches can be a false economy when seeking to speed up review production. While some approaches (eg, text analysis, automated syntax translation) may save time without negatively affecting search validity, others (eg, skipping quality assurance steps, using convenient information sources without considering their topic appropriateness) may harm the entire review. Information specialists can provide crucial aid concerning the appropriate design of search strategies, choice of methods and information sources.

For this reason, we consider that investing time at the outset of the review to carefully choose a small number of highly appropriate search methods and optimise search sensitivity and precision likely leads to better and more manageable results.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Gartlehner G ,
Nussbaumer-Streit B ,
Nussbaumer Streit B ,
Garritty C ,
Tricco AC ,
Nussbaumer-Streit B , et al
Trivella M ,
Hamel C , et al
Hartling L ,
Guise J-M ,
Kato E , et al
Lefebvre C ,
Glanville J ,
Briscoe S , et al
Higgins JPT ,
Lasserson T ,
Chandler J , et al
European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA)
Rethlefsen ML ,
Kirtley S ,
Waffenschmidt S , et al
Klerings I , et al
Bramer WM ,
Giustini D ,
Halladay CW ,
Trikalinos TA ,
Schmid IT , et al
Frandsen TF ,
Eriksen MB ,
Hammer DMG , et al
Klerings I ,
Wagner G , et al
Husk K , et al
Featherstone R ,
Nuspl M , et al
Knelangen M ,
Hausner E ,
Metzendorf M-I , et al
Gianola S ,
Bargeri S , et al
Hillier-Brown FC ,
Moore HJ , et al
Varley-Campbell J , et al
Sampson M ,
de Bruijn B ,
Urquhart C , et al
Fitzpatrick-Lewis D , et al
Affengruber L ,
Waffenschmidt S ,
Kaiser T , et al
The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group
Kleijnen J , et al
Jacob C , et al
Kaunelis D ,
Mensinkai S , et al
Mast F , et al
Sanders S ,
Carter M , et al
Marshall IJ ,
Marshall R ,
Wallace BC , et al
Fidahic M ,
Runjic R , et al
Hopewell S ,
Salvador-Oliván JA ,
Marco-Cuenca G ,
Arquero-Avilés R
Navarro-Ruan T ,
Hobson N , et al
McGowan J ,
Salzwedel DM , et al
Clarivate Analytics
Corporation for Digital Scholarship
Veritas Health Innovation Ltd
Graziosi S ,
Brunton J , et al
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Data supplement 1

Twitter @micaelaescb

Collaborators On behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group: Declan Devane, Gerald Gartlehner, Isolde Sommer.

Contributors IK, SR, AB, CME-L and SW contributed to the conceptualisation of this paper. IK, AB and CME-L wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. IK is responsible for the overall content.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests AB is co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. In the last 36 months, he received royalties from Systematic Approaches To a Successful Literature Review (Sage 3rd edn), payment or honoraria form the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and travel support from the WHO. DD works part time for Cochrane Ireland and Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which are funded within the University of Ireland Galway (Ireland) by the Health Research Board (HRB) and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development (HSC R&D) Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland.

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

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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

Linked Articles

Research methods and reporting Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit Isolde Sommer Candyce Hamel Declan Devane Anna Noel-Storr Livia Puljak Marialena Trivella Gerald Gartlehner BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2023; 28 418-423 Published Online First: 19 Apr 2023. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112185
Research methods and reporting Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence Gerald Gartlehner Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit Declan Devane Leila Kahwati Meera Viswanathan Valerie J King Amir Qaseem Elie Akl Holger J Schuenemann BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2023; 29 50-54 Published Online First: 19 Apr 2023. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112111
Research methods and reporting Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users Chantelle Garritty Andrea C Tricco Maureen Smith Danielle Pollock Chris Kamel Valerie J King BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2023; 29 55-61 Published Online First: 19 Apr 2023. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112070

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Integrating blockchain, iot, and xbrl in accounting information systems: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 2.1. definition of the research question, 2.2. search for literature, 2.3. applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2.4. quality assessment, 3.1. journal analysis, 3.2. blockchain studies, 3.2.1. overview analysis, 3.2.2. blockchain as an accounting system, blockchain as a triple-entry accounting system, blockchain as a single accounting system, 3.2.3. blockchain and the quality of accounting information, 3.3. internet of things technology studies, 3.3.1. overview analysis, 3.3.2. using the internet of things (iot) in the accounting field, 3.4. extensible business reporting language (xbrl) studies, 3.4.1. overview analysis, 3.4.2. the benefits of extensible business reporting language (xbrl) in accounting, 3.5. the integration of blockchain, the internet of things, and xbrl, 4. discussion, 5. the limitations of the study, 6. future research directions, 7. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Adamopoulos, Panagiotis, Vilma Todri, and Anindya Ghose. 2021. Demand effects of the internet-of-things sales channel: Evidence from automating the purchase process. Information Systems Research 32: 238–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Alay, Hazal Koray. 2022. Evaluating Research Trends on The Emerging Blockchain Technology in The Fields of Business And Management: A Systematic Review. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy 7: 409–17. [ Google Scholar ]
Alkafaji, Bashaer Khudhair Abbas, Mahmoud Lari Dashtbayaz, and Mahdi Salehi. 2023. The Impact of Blockchain on the Quality of Accounting Information: An Iraqi Case Study. Risks 11: 58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Alkayed, Hani, Saad Zighan, Majed Qabajeh, and Mohammad I Almaharmeh. 2023. The role of XBRL adoption on enhancing transparency of information disclosure: A case study of Jordanian financial companies. Cogent Business and Management 10: 2265082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Alles, Michael, and Maciej Piechock. 2012. Will XBRL improve corporate governance? A framework for enhancing governance decision making using interactive data. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13: 91–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Arshad, Ameena, Faisal Shahzad, Ijaz Ur Rehman, and Bruno S Sergi. 2023. A systematic literature review of blockchain technology and environmental sustainability: Status quo and future research. International Review of Economics & Finance 88: 1602–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Atzori, Marcella. 2018. Blockchain-Based Architectures for the Internet of Things: A Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Beerbaum, Dirk. 2018. Blockchain A Business Case for XBRL: A Beast or a Lame Duck? SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bellucci, Marco, Damiano Cesa Bianchi, and Giacomo Manetti. 2022. Blockchain in accounting practice and research: Systematic literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research 30: 121–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Benedetti, Hugo, Ehsan Nikbakht, Sayan Sarkar, and Andrew Craig Spieler. 2020. Blockchain and corporate fraud. Journal of Financial Crime 28: 702–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Blankespoor, Elizabeth, Brian P. Miller, and Hal D. White. 2014. Initial evidence on the market impact of the XBRL mandate. Review of Accounting Studies 19: 1468–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Boixo, Ignacio, Javier Mora, and Jesús Ruiz. 2019. Proof of Concept for an XBRL Report Indexer with Integrity and Non-Repudiation Secured by Blockchain Using a Smart Contract: XBRLchain Demo. 44th World Continuous Auditing and Reporting Symposium. 1–12. Available online: http://www.openfiling.info/wp-content/upLoads/data/ReportIndexerSecuredbyBlockchain.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2024).
Bonsón, Enrique, and Michaela Bednárová. 2019. Blockchain and its implications for accounting and auditing. Meditari Accountancy Research 27: 725–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bonsón, Enrique, Virginia Cortijo, and Tomás Escobar. 2009. Towards the global adoption of XBRL using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10: 46–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Borgi, Hela, and Vincent Tawiah. 2022. Determinants of eXtensible business reporting language adoption: An institutional perspective. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 30: 352–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Byström, Hans. 2019. Blockchains, real-time accounting, and the future of credit risk modeling. Ledger 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cai, Cynthia Weiyi. 2021. Triple-entry accounting with blockchain: How far have we come? Accounting & Finance 61: 71–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Carlin, Tyrone. 2019. Blockchain and the Journey Beyond Double Entry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 305–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Centobelli, Piera, Roberto Cerchione, Pasquale Del Vecchio, Eugenio Oropallo, and Giustina Secundo. 2022. Blockchain technology design in accounting: Game changer to tackle fraud or technological fairy tale? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 35: 1566–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chen, Shanzhi, Hui Xu, Dake Liu, Bo Hu, and Hucheng Wang. 2014. A vision of IoT: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with China Perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1: 349–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chen, Songsheng, Jun Guo, Qingqing Liu, and Xiaoxiao Tong. 2021. The impact of XBRL on real earnings management: Unexpected consequences of the XBRL implementation in China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 56: 479–504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chowdhury, Emon Kalyan, Iffat Ishrat Khan, and Bablu Kumar Dhar. 2023. Strategy for implementing blockchain technology in accounting: Perspectives of stakeholders in a developing nation. Business Strategy and Development 6: 477–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Christidis, Konstantinos, and Michael Devetsikiotis. 2016. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 4: 2292–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Christoffersen, Jeppe. 2013. A review of antecedents of international strategic alliance performance: Synthesized evidence and new directions for core constructs. International Journal of Management Reviews 15: 66–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cormier, Denis, Dominique Dufour, Philippe Luu, Pierre Teller, and Robert Teller. 2019. The Relevance of XBRL Voluntary Disclosure for Stock Market Valuation: The Role of Corporate Governance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36: 113–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2016. Imagineering audit 4.0. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 13: 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2017. Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems 31: 5–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Debreceny, Roger, and Glen L. Gray. 2001. The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2: 47–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Debreceny, Roger, Stephanie Farewell, Maciej Piechocki, Carsten Felden, and André Gräning. 2010. Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the SEC. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29: 296–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Demirkan, Sebahattin, Irem Demirkan, and Andrew McKee. 2020. Blockchain technology in the future of business cyber security and accounting. Journal of Management Analytics 7: 189–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Desplebin, Olivier, Gulliver Lux, and Nicolas Petit. 2021. To Be or Not to Be: Blockchain and the Future of Accounting and Auditing*. Accounting Perspectives 20: 743–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Desyatnyuk, Oksana, Volodymyr Muravskyi, Oleg Shevchuk, and Mykhailo Oleksiiv. 2022. Dual Use of Internet of Things Technology in Accounting Automation and Cybersecurity. Paper presented at 2022 12th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, ACIT 2022, Ruzomberok, Slovakia, September 26–28; pp. 360–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dong, Yi, Oliver Zhen Li, Yupeng Lin, and Chenkai Ni. 2016. Does Information-Processing Cost Affect Firm-Specific Information Acquisition? Evidence from XBRL Adoption. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 51: 435–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Du, Jing, Yun Shi, Wanfu Li, and Ying Chen. 2023. Can blockchain technology be effectively integrated into the real economy? Evidence from corporate investment efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Research 16: 100292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dumay, John, and Linlin Cai. 2015. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16: 121–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Edquist, Harald, Peter Goodridge, and Jonathan Haskel. 2021. The Internet of Things and economic growth in a panel of countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 30: 262–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Faccia, Alessio, and Narcisa Roxana Mosteanu. 2019. Accounting and blockchain technology: From double-entry to triple-entry. The Business and Management Review 10: 108–16. [ Google Scholar ]
Faccia, Alessio, and Pythagoras Petratos. 2021. Blockchain, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and accounting information systems (AIS): Research on e-procurement and system integration. Applied Sciences 11: 6792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Faccia, Alessio, Mohamed Yousif Khamis Al Naqbi, and Saeed Ahmad Lootah. 2019. Integrated cloud financial accounting cycle. How artificial intelligence, blockchain, and XBRL will change the accounting, fiscal and auditing practices. Paper presented at ICCBDC ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Oxford, UK, August 28–30; pp. 31–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Faccia, Alessio, Narcisa Roxana Moşteanu, and Luigi Pio Leonardo. 2020. Blockchain Hash, the Missing Axis of the Accounts to Settle the Triple Entry Bookkeeping System. Paper presented at 2020 12th International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 16–18; pp. 18–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fang, Bin, Xinming Liu, Chen Ma, and Yusang Zhuo. 2023. Blockchain technology adoption and accounting information quality. Accounting and Finance 63: 4125–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fanning, Kurt, and David P. Centers. 2016. Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial Services. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 27: 53–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fullana, Olga, and Javier Ruiz. 2021. Accounting information systems in the blockchain era. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management 11: 63–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Garman, Amy D. 2022. Does Blockchain Technology Constrain Real Earnings Management? Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, and Ashley Stampone. 2019. A transaction on the blockchain: An AIS perspective, intro case to explain transactions on the ERP and the role of the internal and external auditor. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 47–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, Salem L. Boumediene, and Magdy S. Farag. 2023. The creation of one truth: Single-ledger entries for multiple stakeholders using blockchain technology to address the reconciliation problem. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 20: 59–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Greenhalgh, Trisha, Glenn Robert, Fraser Macfarlane, Paul Bate, and Olivia Kyriakidou. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 82: 581–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Grigg, Ian. 2024. Triple entry accounting. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17: 76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Haddud, Abubaker, Arthur DeSouza, Anshuman Khare, and Huei Lee. 2017. Examining potential benefits and challenges associated with the Internet of Things integration in supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28: 1055–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hall, James A. 2007. Accounting Information Systems , 5th ed. Issues in Accounting Education. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, vol. 22. [ Google Scholar ]
Hodge, Frank D., Jane Jollineau Kennedy, and Laureen A. Maines. 2004. Does search-facilitating technology improve the transparency of financial reporting? Accounting Review 79: 687–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hoitash, Rani, and Udi Hoitash. 2018. Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. Accounting Review 93: 259–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Iansiti, Marco, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2017. The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review 95: 118–27. [ Google Scholar ]
Ibañez, Juan Ignacio, Chris N. Bayer, Paolo Tasca, and Jiahua Xu. 2023. REA, Triple-Entry Accounting and Blockchain: Converging Paths to Shared Ledger Systems. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Inghirami, Iacopo Ennio. 2020. Accounting Information Systems: The Scope of Blockchain Accounting. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation 38: 107–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jarašūnienė, Aldona, Kristina Čižiūnienė, and Audrius Čereška. 2023. Research on Impact of IoT on Warehouse Management. Sensors 23: 2213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Karajovic, Maria, Henry M. Kim, and Marek Laskowski. 2019. Thinking Outside the Block: Projected Phases of Blockchain Integration in the Accounting Industry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 319–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Karmańska, Anna. 2021. Internet of Things in the Accounting Field. Benefits and Challenges. Operations Research and Decisions 31: 23–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kim, Jeong-Bon, Joung W. Kim, and Jee-Hae Lim. 2019. Does XBRL Adoption Constrain Earnings Management? Early Evidence from Mandated U.S. Filers. Contemporary Accounting Research 36: 2610–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kitchenham, Barbara. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering . Technical Report, Ver. 2.3. EBSE. Staffordshire: Keele University. [ Google Scholar ]
Kokina, Julia, Ruben Mancha, and Dessislava Pachamanova. 2017. Blockchain: Emergent industry adoption and implications for accounting. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14: 91–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Le, Van Thanh, Claus Pahl, Nabil El Ioini, and Gianfranco D’Atri. 2019. Enabling Financial Reports Transparency and Trustworthiness using Blockchain Technology. International Journal on Advances in Securiity 12: 236–47. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Pahl/publication/338622025_Enabling_Financial_Reports_Transparency_and_Trustworthiness_using_Blockchain_Technology/links/5e2008b6a6fdcc10156c35f5/Enabling-Financial-Reports-Transparency-and-Trustworthiness-using- (accessed on 28 March 2024).
Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C. Gøtzsche, John PA Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Philip J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6: e1000100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Liu, Chunhui, Xin Robert Luo, and Fu Lee Wang. 2017. An empirical investigation on the impact of XBRL adoption on information asymmetry: Evidence from Europe. Decision Support Systems 93: 42–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lombardi, Rosa, and Giustina Secundo. 2020. The digital transformation of corporate reporting–a systematic literature review and avenues for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research 29: 1179–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lu, Yang. 2018. Blockchain and the related issues: A review of current research topics. Journal of Management Analytics 5: 231–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mainelli, Michael, and Mike Smith. 2015. Sharing Ledgers for Sharing Economies: An Exploration of Mutual Distributed Ledgers (Aka Blockchain Technology). Journal of Financial Perspectives 3: 38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
Maiti, Moinak, Ivan Kotliarov, and Vitalii Lipatnikov. 2021. A future triple entry accounting framework using blockchain technology. Blockchain: Research and Applications 2: 100037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mashayekhy, Yasaman, Amir Babaei, Xue-Ming Yuan, and Anrong Xue. 2022. Impact of Internet of Things (IoT) on Inventory Management: A Literature Survey. Logistics 6: 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Massaro, Maurizio, John Dumay, and James Guthrie. 2016. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 29: 767–801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mayapada, Arung Gihna, Muhammad Afdhal, and Rahmi Syafitri. 2020. Earnings Management in the Pre and Post eXtensible Business Reporting Language Period in Indonesia. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research 23: 29–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Min, Qingfei, Yangguang Lu, Zhiyong Liu, Chao Su, and Bo Wang. 2019. Machine Learning based Digital Twin Framework for Production Optimization in Petrochemical Industry. International Journal of Information Management 49: 502–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mistry, Ishan, Sudeep Tanwar, Sudhanshu Tyagi, and Neeraj Kumar. 2020. Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for industrial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 135: 106382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and T. PRISMA Group*. 2009. Reprint-Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moll, Jodie, and Ogan Yigitbasioglu. 2019. The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. British Accounting Review 51: 100833. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Muthulakshmi, S., and R. Chitra. 2022. IoT technologies, applications and challenges, blockchain and its role in IoT: A survey. International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions 12: 321–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available online: https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2024).
Nord, Jeretta Horn, Alex Koohang, and Joanna Paliszkiewicz. 2019. The Internet of Things: Review and theoretical framework. Expert Systems with Applications 133: 97–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
O’Leary, Daniel E. 2017. Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 24: 138–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Palas, Rimona, and Amos Baranes. 2019. Making investment decisions using XBRL filing data. Accounting Research Journal 32: 587–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Palmaccio, Matteo, Grazia Dicuonzo, and Zhanna S. Belyaeva. 2021. The internet of things and corporate business models: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research 131: 610–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Paul, Justin, and Alex Rialp Criado. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review 29: 101717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Payne, Rick. 2019. The Internet of Things and Accounting: Lessons from China . London: ICAEW thought Leadership Business and Management Faculty. [ Google Scholar ]
Peters, Gareth W., and Efstathios Panayi. 2016. Understanding Modern Banking Ledgers through Blockchain Technologies: Future of Transaction Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money . New Economic Windows. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pilkington, Marc. 2016. Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. In Research Handbook on Digital Transformations . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pinsker, Robert, and Shaomin Li. 2008. Costs and benefits of XBRL adoption: Early evidence. Communications of the ACM 51: 47–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pizzi, Simone, Andrea Caputo, Andrea Venturelli, and Fabio Caputo. 2022. Embedding and managing blockchain in sustainability reporting: A practical framework. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 13: 545–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Romney, Marshall, Paul Steinbart, Joseph Mula, Ray McNamara, and Trevor Tonkin. 2012. Accounting Information Systems Australasian Edition . Frenchs Forest: Pearson Higher Education AU. [ Google Scholar ]
Roszkowska, Paulina. 2021. Fintech in financial reporting and audit for fraud prevention and safeguarding equity investments. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 17: 164–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rozario, Andrea M., and Chanta Thomas. 2019. Reengineering the audit with blockchain and smart contracts. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 21–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ruan, Lei, Heng Liu, and Sang-Bing Jason Tsai. 2021. XBRL Adoption and Capital Market Information Efficiency. Journal of Global Information Management 29: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Salah, Khaled, M. Habib Ur Rehman, Nishara Nizamuddin, and Ala Al-Fuqaha. 2019. Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges. IEEE Access 7: 10127–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Saraiva, Helena IB, and Paulo AA Vieira. 2023. Accounting systems with smart contracts: Building accounting records in blockchain step by step. In Accounting and Financial Reporting Challenges for Government, Non-Profits, and the Private Sector . Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 58–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Schmitz, Jana, and Giulia Leoni. 2019. Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda. Australian Accounting Review 29: 331–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Serag, Asmaa. 2022. A proposed framework for integrating XBRL and blockchain to improve financial reporting transparency and integrity: XBRL Chain. Scientific Journal of Financial and Commercial Studies and Research 3: 497–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shapovalova, Alla, Olena Kuzmenko, Oleh Polishchuk, Tetyana Larikova, and Zoriana Myronchuk. 2023. Modernisation of the National Accounting and Auditing System Using Digital Transformation Tools. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 4: 33–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sherif, Karma, and Hania Mohsin. 2021. The effect of emergent technologies on accountant`s ethical blindness. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 21: 61–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Song, Li. 2022. Construction of Accounting Internal Control Management Platform Based on IoT Cloud Computing. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2022: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Swan, Melanie. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis . Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Tan, Boon Seng, and Kin Yew Low. 2019. Blockchain as the Database Engine in the Accounting System. Australian Accounting Review 29: 312–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tawiah, Vincent, and Hela Borg. 2022. Impact of XBRL adoption on financial reporting quality: A global evidence. Accounting Research Journal 35: 815–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Thies, Simon, Marko Kureljusic, Erik Karger, and Thilo Krämer. 2023. Blockchain-Based Triple-Entry Accounting: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Information Systems 37: 101–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Thorpe, Richard, Robin Holt, Allan Macpherson, and Luke Pittaway. 2005. Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 7: 257–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Uckelmann, Dieter, and Mark Harrison. 2010. Integrated billing mechanisms in the Internet of Things to support information sharing and enable new business opportunities. International Journal of RF Technologies: Research and Applications 2: 73–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Valentinetti, Diego, and Francisco Flores Muñoz. 2021. Internet of things: Emerging impacts on digital reporting. Journal of Business Research 131: 549–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Van Niekerk, Anja, and Riaan Rudman. 2019. Risks, controls and governance associated with internet of things technologies on accounting information. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research 21: 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
Varriale, Vincenzo, Antonello Cammarano, Francesca Michelino, and Mauro Caputo. 2023. Integrating blockchain, RFID and IoT within a cheese supply chain: A cost analysis. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 34: 100486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wahab, Z. Abd. 2019. Integrating XBRL and Block Chain to Improve Corporate Transparency Integrity and Availability in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1194–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wang, Xiongyuan, Luofan Bu, and Xuan Peng. 2021. Internet of things adoption, earnings management, and resource allocation efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Studies 9: 333–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wang, Yunsen, and Alexander Kogan. 2018. Designing confidentiality-preserving Blockchain-based transaction processing systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 30: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wang, Zhenkun, and Simon S. Gao. 2012. Are XBRL-based Financial Reports Better than Non-XBRL Reports? A Quality Assessment. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 6: 511–16. [ Google Scholar ]
Watson, Richard T., and Jane Webster. 2020. Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. Journal of Decision Systems 29: 129–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26: xiii–xxiii. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wu, Jiapeng, Feng Xiong, and Cheng Li. 2019. Application of internet of things and blockchain technologies to improve accounting information quality. IEEE Access 7: 100090–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Xiao, Zhiliang. 2017. A Comparative Study on the Architecture Internet of Things and its’ Implementation method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 81: 012192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yermack, David. 2017. Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance 21: 7–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yoon, Hyungwook, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek. 2011. Does XBRL adoption reduce information asymmetry? Journal of Business Research 64: 157–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yu, Ting, Zhiwei Lin, and Qingliang Tang. 2018. Blockchain: The Introduction and Its Application in Financial Accounting. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 29: 37–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zghaibeh, Manaf. 2023. A Blockchain-Based, Smart Contract and IoT-Enabled Recycling System. The Journal of The British Blockchain Association 7: 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhang, Fan, Ethan Cecchetti, Kyle Croman, Ari Juels, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Town crier: An authenticated data feed for smart contracts. Paper presented at ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24–28. [ Google Scholar ]
Zhang, Yanan, Yuyan Guan, and Jeong-Bon Kim. 2019. XBRL adoption and expected crash risk. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 38: 31–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhang, Yu, and Jiangtao Wen. 2017. The IoT electric business model: Using blockchain technology for the internet of things. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 10: 983–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhang, Yuan, and Cuiping Guan. 2023. Research on the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Real Earnings Management of Listed Companies. Open Journal of Accounting 12: 85–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Studies within the fields of business, management, and accounting.	Studies out of the fields of business, management, and accounting
English studies	Studies in languages other than English
Peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and books	Conference papers, notes
Accessible studies	Inaccessible studies
Studies related to the variables of the study	Studies not related to the variables of the study
From 2013 to 2023	Duplicated studies

Journal	Number of Papers
Journal of Information Systems	34
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting	25
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems	12
International Journal of Digital Accounting Research	9
International Journal of Accounting and Information Management	9
Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice	8
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal	8
Australian Accounting Review	6
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy	6
Accounting Perspectives	6
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting	6
Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal	5
Decision Support Systems	5
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management	5
Accounting and Finance	4
Quality—Access to Success	4
Accounting Research Journal	3
Journal of Business Research	3
Journal of Risk and Financial Management	3

Title	Authors	Citation
Toward Blockchain-Based Accounting and Assurance	( )	377
The Role of Internet-Related Technologies in Shaping the Work of Accountants: New Directions for Accounting Research	( )	187
Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda	( )	165
Configuring Blockchain Architectures for Transaction Information in Blockchain Consortiums: The Case of Accounting and Supply Chain Systems	( )	163
Blockchain: Emergent Industry Adoption and Implications for Accounting	( )	163

Title	Authors	Citation
Machine Learning-Based Digital Twin Framework for Production Optimization in the Petrochemical Industry	( )	245
The Internet of Things and Corporate Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review	( )	46
The Internet of Things and Economic Growth in a Panel of Countries	( )	34
Demand Effects of the Internet-of-Things Sales Channel: Evidence from Automating the Purchase Process	( )	11
Integrated Billing Mechanisms in the Internet of Things to Support Information Sharing and Enable New Business Opportunities	( )	7

Title	Authors	Citation
Does Search-Facilitating Technology Improve the Transparency of Financial Reporting?	( )	298
The Production and Use of Semantically Rich Accounting Reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL	( )	170
Does It Add Up? Early Evidence on the Data Quality of XBRL Filings to the SEC	( )	140
Does XBRL Adoption Reduce Information Asymmetry?	( )	133
Measuring Accounting Reporting Complexity with XBRL	( )	113

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Nofel, M.; Marzouk, M.; Elbardan, H.; Saleh, R.; Mogahed, A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2024 , 17 , 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel M, Marzouk M, Elbardan H, Saleh R, Mogahed A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management . 2024; 17(8):372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel, Mohamed, Mahmoud Marzouk, Hany Elbardan, Reda Saleh, and Aly Mogahed. 2024. "Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17, no. 8: 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 1249 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Headwinds to Understanding Stress Response Physiology: A Systematic Review Reveals Mismatch between Real and Simulated Marine Heatwaves

Find this author on Google Scholar
Find this author on PubMed
Search for this author on this site
ORCID record for Harmony A. Martell
For correspondence: [email protected]
Info/History
Preview PDF

Laboratory experiments have long been used to guide predictions of organismal stress in response to our rapidly changing climate. However, the ability to simulate real world conditions in the laboratory can be a major barrier to prediction accuracy, creating obstacles to efforts informing ecosystem conservation and management. Capitalizing on an extensive experimental literature of coral bleaching physiology, we performed a systematic review of the literature and assembled a database to identify the methods being used to measure coral bleaching in heating experiments and assess how closely heating experiments resembled marine heatwaves (MHWs) on coral reefs. Observations of the maximum photochemical yield of Photosystem II (FV/FM), though not a direct measure of bleaching, vastly outnumbered Symbiodiniaceae density and chlorophyll (ug cm-2, pg cell-1) observations in the available literature, indicating the widespread misuse of FV/FM as a proxy for coral bleaching. Laboratory studies in our database used significantly higher maximum temperatures, degree heating times (~ 1.7 x) and heating rates (~ 7.3 x), and significantly shorter durations (~ 1.5 x) than MHWs on coral reefs. We then asked whether exposure differences between lab and reef altered the relationship between coral bleaching and heating metrics using the example of hormesis, the biphasic dose response wherein low to moderate doses elicit some benefit, while high doses are deleterious. We fit curves on the data both with and without ecologically relevant heating metrics and found hormetic curves in some response variables were altered with the exclusion of exposures that fell outside of the bounds of MHWs on coral reefs. Differences between lab exposures and real-world MHWs were large enough to alter the relationships, indicating a high likelihood of prediction error. We recommend laboratory-based studies of coral bleaching use ecologically relevant exposures to improve our predictions of the coral physiological response to our rapidly warming oceans.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

EndNote (tagged)
EndNote 8 (xml)
RefWorks Tagged
Ref Manager
Tweet Widget
Facebook Like
Google Plus One

Subject Area

Animal Behavior and Cognition (5532)
Biochemistry (12585)
Bioengineering (9466)
Bioinformatics (30873)
Biophysics (15872)
Cancer Biology (12954)
Cell Biology (18546)
Clinical Trials (138)
Developmental Biology (10018)
Ecology (14998)
Epidemiology (2067)
Evolutionary Biology (19185)
Genetics (12758)
Genomics (17564)
Immunology (12709)
Microbiology (29755)
Molecular Biology (12389)
Neuroscience (64843)
Paleontology (480)
Pathology (2008)
Pharmacology and Toxicology (3463)
Physiology (5345)
Plant Biology (11114)
Scientific Communication and Education (1729)
Synthetic Biology (3065)
Systems Biology (7695)
Zoology (1732)

IMAGES

14+ Literature Review Examples
Types of Literature Review
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab
Systematic Literature Review Methodology
Methodology Sample In Research
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

COMMENTS

How to Write a Literature Review
A Review of the Theoretical Literature" (Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.) Example literature review #2: "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines" ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and ...
Methodological Review
A typology of literature reviews. A methodological review is a type of systematic secondary research (i.e., research synthesis) which focuses on summarising the state-of-the-art methodological practices of research in a substantive field or topic" (Chong et al, 2021).
Literature review as a research methodology: An ...
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
PDF METHODOLOGY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Therefore, the CLR is a meta-framework. For example, in Step 1: Exploring Beliefs and Topics, we provide many parts of the belief system, such as worldview, field/discipline-specific beliefs, and topic-specific beliefs. We imagine that if a person holds many beliefs on one issue, he/she might have a meta-belief system.
Methodological Approaches to Literature Review
This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources. Identify themes, debates and gaps.
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations. EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic.
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
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.
How To Write A Literature Review (+ Free Template)
As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I'll break down into three steps: Finding the most suitable literature. Understanding, distilling and organising the literature. Planning and writing up your literature review chapter. Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter.
Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies
A third objective for a methods review is to offer clarity and enhance collective understanding regarding a specific methods topic that may be characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency, or a lack of comprehensiveness within the available methods literature. An example of this is a overview whose objective was to review the inconsistent ...
An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews
Included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches used for defining the review scope and eligibility, literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal in the SR process. Limited evidence supports the following (a) searching multiple resources (electronic databases, handsearching, and reference lists) to identify ...
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature ...
Literature Review Example (PDF + Template)
If you're working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter, you've come to the right place.. In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction.We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template.
Literature Review: Conducting & Writing
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style This link opens in a new window; Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window; MLA Style This link opens in a new window; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!
(PDF) Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An overview and
Literature review plays a significant role as a guideline for everyone's investigative. forms. They may be the foundationforthegrowth of awareness, establish policies. and practicesprotocols ...
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship ...
Literature Review
Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ...
How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for
Overview. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., articles, conference proceedings, books, dissertations) through a systematic procedure .An SLR updates the reader with current literature about a subject .The goal is to review critical points of current knowledge on a topic about research ...
Research Methods: Literature Reviews
A literature review involves researching, reading, analyzing, evaluating, and summarizing scholarly literature (typically journals and articles) about a specific topic. The results of a literature review may be an entire report or article OR may be part of a article, thesis, dissertation, or grant proposal.
How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for
Method details Overview. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., articles, conference proceedings, books, dissertations) through a systematic procedure [12].An SLR updates the reader with current literature about a subject [6].The goal is to review critical points of current knowledge on a ...
Learn about Methodological Literature Reviews
Sage Research Methods community highlighted this useful collection with a series of interviews and related resources in 2023. Review research is an broad term that describes various types of review articles.Kunisch et al. (2023) define it as . a class of research inquiries that employ scientific methods to analyze and synthesize prior research to develop new knowledge for academia, practice ...
Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management
The present methodological literature review (cf. Aguinis et al., 2020) addresses this void and aims to identify the dominant approaches to sample selection and provide insights into essential choices in this step of systematic reviews, with a particular focus on management research.To follow these objectives, I have critically reviewed systematic reviews published in the two most prominent ...
Steps in the Literature Review Process
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review by Andrew Booth; Anthea Sutton; Diana Papaioannou Showing you how to take a structured and organized approach to a wide range of literature review types, this book helps you to choose which approach is right for your research. Packed with constructive tools, examples, case studies and hands-on exercises, the book covers the full range of ...
Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search
This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RR) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. In this paper, we address considerations for RR searches. We cover the main areas relevant to the search process: preparation and ...
JRFM
This paper employs a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology, specifically, by adopting the widely accepted PRISMA technique. The final sample of this study included 309 related studies from 2013 to 2023. Our findings highlight the lack of literature related to the integration of these three types of technologies within a unified AIS ...
Headwinds to Understanding Stress Response Physiology: A ...
Laboratory experiments have long been used to guide predictions of organismal stress in response to our rapidly changing climate. However, the ability to simulate real world conditions in the laboratory can be a major barrier to prediction accuracy, creating obstacles to efforts informing ecosystem conservation and management. Capitalizing on an extensive experimental literature of coral ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Which review is that? A guide to review types

Methodological Review

Further Reading/Resources

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Author information

Corresponding author

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Literature Review Example/Sample

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

How do I get the literature review template?

Is the template really free?

Psst… there’s more!

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An overview and guidelines

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

Table of Contents

How to write a good literature review

What is a literature review?

What is the purpose of literature review?

Literature review example

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Conducting a literature review

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

Select Databases for Searches:

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

Review the Literature:

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Frequently asked questions

Related Reads:

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

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review