literature review 5cs

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

To help you frame and write your literature review, think about these five c’s (Callahan, 2014):

• Cite the material you have referred to and used to help you define the research problem that you will study.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methods, and findings expressed in the literature.For example, describe where the various researchers agree and where they disagree. Describe the similarities and dissimilarities in approaches to studying related research problems.
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methods, approaches, and controversies apparent and/or described in the literature. For example, describe what major areas are contested, controversial and/or still in debate.
• Critique the literature. Describe which arguments you find more persuasive and explain why. Explain which approaches, findings, and methods seem most reliable, valid, appropriate, and/or most popular and why. Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what previous researchers have stated (e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, clarifies, etc.).
• Connect the various research studies you reviewed. Describe how your work utilizes, draws upon, departs from, synthesizes, adds to or extends previous research studies.

Research Methods, Data Collection and Ethics Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

The Literature Review

29 The Five ‘C’s of Writing a Literature Review

To help you frame and write your literature review, think about these five ‘c’s (Callahan, 2014).

• Cite the material you have referred to and used to help you define the research problem that you will study.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methods, and findings expressed in the literature.  For example, describe where the various researchers agree and where they disagree. Describe the similarities and dissimilarities in approaches to studying related research problems.
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methods, approaches, and controversies apparent and/or described in the literature.  For example, describe what major areas are contested, controversial and/or still in debate.
• Critique the literature.  Describe which arguments you find more persuasive and explain why.  Explain which approaches, findings, and methods seem most reliable, valid, appropriate, and/or most popular and why.  Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what previous researchers have stated (e.g. asserts, demonstrates, argues, clarifies, etc.).
• Connect the various research studies you reviewed.  Describe how your work utilizes, draws upon, departs from, synthesizes, adds to or extends previous research studies.

An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology Copyright © 2019 by Valerie A. Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Licensing Information
• Contributing Authors
• 1. Let's Get Writing
• 1.1. The 5 C Guidelines
• 1.2. How to Write Articles Quickly and Expertly
• 2. Critical Thinking
• 2.1. Critical Thinking in the Classroom
• 2.2. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
• 2.3. Good Logic
• 3. APA for Novices
• 3.1. Hoops and Barriers
• 3.2. Crafts and Puzzles
• 3.3. The Papers Trail
• 3.4. The Fine Art of Sentencing
• 3.5. Hurdles
• 3.6. Small Stressors
• 4. Literature Reviews
• 4.1. Introduction to Literature Reviews
• 4.2. What is a Literature Review?
• 4.3. How to Get Started
• 4.4. Where to Find the Literature
• 4.5. Evaluating Sources
• 4.6. Documenting Sources
• 4.7. Synthesizing Sources
• 4.8. Writing the Literature Review
• 4.9. Concluding Thoughts on Literature Reviews
• Technical Tutorials
• Constructing an Annotated Bibliography with Zotero
• Extracting Resource Metadata from a Citation List with AnyStyle.io
• Exporting Zotero to a Spreadsheet
• APA 7 Job Aid
• Index of Topics
• Translations

The 5 C Guidelines

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Producing good academic writing is a difficult skill to master, and writing for an academic audience is different than writing for other audiences.

As an academic writer, you must approach topics differently than you might as a journalist or creative author, and you must emphasize certain skills, such as writing clearly, and ignore other skills that you might have been taught in other contexts, such as using expressive imagery.

To introduce you to this world of academic writing, in this chapter I suggest that you should focus on five hierarchical characteristics of good writing, or the “5 Cs” of good academic writing, which include Clarity, Cogency, Conventionality, Completeness, and Concision. I will now explain each of these in more depth and then discuss tensions between them in writing for different academic audiences.

"Ambiguity is very interesting in writing; it's not very interesting in science." — Janna Levin

Many of us were taught in writing courses that ambiguity and obfuscation of meaning are laudable, because they make our writing seem more complex, deep, and witty. And many of our favorite novelists likely use ambiguity and other tricks to make their writing seem mysterious and complex.

In academic writing, though, these practices simply suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about. For academics, writing is a way of uncovering truths and realities of the social and physical world, so we should say what we mean. We should make it clear, and say it so that it is impossible for our audience to misunderstand. If your imagined reader ever has to squint her eyes and muse “I wonder what the author really meant by this,” then you have failed. If your imagined reader ever smiles to herself and chuckles at your brilliant wordplay, then you have failed.

This is not to say that academic writing must be joyless and stodgy. It can be witty. It can be deep. But academic depth and wit come from the ideas portrayed through the words, not the words themselves. Too often, writers use ambiguity to hide sloppy thinking and beautiful language to hide destitute ideas. If you say something that could potentially be misunderstood, explain it. If a simpler word will do in place of a more complex one, then use the simple word. Don't be afraid of laying out complex ideas across multiple sentences or paragraphs, but use the space available to you to open up your mind to your reader — what exactly you are thinking, how you are thinking about it, and why.

If you use jargon, technical terms, or initialisms, then you should define or operationalize them. Defining a term means that you are relying upon someone else’s explanation of what the term means and are sticking with it (e.g., “Marwick defines ‘social media’ as…”). Operationalizing a term means that you are using a term that might mean multiple things but you are deciding to only use it in a very finite and specific manner (e.g., “In this paper, I use the word ‘engagement’ to mean…”).

In the case of initialisms, no reader should be expected to know what a PBL, SNS, LMS, CMS, or PBIS is by virtue of the letters themselves, and often even technical initialisms might have multiple meanings (e.g., PBL in education might refer to “project-based learning” or “problem-based learning”). So, when you use initialisms in your writing, define them at the outset (e.g., “positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)”).

If you find yourself repeating the same words over and over again, that’s okay; don’t use variety in your language just for the sake of variety, because in highly technical academic fields every word carries with it technical baggage that you may not intend. If I’m talking about a “curriculum,” then I shouldn’t swap this out with “program,” “module,” “subject,” or “materials” just because I’m tired of saying “curriculum;” each of these words means something very different, and using these terms interchangeably just shows my reader that I don’t understand the differences between them.

In short, other types of writing often rely upon ambiguity and obfuscation to prevent their underlying thought processes from being examined, but examination of these processes is the whole purpose of academic writing. We are not poets, politicians, or preachers, whose primary goals are to be convincing or mystical; rather, we are fellow learners that can only learn together insofar as we can clearly reason together through a dialogic process of clear writing.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." — Leonard Nimoy

Your writing should follow a logical pattern or argument. Arguments generally follow a pattern of identifying one or more assumptions, providing evidence, and drawing a conclusion, such as:

• Assumption - Test creators should design tests to be equitable to all learners who may represent various demographic differences (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender);
• Evidence - Specific research studies show that some prominent tests exhibit inequitable outcomes for students based on race and ethnicity;
• Conclusion - Therefore, test creators should seek to understand why such tests are biased toward some students and should seek to remedy this issue.

Once a conclusion is drawn, it can then be used as an assumption for a subsequent argument. This means that the overarching argument for a paper actually consists of many micro-arguments made throughout the paper that build upon one another like bricks in a wall. Essentially, each paragraph in an academic paper should be treated as its own separate argument, and these arguments then build off of each other to construct the overarching argument.

To help reveal your logical structure, each paragraph should generally represent its own argument. It should start with a topic sentence, provide evidence, and then draw a conclusion that you then build upon in the next paragraph. This is what people often refer to as logical flow: moving from one idea to another without any unsubstantiated gaps.

Since you must substantiate each claim that you make in an academic paper, you should also be careful not to overstate claims (e.g., using superlative language) and not to make claims that you cannot provide evidence for. Oftentimes, this is done by toning down language (e.g., "project-based learning can be an effective pedagogical strategy" [toned down] vs. "project-based learning is the best pedagogical strategy" [superlative]) and using helping verbs, such as may, can, and might (e.g., "social media use may contribute to student depression" vs. "social media make kids depressed"). By toning down your language, you introduce possibilities for doubt (which academics should always be open to) and also prevent your argument from being invalidated by a single counter-instance (e.g., "my kid uses social media and is not depressed, therefore your argument is invalid").

Conventionality

"Writing [without structure] is like playing tennis with the net down." — Robert Frost

In order to understand each other and to know what to expect when we are reading a new manuscript, we need some conventions to provide uniformity. If every article you read had a unique structure, formatting, spacing, capitalization, font size, style, tone, and so forth, you would have increased difficulty comparing it to other work that had gone before.

However, if every time you approach a new piece of writing you know what to expect and where to find it, you will be able to more efficiently recognize where to go and what to look for in the paper. Rather than hunting for the research question, you will know that it will be found right before the methods section and that results will be provided right after that section. Similarly, when you see a bolded and centered line of text, you will know that this means that a new top-level (H1) section is beginning and are not left to wonder why the author made such a bold stylistic choice.

For these reasons, groups of academics have sets of guidelines that they agree to follow, and in our field we follow the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Handbook (version 6).  That handbook covers everything from structure and formatting to style and tone, and theses, dissertations, and class projects require students to follow these same guidelines to help ensure that student work is written in a way that will allow it to be published to a wider audience.

APA Template

To assist you in following APA guidelines, you can access this Google Document that has proper APA heading formats built into it. Then, click on the Styles dropdown > Options and save the APA styles as your default styles, thereby making any new documents that you create in Google Drive follow the APA conventions.

Completeness

"Our duty is to believe that for which we have sufficient evidence, and to suspend our judgment when we have not." — John Lubbock

Since the goal of academic work is to inform as broad an audience as possible and to stand up under the scrutiny of diverse sets of eyes, you must flesh out your writing to address all of the major questions and doubts that your readers might have. Thus, you must not only make an argument that might be convincing to a few people, but you must include sufficient detail and explanation to allow your writing to hold under the scrutiny of the most critical reader. That is, you must write for your greatest critic, not your greatest fan.

This is why academic publishing relies upon peer review. The assumption of peer review is that the best way to ensure quality of writing is to put an author’s work in the hands of dispassionate, unbiased, and diverse experts who typically do not know the identity of the author. This allows reviewers to be honest in their feedback and prevents them from relying upon their personal relationships with or knowledge of the author to fill any gaps (e.g., “I’ve heard of Dr. Avila, and she’s done great work before, so I’m assuming that she did good work here, too”). Rather, every piece of academic writing must stand or fall on its own merits and not on the author’s prior quality of work or reputation.

To do this, you must be explicit and detailed, assume that your reader does not know or trust you as the author, and treat every piece of academic writing as a completely self-contained, self-sustaining, self-validating artifact.

"Brevity is the soul of wit."— William Shakespeare

Most journals in education and other social sciences have strict article word limits of 4,000 to 7,000 words, or roughly 20 to 30 double-spaced pages. This historically has been done to accommodate publishing limitations, because printing pages in a journal is expensive, but even in a digital world, with practically zero publishing costs for adding additional words, imposing limits helps to reduce information overload on readers and to drive more readers to your work.

After all, a moderately-interested reader is much more likely to read a ten-page synopsis of your dissertation than the 200-page document itself, and only the most devoted of readers will stick with it after 20 pages or so. This means that you as the author must not only meet all of the requirements established by the previous guidelines, but you must do it on a strict word budget that avoids unnecessary detail or repetition.

Tensions and Relative Importance

As you’ve probably guessed by this point, the demands of each of these guidelines sometimes conflict with one another. For instance, being complete might mean that you are not very concise, and being clear might reveal the irrationality or poor cogency of your argument. At such times, you must prioritize the guidelines to determine which to emphasize and which to ignore.

Depending on the type of academic writing you are doing, the way that you prioritize guidelines may vary. For instance, a journal article will normally value concision over completeness, due to publishing word limits and trying to make the article as accessible as possible to a wide audience, while a systematic literature review for a thesis or dissertation will do the opposite, requiring students to reveal all of their understanding of their topic and how it is situated within the broader field so that their committees can be assured that they actually know what they are talking about.

Similarly, a quantitative empirical paper will rely heavily upon the conventions established by the paradigm (e.g., p-values, effect sizes), while a qualitative empirical paper will need to provide completeness in its descriptions to allow for trustworthiness and at times ignore conventions. Theoretical papers will also often necessarily defy some conventions in favor of laying out a clear and cogent argument, because the proposed ideas will be new and will not neatly fit within existing reporting approaches but will nonetheless need to be argued in a reasonable and compelling manner.

All this is to say that though these guidelines are all important, their relative importance to one another varies by the context of the writing as determined by purpose, audience, and methods.

Relative Importance of the 5 Cs in Different Settings

By focusing on these 5 Cs and each of their relative importance for your writing context, you can begin to approach your own work in a manner that is systematic and self-reflective. If writing a thesis, for instance, I should start by asking myself "Am I including all pertinent information and details? Is my meaning clear? Is my logic sound? Am I following APA guidelines? And am I careful not to repeat myself or belabor my point?" If writing a theoretical argument for a journal, on the other hand, I should ask myself "Am I within the word limit for the journal? Am I following the journal's stylistic guidelines? Is my argument strong? Is my meaning clear? And do I cover everything that I need to in order to preempt any concerns?"

When asking these questions, something always has to give, such as cutting that explanatory paragraph to get an article under the journal’s required word limit or adding an additional paragraph to make it clear to your thesis readers that you understand the implications of what you’re saying. Through it all, however, each of these guidelines is generally important to follow, and you can only justify ignoring one temporarily in those cases where tensions exist and your intended audience requires you to prioritize another guideline in its place.

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/rapidwriting/5Cs .

The Ultimate Literature Review Guide

Maybe you are making a research paper, an undergraduate, master's, or doctorate dissertation, a research proposal, a term paper, or a thesis. If this describes you, you need to understand how to write a literature review because it is a critical component within the anatomy of these academic papers.

Usually assigned either as a stand-alone assignment or as part of a bigger assignment, writing a literature review requires keenness. It demands your attention and ability to read, critique, and reason with other authors.

The process of writing a literature review entails the searching and evaluation of available literature in a given subject or relating to your chosen topic. A literature review serves to document what others have said about your chosen topic.

It is not a book by book or article by article summary, neither is it not a descriptive list. Rather, a literature review must be defined by a guiding concept such as a research project, an objective, or essay question.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a piece of academic assignment where the author discusses published information in a given subject area and sometimes information in a given subject area within a certain period of time. It summarizes the synthesis of the concepts, insights, perspectives, and concepts from various sources organized in a specific format. It entails re-organizing, reshuffling, and sifting through the information, interpreting the old information, and combining it to form a new interpretation. A literature review can also trace the intellectual progression of a given field. Finally, it may evaluate the source and advise the readers on the most pertinent and relevant ones.

A literature review shows the readers that you have gathered in-depth knowledge about a given topic and understand where your research fits or adds to the existing body of knowledge.

It demonstrates familiarity with the body of knowledge and establishes your credibility. A literature review also presents a summary of prior research and says how your current project is linked to that research. It also integrates and summarizes the current knowledge about a subject. Finally, it demonstrates that you have acquired knowledge from others, and your research is now a starting point for new ideas. Unlike an argumentative essay, it does not give finality to a topic but instead expounds on a new way of looking at a topic.

A literature review is different from an academic research paper in that, while an academic research paper develops a new argument and likely contains a literature review as its part, a literature review summarizes, synthesizes, and critically analyzes the arguments and ideas of the other scholars or authors without adding new contributions. A literature review for a research paper or any other paper acts as a foundation and support for the new insights that the academic paper contributes.

The Purpose of a Literature Review Paper

You are probably wondering why you need to do a literature review. A literature review can be assigned as part of another assignment or as an independent assignment, just like an annotated bibliography.

A literature review helps you, the author of a research paper, term paper, or thesis, explain why you chose to approach your selected topic from a given perspective. It builds the understanding of the audience/readers concerning a specific topic.

If there is limited time to conduct research, literature reviews also give an overview and act as stepping stones for the research.

In the professional realm, literature reviews are regarded as special reports that update them with the happenstances in their field. For academicians, students, or scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review proves that one is credible and relevant to their field of study.

In general terms, literature reviews offer a strong background for investigating an issue, topic, or problem. It provides comprehensive knowledge that can be used to answer research questions, pass or refute a hypothesis, and adopt a given lens.

The four major objectives of a literature review include:

• It presents ideas, concepts, and perspectives from literature in an organized way
• It critically analyzes the information gathered through identifying the gaps in current knowledge, showing limitations of theories and perspectives, and formulating areas for further research as well as reviewing the areas of controversy
• It also synthesizes the information in the given literature into a summary
• It surveys the literature in a chosen area of study or one that touches on a given topic.

The Structure of a Literature Review

A literature review is structured like an essay or research paper. It has an introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction

The introduction of your literature review should do the following:

• Define the selected topic, provide the context of the literature review, and explain the scope of the literature review. For instance, if you are reviewing the literature on the impacts of COVID-19 on the tourism industry, you can elaborate on the main points emerging from major studies that have looked at the impact of covid on the broader hospitality industry, provide statistics, and then narrow down to the specific sector in the tourism industry that is affected. Do not state what your literature review will not be covering. Instead, focus on what it will be covering.
• Establish the reasons for the literature review
• Explain how the literature review is organized, i.e., the sequence of the literature review

Body Paragraphs

The body paragraphs of the literature review is where you run the show. Each body paragraph should:

• Have a topic sentence that specifies the contents of the paragraph
• Have necessary and relevant pieces of evidence, examples, or illustrations
• Be organized depending on the themes
• Offer insight on the relationship between your selected topic and the subject area
• Move from the general ideas or wider view to the specific focus of your research
• Expose the gap in the literature that your project, research, or study intends to fill
• Examine the past research in the area, highlighting the methodological and theoretical developments, areas of agreements, contentious or controversial areas, and essential studies
• Should be focused on your area or topic of interest
• States how the current work builds or responds to previous studies

Like normal academic papers, the conclusion should wrap up everything. It should:

• Provide a summary of the important points of the existing body of literature
• Establish a gap in the literature that supports the current study
• Evaluate the current state of the literature review
• Outline areas for future studies
• Illustrate how to overcome some of the limitations identified in the literature
• Link the research or study to the existing body of knowledge.

The conclusion summarizes what has emerged from the literature review and reiterates the conclusions.

Organization of Literature Review

You can organize the body of your literature review in different formats. Having a rough idea of the best strategy entirely depends on your choice, the research question, the length, and the scope of your literature review.

You can combine these strategies where necessary, especially if the literature review is longer.  For instance, you can adopt a thematic approach for your overall structure but take a chronological approach in discussing the themes.

Let's explore the various organizational strategies you can use when writing a literature review.

Chronological

A literature review organized through the chronological approach entails writing about the materials depending on when they were published.

The chronological approach is the simplest to adopt when tracing the development of a topic through time.

If you select this strategy, be ready to avoid listing and summarizing the sources in order as we do with annotated bibliography . Instead, summarize, synthesize, and compare and contrast ideas, turning points, points of view, and major debates that shape the direction of the field you are interested in. You should also present your interpretation of how and why some developments occurred.

By publication

When writing a literature review, you can also organize it using their publication chronology.

You can organize a literature review by trend. This way, you end up with sections that detail the eras within the specific periods when the change was noticed.

Thematic literature reviews are organized around a given topic, issue, or theme. This approach is excellent if you have identified recurring central themes and need to organize your literature review based on the themes. Doing so helps in streamlining ideas that relate to different aspects of the topic.

For instance, if you are reviewing the literature on childhood obesity, you can talk about nutrition, physical activity, genetics, advertising, social status, and other aspects related to childhood obesity.

Methodological

When you write a literature review with the methodological approach, your chief focus is on the methods of the researchers who conducted primary studies. In addition, you can look at the types of data collection methods (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods), sampling strategies, samples, data collection tools, and other aspects related to methodology.

It is best to explore how the topic has been developed through empirical and theoretical scholarship. You can as well categorize and classify the literature based on subject, points-of-view, and findings.

Theoretical

You can also arrange the body paragraphs of your literature based on the theoretical constructs, frameworks, or foundations of the past studies. Look at the theories, models, definitions, and frameworks that guided the studies.

For instance, if it's a leadership paper, check on leadership theories such as transactional, transformational, situational, contingency, and charismatic leadership theory. You can also look at the types of leadership or followership.

You need to argue for or against the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine different theoretical approaches to create a framework that guides your current research.

The 5Cs of a Literature Review

Given that a literature review is dense with information, the work must be intelligibly structured to allow easier readership, grasp the key concepts, and appreciate the purpose of a literature review. To achieve that, it is imperative to integrate the 5Cs (cite, compare, contrast, critique, and connect) into your literature review.

• Cite: The literature review must primarily focus on literature relevant to a given subject area or topic. The material or sources that you refer to and use should define the research problem you are studying.
• Compare: Your literature review must compare various arguments, methods, theories, findings, and approaches expressed in different literature. Describe how different researchers agree and disagree on issues and the similarities and dissimilarities of the approaches to studying related research issues.
• Contract: When writing your literature review, contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in literature. For instance, what are the major areas of disagreement or debate?
• Critique: As you write your literature review, remember to describe the arguments you find persuasive and explain the reasons for the same. Explain the approaches, methods, and findings that you deem reliable, relevant, and valid, and explain why. You also need to pay close attention to the verbs you use when describing the facts stated, asserted, expressed, argued, clarified by the previous researchers. Your literature review must be critical, more than just a summary of what others said. It should criticize the assumptions, values, and beliefs that influence the thoughts of the authors.
• Connect: Your literature review must also connect the various research studies that you have reviewed. Describe how the work uses, draws from, departs from, synthesizes, adds, or extrapolates the previous research studies. Connecting ideas in a literature review help to make it convincing as it enables you to gather and analyze facts better. It also becomes contributive in that it gathers the most relevant information to support research where there is none. Finally, it extends the current knowledge, theory, and point of view.

Above all, a good literature review has to be clear, concise, convincing, contributive, and critical.

The Six Proven and Tested Steps for Writing a Literature Review

Now that we understand the various aspects of a literature review let's look at the core steps that one takes when writing one. Follow these steps to write an excellent literature review without a struggle.

First Step: Conduct a comprehensive literature search

Before writing a literature review, you need to find out what other scholars have presented or published about your subject, field, or chosen topic. To do so, you need to conduct a comprehensive literature search. It is the first step when writing a literature review, and there are different strategies to do so.

Naturally, the first step for your literature review writing process entails scavenging for the existing research that is relevant to your topic. This step is standard whether you are writing a literature review for a proposal, dissertation, or literature review section for a research or term paper assignment.

However, if you are doing the literature review as an independent assignment, you must choose your focus and develop a central question that will direct your search. That is the question that enables you to collect good data. It is that question that you must answer through your literature review.

To conduct a good search, follow these tips:

1.      Define all the key terms

Begin by defining the research project or topic. And if you have a question, ensure that you internalize it at this point. Next, ask yourself the major concepts you need to feature in your literature review and compile a list of these keywords, related terms, and synonyms. These will be your seed keywords when developing a research strategy.

2.      Search for relevant sources

Using the keywords, you then begin searching for sources. There are various tricks and tips that you can use to get as many sources as possible then narrow down to the best. Here is where you put on the cap of a hunter, a researcher, or a scavenger. Here are some tips:

• Search through Google's academic search engine, Google Scholar for high-level journal articles, PDF publications, and studies that match your keywords. It is a free-to-access feature that every student uses to get quality articles.
• Use the university database to access the articles from the internet that required paying to access. For instance, an article on Google Scholar might redirect you to another databases whose access is paid for; your school database can help you download the article without having to pay.
• Snowballing from your journal articles can also be a great move. For instance, after reading a journal article and seeing that it fits your topic or research context, check its reference list section and select the relevant ones. Then, search them online and from the school database.
• You can also scavenge through dissertations from ProQuest, Stanford SearchWorks, EBSCO, and Open Access Theses & Dissertations, to find sources that address your research topic. Finally, skim through the literature review section of the dissertation chapters and identify, extract, and store relevant literature sources. When selecting the sources, only choose peer-reviewed articles published within the last five years unless you are talking about seminal works.

Some other potential sources for your literature review apart from the library catalog of your university include INSPEC, Project Muse, Medline, EconLit, and JSTOR. Do not limit yourself; even the articles found on Science Direct can be good as long as they meet the criteria you have identified for your literature review. You can also check publisher websites, newspapers and magazines, conference papers, government publications, bulletins, and periodicals.

When searching for literature review, you can use Boolean operators to narrow your search and identify good sources. For example, you can use AND find sources that also contain more than one keyword, OR find the sources that contain a synonym of your keyword, and NOT exclude the results that contain certain unwanted terms.

You can select the articles to keep by reading the abstracts then judging whether they are fit for your question or work. If you have authors who are prominently cited in many sources, they are an authority, check out whether there are pieces of their work that can match your inclusion criteria.

Second Step: Organize, Clean, and Synthesize the sources

Assuming that you have your list of articles at this point, it is time to now clean out the bad and remain with what matters. You need to evaluate the sources further to determine if they are fit for entry into your literature review.

You need to begin by logging the reference information. For this, you can use online citation management tools such as Mendeley or Zotero. You are better of with these reference managers, and if you are patient enough, you can also use the MS Word Inbuilt reference manager. Keeping track of citations is necessary to avoid plagiarism. Besides, if you are to write an annotated bibliography or fill a literature evaluation table, it would be straightforward. Be sure to choose the appropriate citation style: MLA, APA, Harvard, Chicago/Turabian, or Oxford styles.

You can then further profile the contents of the articles based on major arguments, context, date, author, title, methodology, quotations, and notes. Of course, this means that you need to read every source and drop those that are not really reliable, credible, and relevant.

It would help if you took notes as you read the articles. These notes are beneficial once you begin writing. As a matter of fact, you can use an excel sheet to document different aspects of these sources.

If you want to synthesize the articles sufficiently, have an excel sheet with these columns:

• Author and publication information - write all the publisher, author, and publication details of the article.
• Keywords – list the keywords, concepts, vocabulary, or themes that recur in the article.
• Arguments – write the major arguments, points, or issues an article focuses on
• Context – list the context of the article: socio-economic, political, spiritual, etc
• Methodology – the data research methods used
• Quotes – the most outstanding quotes from the source
• Notes – any special notes about the source. For instance, how it supports your research or question.

After detailing the components of the articles, it is now time to synthesize the information. You can create mind maps, concept maps, or relationship diagrams. Here are some important questions to ask yourself:

• What problem is the author addressing?
• What major concepts stand out, and how does an author define them?
• What are the major themes, theories, methods, and models used?
• Is the research based on an established framework or foundation?
• What are the findings of the study?
• What are the limitations and strengths of the study?
• Does the research relate to other pieces of literature? How?
• How does the chosen research contribute to your topic or area of interest?
• What gaps are there in the current research?
• What further areas of research do the authors recommend, and is your research addressing these areas?

Third Step: Organizing facts for your review

Now that you know what the authors have argued or said, you need to organize the arguments of your literature review and determine the appropriate structure to use. Check whether there are links between sources you read and borrow ideas from your notes; identify the themes, debates, and gaps.

You can identify the trends and patterns in results, methodology, and theory over time and check the themes that recur in the literature. Also, check the debates, contradictions, and conflicts between authors on subjects. Next, list the pivotal publications or the seminal works that highlight landmark studies that developed theories or changed the direction of a given field. Finally, check if there is a missing link in the literature and weaknesses that must be addressed.

Doing the above step helps you contextualize your literature review. It also allows you to choose an appropriate approach to your literature review and show how your research addresses the deficiencies in past research and contributes to knowledge in the field.

Fourth Step: Choose an appropriate Structure and write an outline

As we explored earlier, there are different approaches. Whether you go for chronological, thematic, theoretical, methodological, trend, or publication, you need to have an introduction, body, and conclusion.

Write an outline of your literature review, which is more of a blueprint that will guide your writing process. A detailed outline is a skeleton that helps you to envision how the piece of academic task would be. It enables you to avoid writing then realizing you omitted or overdid a section.

Although you will most likely derail off your structure, it is best to have it so that you can trace where you are when writing. It also eliminates the wastage of word count on things that do not matter.

Allocate the most optimum word count limits for every section of your literature review based on their relevance to the overall structure.

Fifth Step: Write your Literature Review

Now that you have the blueprint – your detailed literature review outline, write up the paper confidently. The only barrier here can be writer's block and procrastination. Try to avoid these two barriers and work early enough to avoid the pressure of writing a literature review in a rush.

The first draft is just that, a draft with so many mistakes. So, write first, then edit later. Then, express your thoughts, arrange and rearrange them, refine the points, and focus on perfection later.

With the initial draft written, take a break for as long as time allows, minding the deadline so that you can develop an objective and fresh mind for revision.

Sixth Step: Revise, Edit, and Polish

Now that you have done what most people find challenging, you need to polish it to achieve the 100% mark. You can polish your literature review by sending it to the supervisor for criticism and comments. When you receive the feedback, you can then edit the paper.

Alternatively, share the draft with a colleague or editor and ask if they understand what you wrote. If you want a peer-to-peer editing program, you can use our online editing service. We have strict and experienced academic editors. These research specialists can come in handy when polishing your literature review. Remember, maintaining simplicity when writing your literature review matters more.

After all, is done, check your grammar, punctuation, language use, verbs, tenses, nouns, and formatting to ensure that you are all set, then submit for grading.

Tips and Tricks for Writing and Outstanding Literature Review

Here are a few tips and tricks from our literature review writers to help you finish your literature review assignment. These tips and tricks have been tried, tested, and proven to work. They can be your guiding principles when writing your literature review.

• Ensure that your literature review includes many primary data sources. Unfortunately, this is where most students err. Don't fall into the temptation of using secondary sources for their availability. Primary resources are the best for literature reviews.
• Describe the procedures used to identify the sources that you included in the literature review.
• Ensure that your literature review is not just a summary of sources; synthesize the contents of these sources.
• Connect ideas from different resources for coherent, clear, concise, and fitting analysis
• Ensure that your lit review is grammatically correct
• Check all the spelling and punctuation errors
• Never use first-person "I" or "you" in your literature review
• Plan and start writing your literature review later
• Stick to one academic formatting style
• Do not use descriptive and narrative approaches, be critical as well
• Evaluate the opposing opinions and draw conclusions
• Use quotes sparingly when writing
• Be selective with the information you extract from the source
• Use evidence to support facts and ideas
• Keep and maintain your own voice when writing
• Use caution when paraphrasing
• Revise and polish before submitting.
• Have works cited, references, or bibliography section
• Use headings and subheadings if necessary
• When choosing the sources, focus on relevance, authority, and currency.
• Evaluate the literature rather than just summarize it
• Connect the ideas in the literature to your research
• If it is a literature review for a research project, include the theoretical discussion about the selected methodology and argue why the research is necessary
• Compare and contrast the sources to each other instead of writing discrete sections for each source

Literature review checklist

• Did you outline the scope and purpose of the review?
• Have you identified appropriate source material mainly from primary and secondary sources?
• Have you written a draft and edited it carefully?
• Is your literature review submitted on time and in the correct format?
• Are the tenses correct?
• Have you appropriately placed the punctuations?
• Are the sources used listed at the end?
• Did you keep bibliographical records of all the researched material?
• Is each source critically reviewed?
• Have you organized all the material you obtained from the sources?
• Have you developed your approach?
• Are the sources used current, relevant, authoritative, appropriate, and purposeful?
• Is the literature review based on current literature?
• Does your literature review fill the gap in knowledge and literature?
• Does the literature review have balanced paragraphs?

We wish you the best of luck as you write your literature review; you will need it!

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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. 

Table of Contents

• 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: 

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!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Syntheis 101

How To Synthesise The Existing Research (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | August 2023

One of the most common mistakes that students make when writing a literature review is that they err on the side of describing the existing literature rather than providing a critical synthesis of it. In this post, we’ll unpack what exactly synthesis means and show you how to craft a strong literature synthesis using practical examples.

This post is based on our popular online course, Literature Review Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the full process of developing a literature review, step by step. If it’s your first time writing a literature review, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Literature Synthesis

• What exactly does “synthesis” mean?
• Aspect 1: Agreement
• Aspect 2: Disagreement
• Aspect 3: Key theories
• Aspect 4: Contexts
• Aspect 5: Methodologies
• Bringing it all together

What does “synthesis” actually mean?

As a starting point, let’s quickly define what exactly we mean when we use the term “synthesis” within the context of a literature review.

Simply put, literature synthesis means going beyond just describing what everyone has said and found. Instead, synthesis is about bringing together all the information from various sources to present a cohesive assessment of the current state of knowledge in relation to your study’s research aims and questions .

Put another way, a good synthesis tells the reader exactly where the current research is “at” in terms of the topic you’re interested in – specifically, what’s known , what’s not , and where there’s a need for more research .

So, how do you go about doing this?

Well, there’s no “one right way” when it comes to literature synthesis, but we’ve found that it’s particularly useful to ask yourself five key questions when you’re working on your literature review. Having done so,  you can then address them more articulately within your actual write up. So, let’s take a look at each of these questions.

1. Points Of Agreement

The first question that you need to ask yourself is: “Overall, what things seem to be agreed upon by the vast majority of the literature?”

For example, if your research aim is to identify which factors contribute toward job satisfaction, you’ll need to identify which factors are broadly agreed upon and “settled” within the literature. Naturally, there may at times be some lone contrarian that has a radical viewpoint , but, provided that the vast majority of researchers are in agreement, you can put these random outliers to the side. That is, of course, unless your research aims to explore a contrarian viewpoint and there’s a clear justification for doing so. 

Identifying what’s broadly agreed upon is an essential starting point for synthesising the literature, because you generally don’t want (or need) to reinvent the wheel or run down a road investigating something that is already well established . So, addressing this question first lays a foundation of “settled” knowledge.

Need a helping hand?

2. Points Of Disagreement

Related to the previous point, but on the other end of the spectrum, is the equally important question: “Where do the disagreements lie?” .

In other words, which things are not well agreed upon by current researchers? It’s important to clarify here that by disagreement, we don’t mean that researchers are (necessarily) fighting over it – just that there are relatively mixed findings within the empirical research , with no firm consensus amongst researchers.

This is a really important question to address as these “disagreements” will often set the stage for the research gap(s). In other words, they provide clues regarding potential opportunities for further research, which your study can then (hopefully) contribute toward filling. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a research gap, be sure to check out our explainer video covering exactly that .

3. Key Theories

The next question you need to ask yourself is: “Which key theories seem to be coming up repeatedly?” .

Within most research spaces, you’ll find that you keep running into a handful of key theories that are referred to over and over again. Apart from identifying these theories, you’ll also need to think about how they’re connected to each other. Specifically, you need to ask yourself:

• Are they all covering the same ground or do they have different focal points  or underlying assumptions ?
• Do some of them feed into each other and if so, is there an opportunity to integrate them into a more cohesive theory?
• Do some of them pull in different directions ? If so, why might this be?
• Do all of the theories define the key concepts and variables in the same way, or is there some disconnect? If so, what’s the impact of this ?

Simply put, you’ll need to pay careful attention to the key theories in your research area, as they will need to feature within your theoretical framework , which will form a critical component within your final literature review. This will set the foundation for your entire study, so it’s essential that you be critical in this area of your literature synthesis.

If this sounds a bit fluffy, don’t worry. We deep dive into the theoretical framework (as well as the conceptual framework) and look at practical examples in Literature Review Bootcamp . If you’d like to learn more, take advantage of our limited-time offer to get 60% off the standard price.

4. Contexts

The next question that you need to address in your literature synthesis is an important one, and that is: “Which contexts have (and have not) been covered by the existing research?” .

For example, sticking with our earlier hypothetical topic (factors that impact job satisfaction), you may find that most of the research has focused on white-collar , management-level staff within a primarily Western context, but little has been done on blue-collar workers in an Eastern context. Given the significant socio-cultural differences between these two groups, this is an important observation, as it could present a contextual research gap .

In practical terms, this means that you’ll need to carefully assess the context of each piece of literature that you’re engaging with, especially the empirical research (i.e., studies that have collected and analysed real-world data). Ideally, you should keep notes regarding the context of each study in some sort of catalogue or sheet, so that you can easily make sense of this before you start the writing phase. If you’d like, our free literature catalogue worksheet is a great tool for this task.

5. Methodological Approaches

Last but certainly not least, you need to ask yourself the question: “What types of research methodologies have (and haven’t) been used?”

For example, you might find that most studies have approached the topic using qualitative methods such as interviews and thematic analysis. Alternatively, you might find that most studies have used quantitative methods such as online surveys and statistical analysis.

But why does this matter?

Well, it can run in one of two potential directions . If you find that the vast majority of studies use a specific methodological approach, this could provide you with a firm foundation on which to base your own study’s methodology . In other words, you can use the methodologies of similar studies to inform (and justify) your own study’s research design .

On the other hand, you might argue that the lack of diverse methodological approaches presents a research gap , and therefore your study could contribute toward filling that gap by taking a different approach. For example, taking a qualitative approach to a research area that is typically approached quantitatively. Of course, if you’re going to go against the methodological grain, you’ll need to provide a strong justification for why your proposed approach makes sense. Nevertheless, it is something worth at least considering.

Regardless of which route you opt for, you need to pay careful attention to the methodologies used in the relevant studies and provide at least some discussion about this in your write-up. Again, it’s useful to keep track of this on some sort of spreadsheet or catalogue as you digest each article, so consider grabbing a copy of our free literature catalogue if you don’t have anything in place.

Bringing It All Together

Alright, so we’ve looked at five important questions that you need to ask (and answer) to help you develop a strong synthesis within your literature review.  To recap, these are:

• Which things are broadly agreed upon within the current research?
• Which things are the subject of disagreement (or at least, present mixed findings)?
• Which theories seem to be central to your research topic and how do they relate or compare to each other?
• Which contexts have (and haven’t) been covered?
• Which methodological approaches are most common?

Importantly, you’re not just asking yourself these questions for the sake of asking them – they’re not just a reflection exercise. You need to weave your answers to them into your actual literature review when you write it up. How exactly you do this will vary from project to project depending on the structure you opt for, but you’ll still need to address them within your literature review, whichever route you go.

The best approach is to spend some time actually writing out your answers to these questions, as opposed to just thinking about them in your head. Putting your thoughts onto paper really helps you flesh out your thinking . As you do this, don’t just write down the answers – instead, think about what they mean in terms of the research gap you’ll present , as well as the methodological approach you’ll take . Your literature synthesis needs to lay the groundwork for these two things, so it’s essential that you link all of it together in your mind, and of course, on paper.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

excellent , thank you

Thank you for this significant piece of information.

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Introduction
• Vision 2030
• Science for Better Business and a Better World
• Executive Summary
• Principles of Responsible Science
• Possible Actions
• Current Business School Research Eco-System
• Conclusion: Science for a Better World
• References and Authors
• RRBM Honor Roll
• RRBM Honor Roll Submission
• RRBM Dare to Care Dissertation Scholarships 2024 Winners
• RRBM Dare to Care Scholarship 2024 Call for Applications
• RRBM Dare to Care Dissertation Scholarships 2023 Winners
• RRBM Dare to Care Dissertation Scholarships 2022 Winners
• Philosophical Foundations of Responsible Research
• Category 1: Initiatives on improving research relevance
• Category 2: Initiatives on improving research credibility
• Category 3: Initiatives on improving the accuracy of research contribution assessment
• Presentations
• Conferences
• 2024 Responsible Research Summit
• 2024 Responsible Management Education Week
• Online Events
• Journal Special Issues
• Journal Practices
• Testimonials
• Impact Scholar Community
• 2024 “Responsible Research in Management” Award Call
• 2023 “Responsible Research in Management” Award Winner Announcement
• 2022 “Responsible Research in Management” Award Winner Announcement
• 2022 “Responsible Research in Management” Award Call
• 2021 “Responsible Research in Management” Winners Announcement
• 2021 “Responsible Research in Management” Award Call
• 2020 Responsible Research in Management Award Winners Announcement
• 2020 Responsible Research in Management Award Call
• 2019 Responsible Research in Management Award Winners
• 2019 Responsible Research in Management Award Call
• 2018 IACMR Presidential Award Winners
• 2022 AMA-EBSCO Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing Winners
• 2021 AMA-EBSCO Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing Winners
• 2021 AMA-EBSCO Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing Call
• 2020 AMA-EBSCO Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing Winners
• 2020 AMA-EBSCO Annual Award for Responsible Research in Marketing Call
• 2021 M&SOM Society Award for Responsible Research in Operations Management
• 2020 M&SOM Society Award for Responsible Research in Operations Management Call
• 2019 M&SOM Society Award for Responsible Research in Operations Management Winners
• 2020 EFA Best Paper Prize in Responsible Finance
• The Moskowitz Prize
• 2021 – “Business for a Better World” Dissertation Proposal Competition
• Inaugural OB Division Award for Societal Impact
• 2018 International Impactful Collaboration Award
• 2020 Ideas Worth Teaching Awards
• Founding Members
• Pioneering Institutions
• Individual Endorsement
• Institutional Endorsement
• Books & Reports
• Videos & Podcasts
• COVID-19 Insights from Business Sustainability Scholars
• Newsletters
• Working Board
• Executive Committee
• IRS Approval
• A brief history of RRBM
• Yearly activities
• Minutes of the meetings

The Five Cs Framework for Scholarly Writing

• Taking Action
• The Five Cs Framework for…

Speaker: Prof. Don Lange, Arizona State University

In a 2017 AMR ‘Editor’s Comments’ piece, along with Mike Pfarrer, I articulated a framework designed to help you organize your scholarly thinking. For shorthand, we can call it the ‘Five-Cs’ approach, as it consists of these five ‘building blocks’: common ground, complication, concern, course of action, and contribution. You might find this approach easy to remember and valuable to employ for a range of purposes, including idea finding, writing for scholarly publication, designing academic presentations, reviewing for scholarly journals and conferences, and reading and remembering the literature. In this presentation, I’ll teach that framework, and focus in particular on how to write a compelling introduction to an academic paper. That will also give me a chance to talk about how our framework reflects and complements the excellent advice offered by top writers, including Jay Barney, Adam Grant, Anne Huff, Barbara Minto, and Tim Pollock.

Time: Thursday, 31 March at 7am (Pacific) / 10am (Eastern) / 3pm (London). This webinar is scheduled for 90 minutes (including Q&A).

Registration: Please register here to receive a personalized Zoom link.

Recommended follow-up readings:

• Lange, D., & Pfarrer, M. D. 2017. Editor’s comments: Sense and structure—The core building blocks of an AMR article. Academy of Management Review , 42: 407–416.
• Barney, J. B. 2018. Editors comments: Positioning a theory paper for publication. Academy of Management Review , 43: 345-348.
• Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ–Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal , 54: 873-879.
• Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Minto, B. 2002. The pyramid principle (Third ed.). London: Prentice Hall Financial Times.

About the speaker

Donald Lange (PhD University of Texas at Austin) is the Lincoln Professor of Management Ethics at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. His research interests include individual- and situational-level drivers of good and bad behavior within and by organizations, antecedents and outcomes of reputation, the nature of corporate social (ir)responsibility, and stakeholder strategy. He is a past associate editor at Academy of Management Review.

For queries, please contact Ibrat Djabbarov i.djabbarov[at]cranfield.ac.uk

Literature Reviews: 5. Write the Review

• Library Basics
• 1. Choose Your Topic
• How to Find Books
• Types of Clinical Study Designs
• Types of Literature
• 3. Search the Literature
• 4. Read & Analyze the Literature
• 5. Write the Review
• Keeping Track of Information
• Style Guides
• Books, Tutorials & Examples

Qualities of A Good Lit Review

Create an outline, then summarize & synthesize.

Draft an outline for your review.   Read more about developing an outline here at the Purdue OWL site.

Summarize & Synthesize

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the topic.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration, noting contradictory studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way forward for further research.

Choose How to Organize Your Paper

Before writing, you should consider a few different ways of organizing or categorizing the literature you've looked at and consider prioritizing the readings, or grouping them by methodology or theme.

1.  Chronologically – Organizing your sources by the date of publication can show how scholarly perspective on a topic has changed over time.

2.  Thematically – Organizing by theme puts all of the sources with a similar focus together, making it very easy to see where differences in perspective emerge.

3.  Methodologically – Organizing by method, much like organizing by theme, puts similar sources together and illustrates what effect method has on final product.  

At a loss for words?

• Academic Phrasebank Check out this phrasebank of terms and phrases to use in your research papers.

Elements of the Literature Review

There are many different ways to organize your references in a literature review, but most reviews contain certain basic elements.

Objectives - Clearly describe the purpose of the paper and state your objectives in completing the literature review.

Background/Introduction – Give an overview of your research topic and what prompted it.

Methods - Describe step by step how your performed your evaluation of the materials.

Discussion/Body - The body contains the evaluation or synthesis of the materials.  Discuss and compare common themes and gaps in the literature. You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what issues the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies that build on your current findings.

Conclusion – A summary of your analysis and evaluation of the reviewed works and how it is related to its parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography - A list of the papers you discussed, aka References.  To learn more about different citation styles, visit the "Manage References and Citations" tab.

Writing Tips

Once you actually begin to write the review, stick to your outline and keep these tips in mind:

• Consider your audience.  Are you engaging with specialists in one discipline? Or generalists in more than one discipline?
• When writing for a more general audience, avoid jargon and strive for "plain English."
• When writing for a very specialized audience, consider using "plain English" anyway.
• Short paragraphs are easier to read than long paragraphs.
• Subheadings and subsections can help to underscore the structure of your review.
• Do more than just summarize the readings.  A lit review is not an annotated bibliography.
• Resist the temptation to refer to *all* the readings you've evaluated.  To begin with, focus on readings you've identified as essential or representative.
• Tell the reader how the literature intersects with your project -- how your project complements the existing literature.
• Be objective.  
• << Previous: 4. Read & Analyze the Literature
• Next: Keeping Track of Information >>
• Last Updated: Dec 29, 2023 11:41 AM
• URL: https://research.library.gsu.edu/litrev

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

Critical Analysis in a Literature Review

3-minute read

• 29th June 2015

A literature review is vital to any in-depth research , providing a foundation your work will build upon. Familiarizing yourself with the existing literature allows you to identify current debates in the field, ensuring that your work is up-to-date and addresses significant questions.

But a good literature review will require reading critically. This means deciding whether you agree or disagree with certain viewpoints, arguments and theories, rather than simply describing them.

It also requires being able to spot the flaws and strengths of particular studies, which can in turn help when developing your own ideas. To make sure you do this effectively, it’s worth looking for the following things.

1. Overgeneralizations

One common issue in research is the scope of its application, especially when dealing with limited sample sizes or when a study is generalized too broadly.

The conclusions of a psychological study conducted with all male participants, for instance, may not be applicable in the same way to female subjects.

2. Methodological Limitations

When writing a literature review, ask yourself whether the methods used for particular studies were appropriate.

For example, whether the study used a quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods research design can make a big difference to the conclusions reached.

3. How Well Explained is the Research?

When reading for a critical literature review, it is important to consider how well written the studies you examine are.

Find this useful?

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

Does the author explain their methods? Is enough detail provided for any experiments to be replicated? Are sampling, data collection and analysis techniques clearly identified? Does the conclusion follow from the results?

Asking these and similar questions will help you discern between good and bad research.

4. Identify Biases

Another important factor is to consider whether implicit biases might have influenced the research.

The term “confirmation bias,” for example, refers to the tendency to focus on evidence which supports one’s existing beliefs, which can lead to overlooking alternative hypotheses.

5. Challenge Your Own Assumptions

If you come across a study which seems to oppose your hypothesis, consider whether it presents good counterarguments to your own position. If it does, ask yourself whether this affects how you conduct the rest of your research.

The final point here is important because conducting a literature review serves two purposes . The finished literature review will help your reader to understand the background of your research, so critical analysis helps to clarify what your work contributes to the debate.

But comparing different studies and theories for a literature review will also help you to develop a research approach. The better your critical analysis, then, the better prepared you’ll be.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

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

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

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

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

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

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

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

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

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

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

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

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

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

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

Queen of Mathematical Hearts

The works of an overzealous math teacher

• Curriculum Vitae
• Presentations

Monday, February 16, 2015

The 5 c's of a literature review.

NTRS - NASA Technical Reports Server

Available downloads, related records.

• Case report
• Open access
• Published: 25 May 2024

Wandering spleen presenting in the form of right sided pelvic mass and pain in a patient with AD-PCKD: a case report and review of the literature

• Yitagesu aberra shibiru   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3645-9115 1 ,
• Sahlu wondimu 1 &
• Wassie almaw 1  

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume  18 , Article number:  259 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

310 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Wandering spleen is a rare clinical entity in which the spleen is hypermobile and migrate from its normal left hypochondriac position to any other abdominal or pelvic position as a result of absent or abnormal laxity of the suspensory ligaments (Puranik in Gastroenterol Rep 5:241, 2015, Evangelos in Am J Case Rep. 21, 2020) which in turn is due to either congenital laxity or precipitated by trauma, pregnancy, or connective tissue disorder (Puranik in Gastroenterol Rep 5:241, 2015, Jawad in Cureus 15, 2023). It may be asymptomatic and accidentally discovered for imaging done for other reasons or cause symptoms as a result of torsion of its pedicle and infarction or compression on adjacent viscera on its new position. It needs to be surgically treated upon discovery either by splenopexy or splectomy based on whether the spleen is mobile or not.

Case presentation

We present a case of 39 years old female Ethiopian patient who presented to us complaining constant lower abdominal pain especially on the right side associated with swelling of one year which got worse over the preceding few months of her presentation to our facility. She is primiparous with delivery by C/section and a known case of HIV infection on HAART. Physical examination revealed a right lower quadrant well defined, fairly mobile and slightly tender swelling. Hematologic investigations are unremarkable. Imaging with abdominopelvic U/S and CT-scan showed a predominantly cystic, hypo attenuating right sided pelvic mass with narrow elongated attachment to pancreatic tail and absent spleen in its normal position. CT also showed multiple different sized purely cystic lesions all over both kidneys and the pancreas compatible with AD polycystic kidney and pancreatic disease.

With a diagnosis of wandering possibly infarcted spleen, she underwent laparotomy, the finding being a fully infarcted spleen located on the right half of the upper pelvis with twisted pedicle and dense adhesions to the adjacent distal ileum and colon. Release of adhesions and splenectomy was done. Her post-operative course was uneventful.

Wandering spleen is a rare clinical condition that needs to be included in the list of differential diagnosis in patients presenting with lower abdominal and pelvic masses. As we have learnt from our case, a high index of suspicion is required to detect it early and intervene by doing splenopexy and thereby avoiding splenectomy and its related complications.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Wandering spleen is a rare clinical entity characterized by hypermobility of the spleen as a result of absence or abnormal laxity of its suspensory ligaments which in turn can be congenital or precipitated by a number of risk factors like repeated pregnancy, trauma, surgery or connective tissue disorder. The spleen therefore migrates from its normal left hypochondriac position, to other parts of the peritoneal cavity especially the pelvis [ 3 ]. Since the first case report in 1667, there have been less than 600 cases reported in the literature so far [ 1 , 3 ].

Wandering spleen can have different clinical presentations ranging from asymptomatic incidental finding on imaging to features of acute abdomen as a result of complete torsion of the pedicle and total infarction of the spleen or complete obstruction of adjacent hollow viscus due to pressure effect. Less dramatic presentation includes chronic lower abdominal pain, swelling and symptoms of partial obstruction of bowel especially of the colon [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Diagnosis is confirmed by imaging usually abdominal ultrasound or CT which reveals that the spleen is absent from its normal anatomical position but seen somewhere else in the new location within the peritoneal cavity [ 3 , 9 , 10 ]. Once diagnosed, surgical intervention is required either by splenopexy or splenectomy depending on the viability of the organ [ 3 , 5 ] and can be done laparoscopically or by laparotomy.

Owing to its rarity, a high index of suspicion is required and this condition should always be considered as a possible differential diagnosis in patients presenting with lower abdominal swelling and pain. We present this case to share our experience in diagnosing and managing such a rare pathology and once again bring it to the attention of fellow clinicians handling this sort of abdominal conditions.

Case summary

Our patient is a 39 years old female Primi-para Ethiopian, who presented with lower abdominal dull aching pain of one-year duration which got worse over the last few months associated with right lower abdominal swelling, easy fatigability, LGIF, loss of appetite and weight. She is a known case of RVI on HAART for the past 18yrs and hypertensive for the last 8 years for which she was taking enalapril and atenolol. Her only child was delivered by C/section 10 years ago.

On examination , she looked chronically sick with her vitals in the normal range. The abdomen was flat with a lower midline surgical scar and a visible round mass on the right paraumblical and lower quadrant areas. The mass was well defined, smooth surfaced, slightly tender and mobile (Fig.  1 —black arrow).

Black arrow shows the splenic mass, red arrow shows the stomach, cyan arrow shows previous CS scar

Her hematologic tests revealed WBC of 8.7 × 103, Hgb of 12.3 and PLT count of 544 × 10 3 . Serum electrolyte and liver function tests were all in the normal range. Creatinine was 1.4 mg/dl.

Abdominal ultrasound

Multiple bilateral renal, liver and pancreatic cysts. An ehcocomplex mainly hypoechoic, 13 cmx8cm well defined right sided abdomino-pelvic mass, with absent color Doppler flow. Spleen was not visualized in its normal anatomic site.

Contrast enhanced abdomino-pelvic CT

Described the mass as a hypoattenuating, well circumscribed lesion with no contrast enhancement located at right abdomino pelvic cavity (Fig.  2 ). Its long torsed pedicle could be traced to the region of the tail of the pancreas and the spleen was missing from its normal location. (Fig.  3 ) Majority of the renal parenchyma is almost replaced with different sized cystic lesions with imperceptible wall causing bilateral renal enlargement. (Fig.  3 ) The liver and the pancreas too is filled with similar cysts. The portal vein were not visualized and replaced by periportal enlarged collateral vessels. (Figs.  3 , 4 ).

Infarcted spleen

Absent spleen in the splenic fossa

Spleen seen in the abdomino-pelvic cavity

With a diagnosis of wandering spleen located in the right abdomino pelvic region with torsion of the pedicle and infarction, she was admitted and underwent laparotomy. Intraoperatively, dense adhesion encountered between the anterior abdominal wall, omentum, the wandering spleen and small bowel. The spleen was whitish, distended and grossly infarcted with its long stalk torsed > 360°. (Fig.  5 ) Adhesions were gently released and splenectomy done. The splenic mass was sent for biopsy.

The intra-op picture of our patient upon exploration

She was discharged on the 3rd postoperative day and her post-operative course was uneventful. She was seen after a month on follow up clinic with no report of complication. Her biopsy result showed splenic tissue. She got her pentavelant vaccine on the third week.

Wandering spleen is a rare clinical entity characterized by splenic hypermobility from its left hypochondriac position to any other abdominal or pelvic position caused by absent or abnormal laxity of the suspensory ligaments [ 1 , 2 ].

The first case of wandering spleen was reported by Von Horne in 1667. So far less than 600 cases are reported world wide [ 1 , 3 ].

Anatomically a normal spleen is found in the left hypochondriac region suspended by ligaments to the stomach, kidney, pancreas, colon and left hemi-diaphram by the gastrosplenic, splenorenal, pancreaticosplenic, splenocolic, splenophreni ligaments and presplenic folds [ 1 ]. Our patient presented with RLQ palpable abdominal mass which is against the commonest presentation being in the LLQ of the abdomen (Fig.  1 ).

It could result from either a developmental failure of the embryonic septum transversum to fuse properly with the posterior abdominal wall which results in absent/lax ligaments [ 4 ] or from acquired conditions that result in lax suspensory ligaments as in pregnancy or connective tissue disorders [ 3 ]. The spleen is found in any quadrant of the abdomen or the pelvis though mostly in the left quadrants attached only by a long and loose vascular pedicle. Our patient presented with RLQ mass.

It is mostly seen in multiparous women [ 4 ] though the incidence is found to be nearly equal in both sexes in the prepubertal age group [ 3 ]. Our patient was a Para 1 mother and presented with 01 year history of abdominal pain which got worse in the past 06 months. Otherwise she had no any other pressure symptoms. She had visible umbilical area mass which was mobile up on examination

Wandering spleen can have different presentation ranging from asymptomatic incidental finding on imaging or upon surgical exploration for other surgical conditions to a presentation that mimics acute abdomen [ 3 , 5 ]. Mostly it presents as an on and of type acute/ subacute non-specific abdominal pain due to torsion and spontaneous de-torsion of the loose splenic pedicle [ 3 , 4 ]. This chronic torsion results in congestion and splenomegaly [ 3 , 5 ]. Hence patients could have palpable mobile mass [ 6 ] which is the typical presentation of this patient. The other presentations are usually related to the mass effect of the enlarged spleen and patients could present with GOO, bowel obstruction, pancreatitis and urinary symptoms [ 3 , 6 ].

In some cases it is reported to be associated with some other disorders like gastric volvulus [ 7 ] and distal pancreatic volvulus [ 8 ].

Ultrasound is one of the imaging modalities to investigate patients whom we suspect had wandering spleen. It usually shows absent spleen in the splenic fossa and a comma shaped spleen in the abdomen or pelvis [ 9 ]. Doppler study might help us see the vascular condition and ads up to a better preoperative plan. CT scan shows absence of the spleen in the left upper quadrant, ovoid or comma-shaped abdominal mass, enlarged spleen, a whirled appearance of non-enhancing splenic vessels and signs of splenic hypo-perfusion: homogenous or heterogeneous decreased enhancement depending on the degree of infarction [ 3 , 9 , 10 ].

Our patient was scanned with US and showed 13*8 cm large midline abdomino-pelvic well defined oval mass which was predominantly solid with areas of cystic component with absent color Doppler flow. Otherwise the spleen was not visualized in the splenic fossa. Bilateral kidney and liver has multiple different sized cystic lesions. With this image Abdomino-pelvic CT was done and shows spleen is located in the lower abdomen and appears to have torsed vascular pedicle and the whole splenic parenchyma is hypodense and no enhancement seen. Majority of the renal parenchyma is almost replaced with different sized cystic lesions with imperceptible wall causing bilateral renal enlargement. The whole liver is filled with cystic lesions with imperceptible wall. The portal veins were not visualized and replaced by periportal enlarged collateral vessels (Figs.  6 , 7 ).

Usually surgical management is the rule once a patient is diagnosed with wandering spleen [ 3 , 5 ]. Most patients; 65% as reported in some studies will have torsion of the vascular pedicle at some point of their life [ 5 , 6 ]. Hence splenopexy or splenectomy shall be considered when a wandering spleen is found incidentally up on surgical exploration for some other purposes [ 6 ]. Complicated wandering spleen like infarcted, signs of hypersplenism, huge in size and splenic vein thrombosis needs splenectomy while others can be managed with splenopexy [ 3 , 5 , 6 ]. Nowadays though laparoscopic technique is the gold standard, open technique can be used for splenopexy and splenectomy [ 3 , 5 ].

Partial infraction of a wandering spleen might necessitate partial splenectomy and splenopexy or splenectomy and splenic implantation [ 6 , 11 ].

The spleen might get fixed by different methods [ 8 , 9 ].

Simple splenic fixation involves simple tacking the splenic capsule to the peritoneum

Retroperitoneal pouch splenopexy- Tissue [ 11 , 12 ]/Mesh splenopexy (sandwich technique) [ 13 ].

Omental and peritoneal pouch splenic fixation [ 14 ].

In our case, Spleen was absent from the normal anatomic splenic fossa and the spleen in the abdomino-pelvic area looks infarcted. Hence she was managed with splenectomy and the patient was extubated on table and having a stable postoperative course .

Wandering spleen is a rare form of splenic pathology. Such a rare pathology presents commonly as an acute torsion with infarction. Spleen in the RLQ with chronic torsion and infarction is a very rare presentation for wandering spleen. In addition there is no report of such a presentation in a patient with AD-PCKD.

Recommendation

We recommend Clinicians to consider wandering spleen in their differential diagnosis in a patient presenting with RLQ abdominal mass and chronic abdominal pain.

Availability of supporting data

Data related with this case report is available at Addis ababa university, Tikur Ambesa Tertiary Hospital.

Abbreviations

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Blood pressure

Low grade intermittent fever

High active anti-retroviral therapy

Right lower quadrant

Retro viral infection

Hypertension

White blood cell count

Puranik AK, et al . Wandering spleen: a surgical enigma. Gastroenterol Rep. 2015;5:241.

Google Scholar  

Evangelos K, et al . Wandering spleen volvulus: a case report and literature review of this diagnostic challenge. Am J Case Rep. 2020;21: e925301.

Jawad M. Wandering spleen: a rare case from the emergency department. Cureus. 2023;15(1): e33246.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ayaz UY, et al . Wandering spleen in a child with symptoms of acute abdomen. Med Ultrasonogr. 2012;14:64.

Masroor M, Sarwari MA. Torsion of the wandering spleen as an abdominal emergency: a case report. BMC Surg. 2021;21:289.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Blouhos K, et al . Ectopic spleen: an easily identifiable but commonly undiagnosed entity until manifestation of complications. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2014;8:451–4.

Article   Google Scholar  

Uc A. Gastric volvulus and wandering spleen. Am J Gastroenrterol. 1998;93:1146–8.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Alqadi GO, Saxena AK. Is laparoscopic approach for wandering spleen in children an option? J Min Access Surg. 2019;15:93.

Awan M, et al . Torsion of wandering spleen treated by laparoscopic splenopexy. Int J Surgery Case Rep. 2019;62:58.

Taori K, et al . Wandering spleen with torsion of vascular pedicle: early diagnosis with multiplaner reformation technique of multislice spiral CT. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29:09428925.

Fonseca AZ, et al . Torsion of a wandering spleen treated with partial splenectomy and splenopexy. J Emerg Med. 2013;44:e33.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Seashore JH, McIntosh S. Elective splenopexy for wandering spleen. J Pediatr Surg. 1990;25:270–2.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Soleimani M. Surgical treatment of patients with wandering spleen: report of six cases with a review of the literature. Surg Today. 2007;37:261.

Peitgen K. Laparoscopic splenopexy by peritoneal and omental pouch construction for intermittent splenic torsion (“wandering spleen”). Surg Endosc. 2001;15:413.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the managing team of this patient including all the ward staffs who played a great role in the peri-operative management of this patient. We also appreciate the support of our consultants, residents and member of the department of surgery and HPB unit. Our kind gratitude goes to the family of this patient for their unreserved support in post-operative period that helped for the fast recovery of this patient

Funding is not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Yitagesu aberra shibiru, Sahlu wondimu & Wassie almaw

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Yitagesu Aberra, Main author of this case report, is an HPB surgery fellow in the department of surgery, college of health science, Addis Ababa University who was the leading surgeon in the management of this patient. Dr. Sahlu Wendimu is an HPB surgery subspecialist and Assistant professor of General Surgery who was the consultant in duty during the management of this patient. Dr.Wassie Almaw is a 2nd year pediatric surgery resident attaching at HPB surgery unit who took part in the management of this patient.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yitagesu aberra shibiru .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical clearance is not applicable but we took oral and written consent from the patient for case presentation and publication.

Consent for publication

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

Competing interests

There is no competing interest in this case presentation.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

shibiru, Y.a., wondimu, S. & almaw, W. Wandering spleen presenting in the form of right sided pelvic mass and pain in a patient with AD-PCKD: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Reports 18 , 259 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04580-6

Download citation

Received : 02 December 2023

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 25 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04580-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Wandering spleen
• Splenic torsion
• Splenic infarction
• Splenectomy

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

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

Chemical Society Reviews

Chiral bisphosphine ph-bpe ligand: a rising star in asymmetric synthesis.

* Corresponding authors

a Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences (BNLMS), State Key Laboratory of Rare-Earth Materials Chemistry and Applications & Key Laboratory of Bioorganic Chemistry and Molecular Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Chemistry and Molecular Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +86-10-62751708 Tel: +86-10-62758294

b Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences, CAS Key Laboratory of Molecular Recognition and Function, Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

Chiral 1,2-bis(2,5-diphenylphospholano)ethane ( Ph-BPE ) is a class of optimal organic bisphosphine ligands with C 2 -symmetry. Ph-BPE with its excellent catalytic performance in asymmetric synthesis has attracted much attention of chemists with increasing popularity and is growing into one of the most commonly used organophosphorus ligands, especially in asymmetric catalysis. Over two hundred examples have been reported since 2012. This review presents how Ph-BPE is utilized in asymmetric synthesis and how powerful it is as a chiral ligand or even a catalyst in a wide range of reactions including applications in the total synthesis of bioactive molecules.

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

P. Mei, Z. Ma, Y. Chen, Y. Wu, W. Hao, Q. Fan and W. Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3CS00028A

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

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

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

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements