contents of empirical literature review

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

Module 2 Chapter 3: What is Empirical Literature & Where can it be Found?

In Module 1, you read about the problem of pseudoscience. Here, we revisit the issue in addressing how to locate and assess scientific or empirical literature . In this chapter you will read about:

• distinguishing between what IS and IS NOT empirical literature
• how and where to locate empirical literature for understanding diverse populations, social work problems, and social phenomena.

Probably the most important take-home lesson from this chapter is that one source is not sufficient to being well-informed on a topic. It is important to locate multiple sources of information and to critically appraise the points of convergence and divergence in the information acquired from different sources. This is especially true in emerging and poorly understood topics, as well as in answering complex questions.

What Is Empirical Literature

Social workers often need to locate valid, reliable information concerning the dimensions of a population group or subgroup, a social work problem, or social phenomenon. They might also seek information about the way specific problems or resources are distributed among the populations encountered in professional practice. Or, social workers might be interested in finding out about the way that certain people experience an event or phenomenon. Empirical literature resources may provide answers to many of these types of social work questions. In addition, resources containing data regarding social indicators may also prove helpful. Social indicators are the “facts and figures” statistics that describe the social, economic, and psychological factors that have an impact on the well-being of a community or other population group.The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are examples of organizations that monitor social indicators at a global level: dimensions of population trends (size, composition, growth/loss), health status (physical, mental, behavioral, life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality, fertility/child-bearing, and diseases like HIV/AIDS), housing and quality of sanitation (water supply, waste disposal), education and literacy, and work/income/unemployment/economics, for example.

Three characteristics stand out in empirical literature compared to other types of information available on a topic of interest: systematic observation and methodology, objectivity, and transparency/replicability/reproducibility. Let’s look a little more closely at these three features.

Systematic Observation and Methodology. The hallmark of empiricism is “repeated or reinforced observation of the facts or phenomena” (Holosko, 2006, p. 6). In empirical literature, established research methodologies and procedures are systematically applied to answer the questions of interest.

Objectivity. Gathering “facts,” whatever they may be, drives the search for empirical evidence (Holosko, 2006). Authors of empirical literature are expected to report the facts as observed, whether or not these facts support the investigators’ original hypotheses. Research integrity demands that the information be provided in an objective manner, reducing sources of investigator bias to the greatest possible extent.

Transparency and Replicability/Reproducibility.   Empirical literature is reported in such a manner that other investigators understand precisely what was done and what was found in a particular research study—to the extent that they could replicate the study to determine whether the findings are reproduced when repeated. The outcomes of an original and replication study may differ, but a reader could easily interpret the methods and procedures leading to each study’s findings.

What is NOT Empirical Literature

By now, it is probably obvious to you that literature based on “evidence” that is not developed in a systematic, objective, transparent manner is not empirical literature. On one hand, non-empirical types of professional literature may have great significance to social workers. For example, social work scholars may produce articles that are clearly identified as describing a new intervention or program without evaluative evidence, critiquing a policy or practice, or offering a tentative, untested theory about a phenomenon. These resources are useful in educating ourselves about possible issues or concerns. But, even if they are informed by evidence, they are not empirical literature. Here is a list of several sources of information that do not meet the standard of being called empirical literature:

• your course instructor’s lectures
• political statements
• advertisements
• newspapers & magazines (journalism)
• television news reports & analyses (journalism)
• many websites, Facebook postings, Twitter tweets, and blog postings
• the introductory literature review in an empirical article

You may be surprised to see the last two included in this list. Like the other sources of information listed, these sources also might lead you to look for evidence. But, they are not themselves sources of evidence. They may summarize existing evidence, but in the process of summarizing (like your instructor’s lectures), information is transformed, modified, reduced, condensed, and otherwise manipulated in such a manner that you may not see the entire, objective story. These are called secondary sources, as opposed to the original, primary source of evidence. In relying solely on secondary sources, you sacrifice your own critical appraisal and thinking about the original work—you are “buying” someone else’s interpretation and opinion about the original work, rather than developing your own interpretation and opinion. What if they got it wrong? How would you know if you did not examine the primary source for yourself? Consider the following as an example of “getting it wrong” being perpetuated.

Example: Bullying and School Shootings . One result of the heavily publicized April 1999 school shooting incident at Columbine High School (Colorado), was a heavy emphasis placed on bullying as a causal factor in these incidents (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017), “creating a powerful master narrative about school shootings” (Raitanen, Sandberg, & Oksanen, 2017, p. 3). Naturally, with an identified cause, a great deal of effort was devoted to anti-bullying campaigns and interventions for enhancing resilience among youth who experience bullying.  However important these strategies might be for promoting positive mental health, preventing poor mental health, and possibly preventing suicide among school-aged children and youth, it is a mistaken belief that this can prevent school shootings (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017). Many times the accounts of the perpetrators having been bullied come from potentially inaccurate third-party accounts, rather than the perpetrators themselves; bullying was not involved in all instances of school shooting; a perpetrator’s perception of being bullied/persecuted are not necessarily accurate; many who experience severe bullying do not perpetrate these incidents; bullies are the least targeted shooting victims; perpetrators of the shooting incidents were often bullying others; and, bullying is only one of many important factors associated with perpetrating such an incident (Ioannou, Hammond, & Simpson, 2015; Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017; Newman &Fox, 2009; Raitanen, Sandberg, & Oksanen, 2017). While mass media reports deliver bullying as a means of explaining the inexplicable, the reality is not so simple: “The connection between bullying and school shootings is elusive” (Langman, 2014), and “the relationship between bullying and school shooting is, at best, tenuous” (Mears, Moon, & Thielo, 2017, p. 940). The point is, when a narrative becomes this publicly accepted, it is difficult to sort out truth and reality without going back to original sources of information and evidence.

What May or May Not Be Empirical Literature: Literature Reviews

Investigators typically engage in a review of existing literature as they develop their own research studies. The review informs them about where knowledge gaps exist, methods previously employed by other scholars, limitations of prior work, and previous scholars’ recommendations for directing future research. These reviews may appear as a published article, without new study data being reported (see Fields, Anderson, & Dabelko-Schoeny, 2014 for example). Or, the literature review may appear in the introduction to their own empirical study report. These literature reviews are not considered to be empirical evidence sources themselves, although they may be based on empirical evidence sources. One reason is that the authors of a literature review may or may not have engaged in a systematic search process, identifying a full, rich, multi-sided pool of evidence reports.

There is, however, a type of review that applies systematic methods and is, therefore, considered to be more strongly rooted in evidence: the systematic review .

Systematic review of literature. A systematic reviewis a type of literature report where established methods have been systematically applied, objectively, in locating and synthesizing a body of literature. The systematic review report is characterized by a great deal of transparency about the methods used and the decisions made in the review process, and are replicable. Thus, it meets the criteria for empirical literature: systematic observation and methodology, objectivity, and transparency/reproducibility. We will work a great deal more with systematic reviews in the second course, SWK 3402, since they are important tools for understanding interventions. They are somewhat less common, but not unheard of, in helping us understand diverse populations, social work problems, and social phenomena.

Locating Empirical Evidence

Social workers have available a wide array of tools and resources for locating empirical evidence in the literature. These can be organized into four general categories.

Journal Articles. A number of professional journals publish articles where investigators report on the results of their empirical studies. However, it is important to know how to distinguish between empirical and non-empirical manuscripts in these journals. A key indicator, though not the only one, involves a peer review process . Many professional journals require that manuscripts undergo a process of peer review before they are accepted for publication. This means that the authors’ work is shared with scholars who provide feedback to the journal editor as to the quality of the submitted manuscript. The editor then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ feedback:

• Accept as is
• Accept with minor revisions
• Request that a revision be resubmitted (no assurance of acceptance)

When a “revise and resubmit” decision is made, the piece will go back through the review process to determine if it is now acceptable for publication and that all of the reviewers’ concerns have been adequately addressed. Editors may also reject a manuscript because it is a poor fit for the journal, based on its mission and audience, rather than sending it for review consideration.

Indicators of journal relevance. Various journals are not equally relevant to every type of question being asked of the literature. Journals may overlap to a great extent in terms of the topics they might cover; in other words, a topic might appear in multiple different journals, depending on how the topic was being addressed. For example, articles that might help answer a question about the relationship between community poverty and violence exposure might appear in several different journals, some with a focus on poverty, others with a focus on violence, and still others on community development or public health. Journal titles are sometimes a good starting point but may not give a broad enough picture of what they cover in their contents.

In focusing a literature search, it also helps to review a journal’s mission and target audience. For example, at least four different journals focus specifically on poverty:

• Journal of Children & Poverty
• Journal of Poverty
• Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
• Poverty & Public Policy

Let’s look at an example using the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice . Information about this journal is located on the journal’s webpage: http://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/journals/journal-of-poverty-and-social-justice . In the section headed “About the Journal” you can see that it is an internationally focused research journal, and that it addresses social justice issues in addition to poverty alone. The research articles are peer-reviewed (there appear to be non-empirical discussions published, as well). These descriptions about a journal are almost always available, sometimes listed as “scope” or “mission.” These descriptions also indicate the sponsorship of the journal—sponsorship may be institutional (a particular university or agency, such as Smith College Studies in Social Work ), a professional organization, such as the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) or the National Association of Social Work (NASW), or a publishing company (e.g., Taylor & Frances, Wiley, or Sage).

Indicators of journal caliber.  Despite engaging in a peer review process, not all journals are equally rigorous. Some journals have very high rejection rates, meaning that many submitted manuscripts are rejected; others have fairly high acceptance rates, meaning that relatively few manuscripts are rejected. This is not necessarily the best indicator of quality, however, since newer journals may not be sufficiently familiar to authors with high quality manuscripts and some journals are very specific in terms of what they publish. Another index that is sometimes used is the journal’s impact factor . Impact factor is a quantitative number indicative of how often articles published in the journal are cited in the reference list of other journal articles—the statistic is calculated as the number of times on average each article published in a particular year were cited divided by the number of articles published (the number that could be cited). For example, the impact factor for the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice in our list above was 0.70 in 2017, and for the Journal of Poverty was 0.30. These are relatively low figures compared to a journal like the New England Journal of Medicine with an impact factor of 59.56! This means that articles published in that journal were, on average, cited more than 59 times in the next year or two.

Impact factors are not necessarily the best indicator of caliber, however, since many strong journals are geared toward practitioners rather than scholars, so they are less likely to be cited by other scholars but may have a large impact on a large readership. This may be the case for a journal like the one titled Social Work, the official journal of the National Association of Social Workers. It is distributed free to all members: over 120,000 practitioners, educators, and students of social work world-wide. The journal has a recent impact factor of.790. The journals with social work relevant content have impact factors in the range of 1.0 to 3.0 according to Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), particularly when they are interdisciplinary journals (for example, Child Development , Journal of Marriage and Family , Child Abuse and Neglect , Child Maltreatmen t, Social Service Review , and British Journal of Social Work ). Once upon a time, a reader could locate different indexes comparing the “quality” of social work-related journals. However, the concept of “quality” is difficult to systematically define. These indexes have mostly been replaced by impact ratings, which are not necessarily the best, most robust indicators on which to rely in assessing journal quality. For example, new journals addressing cutting edge topics have not been around long enough to have been evaluated using this particular tool, and it takes a few years for articles to begin to be cited in other, later publications.

Beware of pseudo-, illegitimate, misleading, deceptive, and suspicious journals . Another side effect of living in the Age of Information is that almost anyone can circulate almost anything and call it whatever they wish. This goes for “journal” publications, as well. With the advent of open-access publishing in recent years (electronic resources available without subscription), we have seen an explosion of what are called predatory or junk journals . These are publications calling themselves journals, often with titles very similar to legitimate publications and often with fake editorial boards. These “publications” lack the integrity of legitimate journals. This caution is reminiscent of the discussions earlier in the course about pseudoscience and “snake oil” sales. The predatory nature of many apparent information dissemination outlets has to do with how scientists and scholars may be fooled into submitting their work, often paying to have their work peer-reviewed and published. There exists a “thriving black-market economy of publishing scams,” and at least two “journal blacklists” exist to help identify and avoid these scam journals (Anderson, 2017).

This issue is important to information consumers, because it creates a challenge in terms of identifying legitimate sources and publications. The challenge is particularly important to address when information from on-line, open-access journals is being considered. Open-access is not necessarily a poor choice—legitimate scientists may pay sizeable fees to legitimate publishers to make their work freely available and accessible as open-access resources. On-line access is also not necessarily a poor choice—legitimate publishers often make articles available on-line to provide timely access to the content, especially when publishing the article in hard copy will be delayed by months or even a year or more. On the other hand, stating that a journal engages in a peer-review process is no guarantee of quality—this claim may or may not be truthful. Pseudo- and junk journals may engage in some quality control practices, but may lack attention to important quality control processes, such as managing conflict of interest, reviewing content for objectivity or quality of the research conducted, or otherwise failing to adhere to industry standards (Laine & Winker, 2017).

One resource designed to assist with the process of deciphering legitimacy is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The DOAJ is not a comprehensive listing of all possible legitimate open-access journals, and does not guarantee quality, but it does help identify legitimate sources of information that are openly accessible and meet basic legitimacy criteria. It also is about open-access journals, not the many journals published in hard copy.

An additional caution: Search for article corrections. Despite all of the careful manuscript review and editing, sometimes an error appears in a published article. Most journals have a practice of publishing corrections in future issues. When you locate an article, it is helpful to also search for updates. Here is an example where data presented in an article’s original tables were erroneous, and a correction appeared in a later issue.

• Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2017). A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One, 12(8): e0181722. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558917/
• Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K., Purdy, N., Daine, K., & John, A. (2018).Correction—A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One, 13(3): e0193937.  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193937

Search Tools. In this age of information, it is all too easy to find items—the problem lies in sifting, sorting, and managing the vast numbers of items that can be found. For example, a simple Google® search for the topic “community poverty and violence” resulted in about 15,600,000 results! As a means of simplifying the process of searching for journal articles on a specific topic, a variety of helpful tools have emerged. One type of search tool has previously applied a filtering process for you: abstracting and indexing databases . These resources provide the user with the results of a search to which records have already passed through one or more filters. For example, PsycINFO is managed by the American Psychological Association and is devoted to peer-reviewed literature in behavioral science. It contains almost 4.5 million records and is growing every month. However, it may not be available to users who are not affiliated with a university library. Conducting a basic search for our topic of “community poverty and violence” in PsychINFO returned 1,119 articles. Still a large number, but far more manageable. Additional filters can be applied, such as limiting the range in publication dates, selecting only peer reviewed items, limiting the language of the published piece (English only, for example), and specified types of documents (either chapters, dissertations, or journal articles only, for example). Adding the filters for English, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2010 and 2017 resulted in 346 documents being identified.

Just as was the case with journals, not all abstracting and indexing databases are equivalent. There may be overlap between them, but none is guaranteed to identify all relevant pieces of literature. Here are some examples to consider, depending on the nature of the questions asked of the literature:

• Academic Search Complete—multidisciplinary index of 9,300 peer-reviewed journals
• AgeLine—multidisciplinary index of aging-related content for over 600 journals
• Campbell Collaboration—systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, social welfare, international development
• Google Scholar—broad search tool for scholarly literature across many disciplines
• MEDLINE/ PubMed—National Library of medicine, access to over 15 million citations
• Oxford Bibliographies—annotated bibliographies, each is discipline specific (e.g., psychology, childhood studies, criminology, social work, sociology)
• PsycINFO/PsycLIT—international literature on material relevant to psychology and related disciplines
• SocINDEX—publications in sociology
• Social Sciences Abstracts—multiple disciplines
• Social Work Abstracts—many areas of social work are covered
• Web of Science—a “meta” search tool that searches other search tools, multiple disciplines

Placing our search for information about “community violence and poverty” into the Social Work Abstracts tool with no additional filters resulted in a manageable 54-item list. Finally, abstracting and indexing databases are another way to determine journal legitimacy: if a journal is indexed in a one of these systems, it is likely a legitimate journal. However, the converse is not necessarily true: if a journal is not indexed does not mean it is an illegitimate or pseudo-journal.

Government Sources. A great deal of information is gathered, analyzed, and disseminated by various governmental branches at the international, national, state, regional, county, and city level. Searching websites that end in.gov is one way to identify this type of information, often presented in articles, news briefs, and statistical reports. These government sources gather information in two ways: they fund external investigations through grants and contracts and they conduct research internally, through their own investigators. Here are some examples to consider, depending on the nature of the topic for which information is sought:

• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at https://www.ahrq.gov/
• Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) at https://www.bjs.gov/
• Census Bureau at https://www.census.gov
• Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC (MMWR-CDC) at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
• Child Welfare Information Gateway at https://www.childwelfare.gov
• Children’s Bureau/Administration for Children & Families at https://www.acf.hhs.gov
• Forum on Child and Family Statistics at https://www.childstats.gov
• National Institutes of Health (NIH) at https://www.nih.gov , including (not limited to):
• National Institute on Aging (NIA at https://www.nia.nih.gov
• National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) at https://www.niaaa.nih.gov
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at https://www.nichd.nih.gov
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at https://www.nida.nih.gov
• National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at https://www.niehs.nih.gov
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at https://www.nimh.nih.gov
• National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities at https://www.nimhd.nih.gov
• National Institute of Justice (NIJ) at https://www.nij.gov
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at https://www.samhsa.gov/
• United States Agency for International Development at https://usaid.gov

Each state and many counties or cities have similar data sources and analysis reports available, such as Ohio Department of Health at https://www.odh.ohio.gov/healthstats/dataandstats.aspx and Franklin County at https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Ohio/Franklin-County/Overview . Data are available from international/global resources (e.g., United Nations and World Health Organization), as well.

Other Sources. The Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the National Academies—previously the Institute of Medicine (IOM)—is a nonprofit institution that aims to provide government and private sector policy and other decision makers with objective analysis and advice for making informed health decisions. For example, in 2018 they produced reports on topics in substance use and mental health concerning the intersection of opioid use disorder and infectious disease,  the legal implications of emerging neurotechnologies, and a global agenda concerning the identification and prevention of violence (see http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/Topics/Substance-Abuse-Mental-Health.aspx ). The exciting aspect of this resource is that it addresses many topics that are current concerns because they are hoping to help inform emerging policy. The caution to consider with this resource is the evidence is often still emerging, as well.

Numerous “think tank” organizations exist, each with a specific mission. For example, the Rand Corporation is a nonprofit organization offering research and analysis to address global issues since 1948. The institution’s mission is to help improve policy and decision making “to help individuals, families, and communities throughout the world be safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous,” addressing issues of energy, education, health care, justice, the environment, international affairs, and national security (https://www.rand.org/about/history.html). And, for example, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is a philanthropic organization supporting research and research dissemination concerning health issues facing the United States. The foundation works to build a culture of health across systems of care (not only medical care) and communities (https://www.rwjf.org).

While many of these have a great deal of helpful evidence to share, they also may have a strong political bias. Objectivity is often lacking in what information these organizations provide: they provide evidence to support certain points of view. That is their purpose—to provide ideas on specific problems, many of which have a political component. Think tanks “are constantly researching solutions to a variety of the world’s problems, and arguing, advocating, and lobbying for policy changes at local, state, and federal levels” (quoted from https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-tanks/ ). Helpful information about what this one source identified as the 50 most influential U.S. think tanks includes identifying each think tank’s political orientation. For example, The Heritage Foundation is identified as conservative, whereas Human Rights Watch is identified as liberal.

While not the same as think tanks, many mission-driven organizations also sponsor or report on research, as well. For example, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics (NACOA) in the United States is a registered nonprofit organization. Its mission, along with other partnering organizations, private-sector groups, and federal agencies, is to promote policy and program development in research, prevention and treatment to provide information to, for, and about children of alcoholics (of all ages). Based on this mission, the organization supports knowledge development and information gathering on the topic and disseminates information that serves the needs of this population. While this is a worthwhile mission, there is no guarantee that the information meets the criteria for evidence with which we have been working. Evidence reported by think tank and mission-driven sources must be utilized with a great deal of caution and critical analysis!

In many instances an empirical report has not appeared in the published literature, but in the form of a technical or final report to the agency or program providing the funding for the research that was conducted. One such example is presented by a team of investigators funded by the National Institute of Justice to evaluate a program for training professionals to collect strong forensic evidence in instances of sexual assault (Patterson, Resko, Pierce-Weeks, & Campbell, 2014): https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247081.pdf . Investigators may serve in the capacity of consultant to agencies, programs, or institutions, and provide empirical evidence to inform activities and planning. One such example is presented by Maguire-Jack (2014) as a report to a state’s child maltreatment prevention board: https://preventionboard.wi.gov/Documents/InvestmentInPreventionPrograming_Final.pdf .

When Direct Answers to Questions Cannot Be Found. Sometimes social workers are interested in finding answers to complex questions or questions related to an emerging, not-yet-understood topic. This does not mean giving up on empirical literature. Instead, it requires a bit of creativity in approaching the literature. A Venn diagram might help explain this process. Consider a scenario where a social worker wishes to locate literature to answer a question concerning issues of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a social justice term applied to situations where multiple categorizations or classifications come together to create overlapping, interconnected, or multiplied disadvantage. For example, women with a substance use disorder and who have been incarcerated face a triple threat in terms of successful treatment for a substance use disorder: intersectionality exists between being a woman, having a substance use disorder, and having been in jail or prison. After searching the literature, little or no empirical evidence might have been located on this specific triple-threat topic. Instead, the social worker will need to seek literature on each of the threats individually, and possibly will find literature on pairs of topics (see Figure 3-1). There exists some literature about women’s outcomes for treatment of a substance use disorder (a), some literature about women during and following incarceration (b), and some literature about substance use disorders and incarceration (c). Despite not having a direct line on the center of the intersecting spheres of literature (d), the social worker can develop at least a partial picture based on the overlapping literatures.

Figure 3-1. Venn diagram of intersecting literature sets.

Take a moment to complete the following activity. For each statement about empirical literature, decide if it is true or false.

Social Work 3401 Coursebook Copyright © by Dr. Audrey Begun is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 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 Research Proposal

83 Components of the Literature Review

Krathwohl (2005) suggests and describes a variety of components to include in a research proposal.  The following sections present these components in a suggested template for you to follow in the preparation of your research proposal.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for what follows in your research proposal – treat it as the initial pitch of your idea.  After reading the introduction your reader should:

• Understand what it is you want to do;
• Have a sense of your passion for the topic;
• Be excited about the study´s possible outcomes.

As you begin writing your research proposal it is helpful to think of the introduction as a narrative of what it is you want to do, written in one to three paragraphs.  Within those one to three paragraphs, it is important to briefly answer the following questions:

• What is the central research problem?
• How is the topic of your research proposal related to the problem?
• What methods will you utilize to analyze the research problem?
• Why is it important to undertake this research? What is the significance of your proposed research?  Why are the outcomes of your proposed research important, and to whom or to what are they important?

Note : You may be asked by your instructor to include an abstract with your research proposal.  In such cases, an abstract should provide an overview of what it is you plan to study, your main research question, a brief explanation of your methods to answer the research question, and your expected findings. All of this information must be carefully crafted in 150 to 250 words.  A word of advice is to save the writing of your abstract until the very end of your research proposal preparation.  If you are asked to provide an abstract, you should include 5-7 key words that are of most relevance to your study. List these in order of relevance.

Background and significance

The purpose of this section is to explain the context of your proposal and to describe, in detail, why it is important to undertake this research. Assume that the person or people who will read your research proposal know nothing or very little about the research problem.  While you do not need to include all knowledge you have learned about your topic in this section, it is important to ensure that you include the most relevant material that will help to explain the goals of your research.

While there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and provide a more thorough explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale for the proposed research study. Clearly indicate why this research is worth doing.  Answer the “so what?” question.
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Do not forget to explain how and in what ways your proposed research builds upon previous related research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research.
• Clearly identify the key or most relevant sources of research you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research, in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what will be excluded from your study.
• Provide clear definitions of key concepts and terms. As key concepts and terms often have numerous definitions, make sure you state which definition you will be utilizing in your research.

Literature Review

This is the most time-consuming aspect in the preparation of your research proposal and it is a key component of the research proposal. As described in Chapter 5 , the literature review provides the background to your study and demonstrates the significance of the proposed research. Specifically, it is a review and synthesis of prior research that is related to the problem you are setting forth to investigate.  Essentially, your goal in the literature review is to place your research study within the larger whole of what has been studied in the past, while demonstrating to your reader that your work is original, innovative, and adds to the larger whole.

As the literature review is information dense, it is essential that this section be intelligently structured to enable your reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study. However, this can be easier to state and harder to do, simply due to the fact there is usually a plethora of related research to sift through. Consequently, a good strategy for writing the literature review is to break the literature into conceptual categories or themes, rather than attempting to describe various groups of literature you reviewed.  Chapter V, “ The Literature Review ,” describes a variety of methods to help you organize the themes.

Here are some suggestions on how to approach the writing of your literature review:

• Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they used, what they found, and what they recommended based upon their findings.
• Do not be afraid to challenge previous related research findings and/or conclusions.
• Assess what you believe to be missing from previous research and explain how your research fills in this gap and/or extends previous research

It is important to note that a significant challenge related to undertaking a literature review is knowing when to stop.  As such, it is important to know how to know when you have uncovered the key conceptual categories underlying your research topic.  Generally, when you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations, you can have confidence that you have covered all of the significant conceptual categories in your literature review.  However, it is also important to acknowledge that researchers often find themselves returning to the literature as they collect and analyze their data.  For example, an unexpected finding may develop as one collects and/or analyzes the data and it is important to take the time to step back and review the literature again, to ensure that no other researchers have found a similar finding.  This may include looking to research outside your field.

This situation occurred with one of the authors of this textbook´s research related to community resilience.  During the interviews, the researchers heard many participants discuss individual resilience factors and how they believed these individual factors helped make the community more resilient, overall.  Sheppard and Williams (2016) had not discovered these individual factors in their original literature review on community and environmental resilience. However, when they returned to the literature to search for individual resilience factors, they discovered a small body of literature in the child and youth psychology field. Consequently, Sheppard and Williams had to go back and add a new section to their literature review on individual resilience factors. Interestingly, their research appeared to be the first research to link individual resilience factors with community resilience factors.

Research design and methods

The objective of this section of the research proposal is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will enable you to solve the research problem you have identified and also enable you to accurately and effectively interpret the results of your research. Consequently, it is critical that the research design and methods section is well-written, clear, and logically organized.  This demonstrates to your reader that you know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.  Overall, you want to leave your reader feeling confident that you have what it takes to get this research study completed in a timely fashion.

Essentially, this section of the research proposal should be clearly tied to the specific objectives of your study; however, it is also important to draw upon and include examples from the literature review that relate to your design and intended methods.  In other words, you must clearly demonstrate how your study utilizes and builds upon past studies, as it relates to the research design and intended methods.  For example, what methods have been used by other researchers in similar studies?

While it is important to consider the methods that other researchers have employed, it is equally important, if not more so, to consider what methods have not been employed but could be.  Remember, the methods section is not simply a list of tasks to be undertaken. It is also an argument as to why and how the tasks you have outlined will help you investigate the research problem and answer your research question(s).

Tips for writing the research design and methods section:

• Specify the methodological approaches you intend to employ to obtain information and the techniques you will use to analyze the data.
• Specify the research operations you will undertake and he way you will interpret the results of those operations in relation to the research problem.
• Go beyond stating what you hope to achieve through the methods you have chosen. State how you will actually do the methods (i.e. coding interview text, running regression analysis, etc.).
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers you may encounter when undertaking your research and describe how you will address these barriers.
• Explain where you believe you will find challenges related to data collection, including access to participants and information.

Preliminary suppositions and implications

The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you anticipate that your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the area of your study. Depending upon the aims and objectives of your study, you should also discuss how your anticipated findings may impact future research.  For example, is it possible that your research may lead to a new policy, new theoretical understanding, or a new method for analyzing data?  How might your study influence future studies?  What might your study mean for future practitioners working in the field?  Who or what may benefit from your study?  How might your study contribute to social, economic, environmental issues?  While it is important to think about and discuss possibilities such as these, it is equally important to be realistic in stating your anticipated findings.  In other words, you do not want to delve into idle speculation.  Rather, the purpose here is to reflect upon gaps in the current body of literature and to describe how and in what ways you anticipate your research will begin to fill in some or all of those gaps.

The conclusion reiterates the importance and significance of your research proposal and it provides a brief summary of the entire proposed study.  Essentially, this section should only be one or two paragraphs in length. Here is a potential outline for your conclusion:

• Discuss why the study should be done. Specifically discuss how you expect your study will advance existing knowledge and how your study is unique.
• Explain the specific purpose of the study and the research questions that the study will answer.
• Explain why the research design and methods chosen for this study are appropriate, and why other design and methods were not chosen.
• State the potential implications you expect to emerge from your proposed study,
• Provide a sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship currently in existence related to the research problem.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your research proposal.  In a research proposal, this can take two forms: a reference list or a bibliography.  A reference list does what the name suggests, it lists the literature you referenced in the body of your research proposal.  All references in the reference list, must appear in the body of the research proposal.  Remember, it is not acceptable to say “as cited in …”  As a researcher you must always go to the original source and check it for yourself.  Many errors are made in referencing, even by top researchers, and so it is important not to perpetuate an error made by someone else. While this can be time consuming, it is the proper way to undertake a literature review.

In contrast, a bibliography , is a list of everything you used or cited in your research proposal, with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.  In other words, sources cited in your bibliography may not necessarily appear in the body of your research proposal.  Make sure you check with your instructor to see which of the two you are expected to produce.

Overall, your list of citations should be a testament to the fact that you have done a sufficient level of preliminary research to ensure that your project will complement, but not duplicate, previous research efforts. For social sciences, the reference list or bibliography should be prepared in American Psychological Association (APA) referencing format. Usually, the reference list (or bibliography) is not included in the word count of the research proposal. Again, make sure you check with your instructor to confirm.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

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

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

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

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

But wait – is this the right time?

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

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

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

1: The Introduction Section

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

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

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

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

2: The Body Section

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

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

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

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 3: Methodological

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

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

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

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

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

3: The Conclusion Section

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

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

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

Example: Thematically Structured Review

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

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

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

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

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

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

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, very helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

Learning objectives.

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify the purpose of the literature review in  the research process
• Distinguish between different types of literature reviews

1.1 What is a Literature Review?

Pick up nearly any book on research methods and you will find a description of a literature review.  At a basic level, the term implies a survey of factual or nonfiction books, articles, and other documents published on a particular subject.  Definitions may be similar across the disciplines, with new types and definitions continuing to emerge.  Generally speaking, a literature review is a:

• “comprehensive background of the literature within the interested topic area…” ( O’Gorman & MacIntosh, 2015, p. 31 ).
• “critical component of the research process that provides an in-depth analysis of recently published research findings in specifically identified areas of interest.” ( House, 2018, p. 109 ).
• “written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study” ( Machi & McEvoy,  2012, p. 4 ).

As a foundation for knowledge advancement in every discipline, it is an important element of any research project.  At the graduate or doctoral level, the literature review is an essential feature of thesis and dissertation, as well as grant proposal writing.  That is to say, “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research…A researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.” ( Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3 ).  It is by this means, that a researcher demonstrates familiarity with a body of knowledge and thereby establishes credibility with a reader.  An advanced-level literature review shows how prior research is linked to a new project, summarizing and synthesizing what is known while identifying gaps in the knowledge base, facilitating theory development, closing areas where enough research already exists, and uncovering areas where more research is needed. ( Webster & Watson, 2002, p. xiii )

A graduate-level literature review is a compilation of the most significant previously published research on your topic. Unlike an annotated bibliography or a research paper you may have written as an undergraduate, your literature review will outline, evaluate and synthesize relevant research and relate those sources to your own thesis or research question. It is much more than a summary of all the related literature.

It is a type of writing that demonstrate the importance of your research by defining the main ideas and the relationship between them. A good literature review lays the foundation for the importance of your stated problem and research question.

Literature reviews:

• define a concept
• map the research terrain or scope
• systemize relationships between concepts
• identify gaps in the literature ( Rocco & Plathotnik, 2009, p. 128 )

The purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that your research question  is meaningful. Additionally, you may review the literature of different disciplines to find deeper meaning and understanding of your topic. It is especially important to consider other disciplines when you do not find much on your topic in one discipline. You will need to search the cognate literature before claiming there is “little previous research” on your topic.

Well developed literature reviews involve numerous steps and activities. The literature review is an iterative process because you will do at least two of them: a preliminary search to learn what has been published in your area and whether there is sufficient support in the literature for moving ahead with your subject. After this first exploration, you will conduct a deeper dive into the literature to learn everything you can about the topic and its related issues.

Literature Review Tutorial

1.2 Literature Review Basics

An effective literature review must:

• Methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic
• Provide a firm foundation to a topic or research area
• Provide a firm foundation for the selection of a research methodology
• Demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge of advances the research field’s knowledge base. ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

All literature reviews, whether they are qualitative, quantitative or both, will at some point:

• Introduce the topic and define its key terms
• Establish the importance of the topic
• Provide an overview of the amount of available literature and its types (for example: theoretical, statistical, speculative)
• Identify gaps in the literature
• Point out consistent finding across studies
• Arrive at a synthesis that organizes what is known about a topic
• Discusses possible implications and directions for future research

1.3 Types of Literature Reviews

There are many different types of literature reviews, however there are some shared characteristics or features.  Remember a comprehensive literature review is, at its most fundamental level, an original work based on an extensive critical examination and synthesis of the relevant literature on a topic. As a study of the research on a particular topic, it is arranged by key themes or findings, which may lead up to or link to the  research question.  In some cases, the research question will drive the type of literature review that is undertaken.

The following section includes brief descriptions of the terms used to describe different literature review types with examples of each.   The included citations are open access, Creative Commons licensed or copyright-restricted.

1.3.1 Types of Review

1.3.1.1 conceptual.

Guided by an understanding of basic issues rather than a research methodology. You are looking for key factors, concepts or variables and the presumed relationship between them. The goal of the conceptual literature review is to categorize and describe concepts relevant to your study or topic and outline a relationship between them. You will include relevant theory and empirical research.

Examples of a Conceptual Review:

• Education : The formality of learning science in everyday life: A conceptual literature review. ( Dohn, 2010 ).
• Education : Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. ( Amundsen & Wilson, 2012 ).

1.3.1.2 Empirical

An empirical literature review collects, creates, arranges, and analyzes numeric data reflecting the frequency of themes, topics, authors and/or methods found in existing literature. Empirical literature reviews present their summaries in quantifiable terms using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Examples of an Empirical Review:

• Nursing : False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: An empirical review. ( Imberger, Thorlund, Gluud, & Wettersley, 2016 ).
• Education : Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review ( Mwakyusa & Mwalyagile, 2016 ).

1.3.1.3 Exploratory

Unlike a synoptic literature review, the purpose here is to provide a broad approach to the topic area. The aim is breadth rather than depth and to get a general feel for the size of the topic area. A graduate student might do an exploratory review of the literature before beginning a synoptic, or more comprehensive one.

Examples of an Exploratory Review:

• Education : University research management: An exploratory literature review. ( Schuetzenmeister, 2010 ).
• Education : An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming learning environments. ( Rosario & Widmeyer, 2009 ).

1.3.1.4 Focused

A type of literature review limited to a single aspect of previous research, such as methodology. A focused literature review generally will describe the implications of choosing a particular element of past research, such as methodology in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Examples of a Focused Review:

• Nursing : Clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A focused literature review. ( Khunti, Davies, & Khunti, 2015 ).
• Education : Language awareness: Genre awareness-a focused review of the literature. ( Stainton, 1992 ).

1.3.1.5 Integrative

Critiques past research and draws overall conclusions from the body of literature at a specified point in time. Reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way. Most integrative reviews are intended to address mature topics or  emerging topics. May require the author to adopt a guiding theory, a set of competing models, or a point of view about a topic.  For more description of integrative reviews, see Whittemore & Knafl (2005).

Examples of an Integrative Review:

• Nursing : Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration between community health workers and healthcare teams: An integrative review. ( Franklin,  Bernhardt, Lopez, Long-Middleton, & Davis, 2015 ).
• Education : Exploring the gap between teacher certification and permanent employment in Ontario: An integrative literature review. ( Brock & Ryan, 2016 ).

1.3.1.6 Meta-analysis

A subset of a  systematic review, that takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures to pool together data. Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance understanding, draw conclusions, and detect patterns and relationships. Gather data from many different, independent studies that look at the same research question and assess similar outcome measures. Data is combined and re-analyzed, providing a greater statistical power than any single study alone. It’s important to note that not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis but a meta-analysis can’t exist without a systematic review of the literature.

Examples of a Meta-Analysis:

• Education : Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. ( Capar & Tarim, 2015 ).
• Nursing : A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students. ( Lee, Lee, Gong, Bae, & Choi, 2016 ).
• Education : Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. ( Weinburgh, 1995 ).

1.3.1.7 Narrative/Traditional

An overview of research on a particular topic that critiques and summarizes a body of literature. Typically broad in focus. Relevant past research is selected and synthesized into a coherent discussion. Methodologies, findings and limits of the existing body of knowledge are discussed in narrative form. Sometimes also referred to as a traditional literature review. Requires a sufficiently focused research question. The process may be subject to bias that supports the researcher’s own work.

Examples of a Narrative/Traditional Review:

• Nursing : Family carers providing support to a person dying in the home setting: A narrative literature review. ( Morris, King, Turner, & Payne, 2015 ).
• Education : Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. ( Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997 ).
• Education : Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. ( Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014 ).
• Nursing : Outcomes of physician job satisfaction: A narrative review, implications, and directions for future research. ( Williams & Skinner, 2003 ).

1.3.1.8 Realist

Aspecific type of literature review that is theory-driven and interpretative and is intended to explain the outcomes of a complex intervention program(s).

Examples of a Realist Review:

• Nursing : Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. ( Mazzacato, Savage, Brommels, 2010 ).
• Education : Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. ( Bendermacher, Egbrink, Wolfhagen, & Dolmans, 2017 ).

1.3.1.9 Scoping

Tend to be non-systematic and focus on breadth of coverage conducted on a topic rather than depth. Utilize a wide range of materials; may not evaluate the quality of the studies as much as count the number. One means of understanding existing literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research; preliminary assessment of size and scope of available research on topic. May include research in progress.

Examples of a Scoping Review:

• Nursing : Organizational interventions improving access to community-based primary health care for vulnerable populations: A scoping review. ( Khanassov, Pluye, Descoteaux, Haggerty,  Russell, Gunn, & Levesque, 2016 ).
• Education : Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. ( Vanstone, Hibbert, Kinsella, McKenzie, Pitman, & Lingard, 2013 ).
• Nursing : A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. ( Ridde, & Morestin, 2011 ).

1.3.1.10 Synoptic

Unlike an exploratory review, the purpose is to provide a concise but accurate overview of all material that appears to be relevant to a chosen topic. Both content and methodological material is included. The review should aim to be both descriptive and evaluative. Summarizes previous studies while also showing how the body of literature could be extended and improved in terms of content and method by identifying gaps.

Examples of a Synoptic Review:

• Education : Theoretical framework for educational assessment: A synoptic review. ( Ghaicha, 2016 ).
• Education : School effects research: A synoptic review of past efforts and some suggestions for the future. ( Cuttance, 1981 ).

1.3.1.11 Systematic Review

A rigorous review that follows a strict methodology designed with a presupposed selection of literature reviewed.  Undertaken to clarify the state of existing research, the evidence, and possible implications that can be drawn from that.  Using comprehensive and exhaustive searching of the published and unpublished literature, searching various databases, reports, and grey literature.  Transparent and reproducible in reporting details of time frame, search and methods to minimize bias.  Must include a team of at least 2-3 and includes the critical appraisal of the literature.  For more description of systematic reviews, including links to protocols, checklists, workflow processes, and structure see “ A Young Researcher’s Guide to a Systematic Review “.

Examples of a Systematic Review:

• Education : The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review ( Hartmann, Braae, Pedersen, & Khalid, 2017 )
• Nursing : Is butter back? A systematic review and meta-analysis of butter consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and total mortality. ( Pimpin, Wu, Haskelberg, Del Gobbo, & Mozaffarian, 2016 ).
• Education : The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. ( Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003 ).
• Nursing : Using computers to self-manage type 2 diabetes. ( Pal, Eastwood, Michie, Farmer, Barnard, Peacock, Wood, Inniss, & Murray, 2013 ).

1.3.1.12 Umbrella/Overview of Reviews

Compiles evidence from multiple systematic reviews into one document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address those interventions and their effects. Often used in recommendations for practice.

Examples of an Umbrella/Overview Review:

• Education : Reflective practice in healthcare education: An umbrella review. ( Fragknos, 2016 ).
• Nursing : Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. ( Seida, Ospina, Karkhaneh, Hartling, Smith, & Clark, 2009 ).

For a brief discussion see “ Not all literature reviews are the same ” (Thomson, 2013).

1.4 Why do a Literature Review?

The purpose of the literature review is the same regardless of the topic or research method. It tests your own research question against what is already known about the subject.

1.4.1 First – It’s part of the whole. Omission of a literature review chapter or section in a graduate-level project represents a serious void or absence of critical element in the research process.

The outcome of your review is expected to demonstrate that you:

• can systematically explore the research in your topic area
• can read and critically analyze the literature in your discipline and then use it appropriately to advance your own work
• have sufficient knowledge in the topic to undertake further investigation

1.4.2 Second – It’s good for you!

• You improve your skills as a researcher
• You become familiar with the discourse of your discipline and learn how to be a scholar in your field
• You learn through writing your ideas and finding your voice in your subject area
• You define, redefine and clarify your research question for yourself in the process

1.4.3 Third – It’s good for your reader. Your reader expects you to have done the hard work of gathering, evaluating and synthesizes the literature.  When you do a literature review you:

• Set the context for the topic and present its significance
• Identify what’s important to know about your topic – including individual material, prior research, publications, organizations and authors.
• Demonstrate relationships among prior research
• Establish limitations of existing knowledge
• Analyze trends in the topic’s treatment and gaps in the literature

1.4.4 Why do a literature review?

• To locate gaps in the literature of your discipline
• To avoid reinventing the wheel
• To carry on where others have already been
• To identify other people working in the same field
• To increase your breadth of knowledge in your subject area
• To find the seminal works in your field
• To provide intellectual context for your own work
• To acknowledge opposing viewpoints
• To put your work in perspective
• To demonstrate you can discover and retrieve previous work in the area

1.5 Common Literature Review Errors

Graduate-level literature reviews are more than a summary of the publications you find on a topic.  As you have seen in this brief introduction, literature reviews are a very specific type of research, analysis, and writing.  We will explore these topics more in the next chapters.  Some things to keep in mind as you begin your own research and writing are ways to avoid the most common errors seen in the first attempt at a literature review.  For a quick review of some of the pitfalls and challenges a new researcher faces when he/she begins work, see “ Get Ready: Academic Writing, General Pitfalls and (oh yes) Getting Started! ”.

As you begin your own graduate-level literature review, try to avoid these common mistakes:

• Accepts another researcher’s finding as valid without evaluating methodology and data
• Contrary findings and alternative interpretations are not considered or mentioned
• Findings are not clearly related to one’s own study, or findings are too general
• Insufficient time allowed to define best search strategies and writing
• Isolated statistical results are simply reported rather than synthesizing the results
• Problems with selecting and using most relevant keywords, subject headings and descriptors
• Relies too heavily on secondary sources
• Search methods are not recorded or reported for transparency
• Summarizes rather than synthesizes articles

In conclusion, the purpose of a literature review is three-fold:

• to survey the current state of knowledge or evidence in the area of inquiry,
• to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and
• to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area.

A literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword searches in online databases, often working with a trained librarian or information expert. Keywords can be combined using the Boolean operators, “and”, “or” and sometimes “not”  to narrow down or expand the search results. Once a list of articles is generated from the keyword and subject heading search, the researcher must then manually browse through each title and abstract, to determine the suitability of that article before a full-text article is obtained for the research question.

Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology or research design. Reviewed articles may be summarized in the form of tables, and can be further structured using organizing frameworks such as a concept matrix.

A well-conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interesting research questions available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.

The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions and may provide evidence to inform policy or decision-making. ( Bhattacherjee, 2012 ).

Read Abstract 1.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of literature review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Nursing : To describe evidence of international literature on the safe care of the hospitalised child after the World Alliance for Patient Safety and list contributions of the general theoretical framework of patient safety for paediatric nursing.

An integrative literature review between 2004 and 2015 using the databases PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library, and the descriptors Safety or Patient safety, Hospitalised child, Paediatric nursing, and Nursing care.

Thirty-two articles were analysed, most of which were from North American, with a descriptive approach. The quality of the recorded information in the medical records, the use of checklists, and the training of health workers contribute to safe care in paediatric nursing and improve the medication process and partnerships with parents.

General information available on patient safety should be incorporated in paediatric nursing care. ( Wegner, Silva, Peres, Bandeira, Frantz, Botene, & Predebon, 2017 ).

Read Abstract 2.  Refer to Types of Literature Reviews.  What type of lit review do you think this study is and why?  See the Answer Key for the correct response.

Education : The focus of this paper centers around timing associated with early childhood education programs and interventions using meta-analytic methods. At any given assessment age, a child’s current age equals starting age, plus duration of program, plus years since program ended. Variability in assessment ages across the studies should enable everyone to identify the separate effects of all three time-related components. The project is a meta-analysis of evaluation studies of early childhood education programs conducted in the United States and its territories between 1960 and 2007. The population of interest is children enrolled in early childhood education programs between the ages of 0 and 5 and their control-group counterparts. Since the data come from a meta-analysis, the population for this study is drawn from many different studies with diverse samples. Given the preliminary nature of their analysis, the authors cannot offer conclusions at this point. ( Duncan, Leak, Li, Magnuson, Schindler, & Yoshikawa, 2011 ).

Test Yourself

See Answer Key for the correct responses.

The purpose of a graduate-level literature review is to summarize in as many words as possible everything that is known about my topic.

A literature review is significant because in the process of doing one, the researcher learns to read and critically assess the literature of a discipline and then uses it appropriately to advance his/her own research.

Read the following abstract and choose the correct type of literature review it represents.

Nursing: E-cigarette use has become increasingly popular, especially among the young. Its long-term influence upon health is unknown. Aim of this review has been to present the current state of knowledge about the impact of e-cigarette use on health, with an emphasis on Central and Eastern Europe. During the preparation of this narrative review, the literature on e-cigarettes available within the network PubMed was retrieved and examined. In the final review, 64 research papers were included. We specifically assessed the construction and operation of the e-cigarette as well as the chemical composition of the e-liquid; the impact that vapor arising from the use of e-cigarette explored in experimental models in vitro; and short-term effects of use of e-cigarettes on users’ health. Among the substances inhaled by the e-smoker, there are several harmful products, such as: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acroleine, propanal, nicotine, acetone, o-methyl-benzaldehyde, carcinogenic nitrosamines. Results from experimental animal studies indicate the negative impact of e-cigarette exposure on test models, such as ascytotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammation, airway hyper reactivity, airway remodeling, mucin production, apoptosis, and emphysematous changes. The short-term impact of e-cigarettes on human health has been studied mostly in experimental setting. Available evidence shows that the use of e-cigarettes may result in acute lung function responses (e.g., increase in impedance, peripheral airway flow resistance) and induce oxidative stress. Based on the current available evidence, e-cigarette use is associated with harmful biologic responses, although it may be less harmful than traditional cigarettes. (J ankowski, Brożek, Lawson, Skoczyński, & Zejda, 2017 ).

• Meta-analysis
• Exploratory

Education: In this review, Mary Vorsino writes that she is interested in keeping the potential influences of women pragmatists of Dewey’s day in mind while presenting modern feminist re readings of Dewey. She wishes to construct a narrowly-focused and succinct literature review of thinkers who have donned a feminist lens to analyze Dewey’s approaches to education, learning, and democracy and to employ Dewey’s works in theorizing on gender and education and on gender in society. This article first explores Dewey as both an ally and a problematic figure in feminist literature and then investigates the broader sphere of feminist pragmatism and two central themes within it: (1) valuing diversity, and diverse experiences; and (2) problematizing fixed truths. ( Vorsino, 2015 ).

Image Attributions

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students Copyright © by Linda Frederiksen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• 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

• Getting Started
• Topic Overviews
• Other Databases
• Tests and Measures

What is an Empirical Study?

Literature review.

• Organize Your Sources
• NEW: LibKey Nomad

An empirical article reports the findings of a study conducted by the authors and uses data gathered from an experiment or observation. An empirical study is verifiable and "based on facts, systematic observation, or experiment, rather than theory or general philosophical principle" ( APA Databases Methodology Field Values ).  In other words, it tells the story of a research conducted, doing it in great detail. The study may utilize quantitative research methods to produce numerical data and seek to find a causal relationship between two or more variables. Conversely, it may use qualitative research methods, which involves collecting non-numerical data to analyze concepts, opinions, or experiences.

Key parts of an empirical article:

• Abstract  - Provides a brief overview of the research.
• Introduction  - The introduction provides a review of previous research on the topic and states the hypothesis. 
• Methods  - The methods area describes how the research was conducted, identifies the design of the study, the participants, and any measurements that were taken during the study.
• Results  - The results section describes the outcome of the study. 
• Discussion (or conclusion)  - The discussion section addresses the researchers' interpretations of their study and any future implications from their findings.
• References  - A list of works that were cited in the study.
• What is a Lit. Review?
• Purpose of a Lit. Review
• Limitations
• Non-Empirical Research
• Useful Links/Additional Info

A review of the published resources related to a specific issue, area of research, or specific theory. It provides a summary, description, and critical evaluation of each resource.

A literature review:

•  Synthesizes and places into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic.
• Maps the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns.
• Forms the foundation for subsequent research 
• Justifies the significance of the new investigation.
• Contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices.

A Lit. Review provides background and context; it shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

There are generally five parts to a literature review:

• Introduction
• Bibliography

A literature review should: 

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

 Add / Reorder  

A lit. review's purpose is to offer an overview of the significant works published on a topic. It can be written as an introduction to a study in order to:

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

It could be a separate work (a research article on its own) that:

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

Some limitations of a literature review include:

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

Non-Empirical Research articles focus more on theories, methods and their implications for research. Non-Empirical Research can include comprehensive reviews and articles that focus on methodology. They rely on empirical research literature as well but does not need to be essentially data-driven.

Write a Literature Review (UCSC)

• Literature Review (Purdue)
• Overview: Lit Reviews (UNC)
• Review of Literature (UW-Madison)
• << Previous: Tests and Measures
• Next: Organize Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 10:58 AM
• URL: https://libguides.macalester.edu/psyc

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.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

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

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Advertise with us
• Thursday, June 06, 2024

Most Widely Read Newspaper

PunchNG Menu:

• Special Features
• Sex & Relationship

ID) . '?utm_source=news-flash&utm_medium=web"> Download Punch Lite App

Project Chapter Two: Literature Review and Steps to Writing Empirical Review

Kindly share this story:

• Conceptual review
• Theoretical review,
• Empirical review or review of empirical works of literature/studies, and lastly
• Conclusion or Summary of the literature reviewed.
• Decide on a topic
• Highlight the studies/literature that you will review in the empirical review
• Analyze the works of literature separately.
• Summarize the literature in table or concept map format.
• Synthesize the literature and then proceed to write your empirical review.

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.

Contact: [email protected]

Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The Punch Newspaper on WhatsApp for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content. Don't miss a headline – join now!

Nigerians can now earn upto 20% returns by investing in treasury bills, fixed income, commodities and real estate. Managing investments is best on this app. start now

Food prices are going up, but smart Nigerians are making millions from trading foods and commodities on this app. Start here

VERIFIED: Nigerians can now earn US Dollars with premium domains just like Americans, acquire for as low as $1200 and you profit $19000 (₦23million). Click here to start.

Latest News

Court remands enugu monarch, four others for murder, n1.8bn fraud: court orders arrest of three electricity agency officials, review security operations, senate urges tinubu, nigeria secures additional $925m in oil-backed loan from afreximbank, fg unveils 300mmscf facility in delta to end gas flaring.

$5.3m fraud: US hunts scammers, traces funds to Hong Kong, Nigeria, others

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conse adipiscing elit.

Maritime shipping ports performance: a systematic literature review

• Open access
• Published: 04 June 2024
• Volume 5 , article number  108 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• L. Kishore 1 ,
• Yogesh P. Pai 2 ,
• Bidyut Kumar Ghosh 1 &
• Sheeba Pakkan 3  

The maritime sector has evolved as a crucial link in countries' economic development. Given that most of the trade across regions takes place through naval transportation, the performance of the seaports has been one of the focus areas of research. As the publication volume has significantly grown in the recent past, this study critically examines the publications related to the performance of ports for exploring the evolution, identifying the trends of articles, and analyzing the citations covering the publications based on relevant keywords in Scopus database for the period 1975–April 2024. Bibliometric and scientometric analysis was done using R, Python, and VOS software tools. Results indicate the core subject areas as “port efficiency”, “data envelopment analysis” (DEA), “port competitiveness”, “simulation”, “port governance”, and “sustainability,” with "sustainability" as the most discussed and highly relevant theme that has evolved in the last five years. Bibliometric data analysis on the subject area, yearly trends, top journals of publications, citation and author analysis, impact analysis, country-wise publication, and thematic analysis with clusters are also performed to outline future research directions. The analysis indicates an exponential rise in publications in recent times and with sustainability-related studies gaining more importance, especially for empirical research on port performance and demands for future empirical research on sustainability and smart port performance subject area. The study's findings are helpful for researchers, academicians, policymakers, and industry practitioners working towards a sustainable maritime port industry.

Similar content being viewed by others

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Maritime trade and seaports have evolved as an integral part of global economic development, with the trade through sea comprising more than 80 percent of the volume of international merchandise trade [ 1 ] and connecting developing countries with developed as well as between various modes of global logistics and transportation [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Given the critical role of maritime seaports in the worldwide supply chain, there has been an exponential rise in research in maritime seaport-related studies covering diverse topics and themes. With the burgeoning volumes of publications, as recommended by Moral-Muñoz et al. [ 6 ], bibliometric and systematic studies are helpful in scientifically tracking the growth trend of publications and in evaluating the essential characteristics and attributes of the research studies, supported by various contemporary statistical analysis software tools. Junquera et al. [ 7 ] highlighted the benefit of bibliometric data analysis in assisting the exploration of different characteristics and attributes related to the study area, such as publication trends, authors in the field, themes of ongoing research along country-specific details which are essential to understanding and enhancing the body of knowledge on the topic of interest, the ongoing trend, and aid in exploring the characteristics associated with different themes related to the subject of study.

Numerous bibliometric and systematic review studies by multiple authors discuss the synthesis of reviews on port management, port governance, port economics, digitization and new-age automation technology adoption in ports, and port choice selection topics. In their novel bibliometric study, Pallis et al. [ 8 ] identified significant emerging themes under various categories of port-related research. A large number of bibliometric and systematic review studies were published in the recent decade [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] that covered many of the themes and categories, including “green port”, “container port terminal”, “seaport competitiveness”, “port sustainability” “dry port”, “port management”, “digitization of port operations”, “smart port.”

However, a holistic bibliometric data analysis on the “port performance” topic could not be traced in the extant publications. For shipping ports, which act as the backbone of the maritime transportation ecosystem [ 23 , 24 ], the port’s competitiveness and performance are considered one of the most critical elements [ 25 ]. For the growth and sustenance of the global maritime trade, the performance of the ports plays a crucial role. Numerous studies [ 5 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] have proven the positive impact of the performance of ports on the economic development of a country and how poorly performing ports result in lower trade volumes, especially in developing or less-developed countries. Given ports' vital role in economic development through boosted production-consumption in the value chain and increasing global trade, along with the interest of academicians, researchers, and policymakers in the field, the literature on port performance has been growing [ 5 ]. Bibliometric and systematic analysis can give an overview of the studies on port performance. It can demonstrate a broad understanding of ongoing research work and themes since the first publication will benefit researchers and practitioners in port management.

Therefore, this study aims to explore the bibliometric data of research articles related to the performance of ports and identify the trend and ongoing themes of research through bibliometric data analysis. The study also attempts to analyze scholarly publications' evolution and critical insights on port performance-related fields regarding themes or topics, subject areas, leading journals, citations, and country-wise contributions, along with collaboration and outline future research directions. This novel study explores the bibliometric data on the “port performance” studies published in the Scopus database. It analyzes the data through creative visualizations to identify trends, establish ongoing research themes, and outline future research.

The following sections cover the literature overview on port-related bibliometric studies to trace the ongoing research and identify the gap along with framing research questions, then describe the methodology adopted in the current bibliometric survey, followed by results and discussion, leading to drawing conclusions along with contributions and outlining the implications and future research directions.

2 Review of literature

The literature review of the extant body of knowledge on port-related bibliometric analysis studies identified many significant contributions in the Scopus database. The keywords search using the combination “TITLE-ABS-KEY ("port" OR "seaport" OR "shipping port" OR "maritime port" OR "maritime shipping port" OR "container port" AND bibliometric OR scientometric) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English"))” identified 48 articles. After the screening, 25 bibliometric data analyses published since 2010 were shortlisted and reviewed in detail. Among those, eight were published in 2023 and 7 in just the first quarter of 2024, indicating the pace with which research is burgeoning in port-related fields. Elsevier is the leading publisher, with about nine publications covering around 30% of the total publications. Springer and Routledge share the second spot with four publications each. “Maritime Policy and Management” and “Sustainability” were the leading sources, with 4 and 2 bibliometric articles published, respectively. Table 1 summarises the literature reviewed, along with their source and citations.

The bibliometric studies on port-related topics commenced with the review article of Pallis et al. (2010), who conducted a bibliometric analysis of port economics and management policy-related topics to unravel the emerging research field based on the papers published between 1997 and 2008 in multiple scholarly databases such as ScienceDirect, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Econlit. They concluded that research on port-related studies is rapidly emerging, international collaboration is rising, and the majority were on container port terminals. We could also identify the recent trend of literature on port-related studies getting focussed on container terminals discussing innovation and digital automation of container terminal operations and the application of new-age big-data technologies, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Machine learning techniques (ML), and Internet-of-things platforms for productivity improvement and real-time port operations management.

Along the lines of technology development and integration in port management, the study of Li et al. [ 34 ] focused on the novel technology integrated ports with the concept of Smart ports incorporating intelligent digital technology and infrastructure comprising of cloud computing technology, big data analytics, Internet of things (IoT), and AI-based applications for capacity and resource optimization as a new-age solution to cope with the challenges faced in the dynamic port industry. The most recent publication on the maritime port sector is the bibliometric analysis study by Diniz et al. [ 22 ] on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), wherein they used IRaMuTeQ and VOSviewer software tool to evaluate the trends through a systematic literature review. In the years 2023 and 2024 till the 20th of April, published six articles each year, the highest number of bibliometric-related publications since 2010. The highest citation of 177 was received for the study by Davarzani et al. [ 9 ] on “green ports,” followed by 122 citations for the study of Pallis et al. [ 8 ] on port economics and management.

Many studies [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] have pointed out the dynamic nature of maritime business. Amidst the dynamic nature of the port sector, as highlighted by Mantry and Ghatak [ 46 ], the country’s economic development is impacted by poor port performance. As per the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) [ 1 , 47 ], more than 80% of the international trade volume is handled through maritime transportation. [ 23 , 48 ] Studies have emphasized the significance of ports in the economic growth of a country. Given ports' vital contributions to economic development and global trade, along with the increasing interest of academicians, researchers, and policymakers, the literature on port performance has grown exponentially, especially in the last decade.

OConnor et al. [ 5 ] systematically reviewed port performance-related studies to identify performance dimensions and discussed port performance as a multi-dimensional construct. However, the study should have addressed the other characteristics and attributes that cause and impact the performance of ports. Notably, Wang et al. [ 35 ] were the first to use the WoS database exclusively for collecting bibliometric data for the period 2000 to 2020 and analyzing the data using the CiteSpace software tool. Their study focused on visual mapping of bibliometric data to uncover insights into trends of publications and authors along with their affiliations and countries and keyword analysis to derive more frequently discussed topics and themes. Though future research directions were indicated in the studies and many themes were highlighted, there needs to be more on the performance of ports and related variables for enhancing port performance. The scientometric analysis and computational text analysis by Sung-Woo et al. [ 49 ] were specific to port performance-related bibliometric study; however, they focused mainly on port and shipping along with supply chain logistics-related high-quality publications between 2000 and 2018 in journals listed in the Science Citation Index (SCI), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) available in the Scopus and the WoS scholarly databases only. Since the number of articles was 1947 in the count, they adopted topic modeling using a text mining technique called “Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)” to uncover significant research topics.

The qualitative study by Somensi et al. [ 50 ] analyzed the bibliographical characteristics of evaluating port performance studies published during 2000—2016 and discussed management practices and organizational performance aspects. Bibliographical data comprising 3112 articles for their research was collected from popular scholarly databases, and a series of keywords were used to search for performance, evaluation, and management-specific articles. Bibliographical portfolio selection and analysis were done using the Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist (ProKnow-C) tool developed at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. They selected 37 articles at the end of the portfolio selection procedure to analyze further regarding an author, journal, topic, and country analysis. They suggested increasing the research by extending the analysis period and conducting a more in-depth systematic analysis as the future research direction.

To address the gap identified, bibliometric data analysis can be adopted to explore the hidden characteristics and attributes related to the study area, such as publication trends, authors in the field, themes of ongoing research along with country-specific details and help with deep insights on the continuing trend, and identify the characteristics associated with different themes related to the topic of study. Therefore, a holistic bibliometric data-based exploratory study on “port performance” can give an overview of all the studies on port performance to date and demonstrate a broad understanding of ongoing research work and themes since the first publication. Further, the previous studies have not discussed co-occurrence or co-citation in articles published on port performance.

In this backdrop and taking a cue from shortcomings identified through the literature review, this study focuses on the following research questions:

What is the trend and evolution of research publications in maritime port performance?

What are the dynamics of journals publishing articles and citations of articles related to port performance?

Which countries have given utmost importance to port performance-related studies?

How are the citations, authorship, and collaborations shaping up?

What are the new and emerging topics and themes related to port performance studies?

3 Methodology

Akbari et al. [ 51 ] discuss how bibliometric analysis has recently received greater importance and hailed bibliometric analysis methods over traditional methods due to the benefits associated with conducting bibliometric analysis. The authors adopted an exploratory research approach by analyzing the bibliometric data downloaded from the most popular scholarly database, Scopus, to assess the trend and existing scenario of port performance-related studies, leading to the researcher's analysis and interpretation of visualized data in various plots and diagrams using relevant software tools. Scopus is one of the leading scholarly databases that has witnessed increasing citable articles and multi-disciplinary publications that provide quick and authoritative access to high-quality, comprehensive, and reliable content in multi-disciplinary fields [ 52 , 53 , 54 ].

In the first phase of the bibliometric study, we started with the search for scholarly articles in the Scopus database using an initial set of keywords and Boolean operator combinations to retrieve the relevant and possible publications available in the Scopus database. After multiple trials, the keyword combination was identified as "port performance" OR "performance of port" OR "performance of the port." With the identified keywords and boolean operators, the search in the Scopus database was conducted using the combination of keywords and Boolean operators as “ALL (("maritime port" OR "sea-port" OR "sea? port" OR "seaport" OR "shipping port" OR "container port" OR "container terminal port") AND ("port performance" OR "performance of port" OR "performance of the port" OR "performance of the shipping port" OR "performance of the maritime port" OR "performance of the seaport" OR "performance of shipping port" OR "performance of seaport")) AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "PHAR") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "NURS") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "VETE") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "NEUR") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "MEDI") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "CHEM") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "BIOC") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "PHYS")) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, "no") OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, "er") OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, "tb") OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, "ed")) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English")).” The scope of the study was limited to research, review, book, and conference publication articles available in English. The search was conducted on the 20th of April, 2024.

In the second phase, the filtered documents available after the search were downloaded from the Scopus database in CSV and Bib file formats for further bibliometric data analysis. Scopus database also provides a quick, ready-to-use results analysis option with basic diagrams representing documents per year, by source, by author, affiliation, country, type, and subject area, and by funding agency. These results are also available for download in CSV file format for customized data visualization and extended analysis. This was followed by a distinct analysis of the downloaded datasets in the third phase to analyze and interpret, leading to the discussion and conclusion in the fourth phase. Further, scientometric analysis was performed based on co-authorship and co-occurrence using the VOSviewer software tool [ 55 ]. VOSviewer is acknowledged as a scientific tool for data visualization to perform exploratory data analysis on various aspects of publication, such as keywords, countries of research activity, and its density [ 56 ]. Bibliometric data related to the subject area, yearly trend, journal, author, citation, and country-wise publication was visualized and analyzed using open-source R and Python software tools and relevant available libraries and packages. “bibliometrix” package available in R was the primary tool used for importing the raw bibliometric data and later developing many visualizations supported with Python for data cleaning before further analysis and developing visualizations.

The evolution themes developing over time were analyzed with three cutting points in 2008, 2014, and 2020, representing an equal distribution from 2008 to April 2024. The first cutting point of 2008 was fixed as the number of publications saw an upswing after 2007 as per the preliminary analysis and hence could be the milestone to start with further analysis as the first cutting point. Following the benchmark values adopted by Cobo et al. [ 57 ] and Wang et al. [ 58 ] in their bibliometric analysis study, the word count was set to default as 200, minimum cluster frequency of 5 per thousand documents, the number of labels for each cluster as 4 for optimal mapping with minimum weight index as 0.1 and thematic analysis using the Louvain clustering algorithm since past studies [ 59 , 60 ] have proven the Louvain algorithm’s consistency of performance and better results of modularity when compared with other clustering algorithm approaches. Informative trends and patterns identified through the analysis were discussed, and conclusions were outlined, leading to future research directions and highlighting emerging focus fields in port performance-related studies. A co-occurrence analysis for the country was performed to identify the density of research activities in different countries. In the co-authorship analysis for the country, the minimum number of documents was set as 75 to get the overlay of visualization of the top 20 countries, and the country-specific citation minimum threshold was zero, considering the score of the average number of publications per year. Further, the co-occurrence of the keywords was analyzed to create the network using Louvin’s algorithm while limiting the number of nodes to 30 and the minimum number of edges to 0.

4 Results and analysis

In this section, the visualizations of bibliometric data based on citation metrics, co-citation, and co-occurrences are discussed along with bibliometric data analysis comprising the trend in publications, publication subject areas highlights, country of research work, author analysis, collaboration, and the journals publishing the relevant articles, to derive meaningful insights.

4.1 Descriptive analysis

The keyword search in the database identified 2245 articles published collectively from 691 sources of scientific publications from 1979 till April 20th, 2024. Of 4189 authors who contributed to publications in the port performance field, close to 29% had international co-authorship, and 274 had single-authored publications. The annual growth rate was 10.62%, and average citation was 20.24 per document. The descriptive summary of the bibliometric data is given in Table  2 .

4.2 Trend of publications

Descriptive analysis of the bibliometric data shows a phenomenal annual growth rate of 10.62% in research publications related to port performance. The trend of published articles, along with the mean total citations per year from the first article published in 1979 till 20th April 2024, is shown in Fig.  1 . There has been a spike in the number of publications since 2007, as indicated in the figure, and the number of publications has exponentially increased after that, suggesting that port performance is one of the most focused research areas in the recent decade.

Publication trend and citations from 1975 till 2023

Ahrens' [ 61 ] novel research on the engineering performance of ports outlined the importance of management training through audio-visual techniques for improving port performance in developing countries. The trend of core engineering-related performance studies continued till Thomas [ 62 ] discussed the strategic management of ports and their development. Roll et al. [ 63 ] introduced the application of the DEA methodology in port performance comparison with a sample of 20 selected ports. Later, a noticeable surge in port performance studies started after Lin et al. [ 64 ] studied the operation performance of major container ports in the Asia–Pacific region and applied the DEA approach to evaluate the operational performance of ports based on their operation efficiency.

4.3 Subject area of publication analysis

The percentage share of the articles published in different subject areas of research is shown in Fig.  2 . “Social Sciences,” “Engineering,” and “Business, Management, and Accounting” areas contribute more than 50% of the overall and are followed by the “Environmental Science,” Decision Sciences, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance,” and “Computer Science,” subject area and so on, out of which “Business, Management, and Accounting” areas account around 12%. Other areas include “Earth and Planetary Sciences,” “Energy,” “Mathematics,” “Agricultural and Biological Sciences”, “Arts and Humanities,” “Materials Science,” “Multidisciplinary,” “Chemical Engineering,” and “Psychology.”

Subject-wise publication share

4.4 Journal of publication analysis

The distribution of the articles published in journals is shown in Fig.  3 for journals that have published more than 30 articles. “Maritime Policy and Management” journal is the leading source, with about 156 publications, followed by “Maritime Economics and Logistics” and “Sustainability” journals, together contributing to 5% of the total publications to date. “Research in Transportation and Management,” “Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics,” and International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics” are closely competing with only one-third of the publications from the “Maritime Policy and Management” journal.

Top publishers with more than 30 publications

To get a deeper understanding of the growth of sources, source dynamics were analyzed using a trend line, as shown in Fig.  4 . Accordingly, it was identified that although “Maritime Policy and Management,” “Maritime Economics and Logistics”, “Sustainability”, “Research in Transportation Business and Management”, “Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics”, “International Journal of Shipping and Logistics”, “Ocean and Coastal Management”, and “Transport policy” are the leaders in terms of total publications in the given order. Phenomenal growth was achieved by the “Sustainability” journal, which was at the bottom in 2007 and has shown exponential growth since then, reaching the third position in annual publications growth, overtaking the “Research in Transportation Business and Management” journal.

The trend of annual publications in top sources

4.5 Author publication and citation analysis

The publications from the leading authors based on their number of publications and their citations are shown in Fig.  5 . Lam JSL occupies the top position, with 27 publications commencing with the first publication in 2006. At the same time, the top author with the highest citation is Cullinane K, with the first publication in 2002 and contributing 21 publications in the last 20 years. Six of his publications in 2006 alone have received 822 citations so far.

Number of Publications and Citation to Publication ratio for top authors

The authors’ collaboration network diagram is shown in Fig.  6 . Some top authors, especially Cullinane, Pallis, Lam, Chen J, Ducruet, and Song, collaborate highly, leading to higher quality publications with increasing citations.

Author's network diagram

4.6 Country of research analysis

The distribution of articles published across the top 15 countries based on publications and based on citations is shown in Figs.  7 and 8 , respectively. China has the highest contribution, close to 24%, followed by the US and UK, with 8.6% and 4.6% of publications, respectively. Somensi et al. [ 50 ] also highlighted China as the highest contributor with the most significant port performance-related studies. India-centric publications are merely 3.47%, a mere 15% of that of China, which has 571 publications, followed by the US and the UK, with 205 and 110 publications, respectively. China is again the leader in citations with 8116 citations, followed by the US and UK 5189 and 4819 citations, respectively. However, Spain overtook Italy with 1843 citations from 93 articles, with 1628 citations from 94 publications.

Country-wise publication

Country-wise citation

The scatter plot in Fig.  9 shows China, the USA, and Korea leading mainly with single-country publications, compared with Singapore and the UK, which have more multi-country collaborated publications. Among the top 10 countries in collaboration aspects, India has higher single-country publications and only a few multi-country collaborated publications.

Scatter plot of single and multi-country publications

4.7 Co-authorship and country-collaboration analysis

We considered the publications where the minimum number of publications was set as two, and the maximum number of countries counted as 25. Thus, among the 105 countries published, 77 meet this threshold. When calculating the total strength of the co-authorship links with other countries, only the countries with the greatest total link strength will be selected. The visualization of country-wise coauthorship and publication network in Fig.  10 shows that China has the highest density compared to other countries, indicating intense research on port and port performance.

Country-wise overlay of co-authorship

4.8 Impact metrics analysis

The “Research Metrics Guidebook” provides a comprehensive list of metrics to assess the research impact at various levels, including journal, article, author, and affiliated institutional level productivity, citation, and collaboration based on scholarly content in the Scopus database [ 65 ]. Table 3 shows the citation impact metrics since 2018.

“Field-weighted citation Impact” (FWCI) metric is a comparative metric that calculates the citations received by a document compared to the expected citations. It is a normalized bibliometric indicator that factors in the type of document, subject area, and publication period [ 66 ]. As we can see, the FWCI has been fluctuating; overall, it is at 1.12, indicating that the impact is 12 percent above the global average. Further break-up analysis on the authorship impact, as shown in Table  4 , suggests more than 50 percent impact above the worldwide average of international collaboration. Industry-institute collaboration has significantly increased in 2024. “Outputs in Top Citation Percentiles” shows that 11.5 percent of the publications are in the top 10 percent. International collaboration has seen close to 30 percent collaboration over the years. The top fifteen country impact metrics, as shown in Table  5 , indicate China is leading with the highest number of views and citations, along with an FWCI of 1.85, suggesting they are 85 percent above the global average. Spain, India, and Indonesia are 15, 18, and 36 percent below the global average.

4.9 Co-occurrence analysis

The co-occurrence of the keywords was analyzed for keywords having a minimum of 40 occurrences to create cluster-based density visualization based on the weight of occurrences, as shown in Fig.  11 . The core subject areas with the highest occurrences in the field of port performance-related studies are “Data Envelopment Analysis”, “efficiency”, “simulation”, “container terminal”, “port competitiveness”, “port governance”, “port management”, and “sustainability”. DEA and efficiency are the most weighted labels in the performance-related studies, with counts of 55 and 53, respectively. DEA and efficiency labels were followed by a simulation of the performance of seaports and container terminals and then the constructs related to performance, such as competitiveness, governance, management, and sustainability practices. In the computations text analysis of Sung-Woo et al. [ 49 ], the LDA output indicated DEA methodology as the most weighted term.

Density visualization of co-occurrences using VOSViewer

4.10 Keyword analysis

The scatter plot in Fig.  12 with size measures showing the frequency count of the top trending words indicates that the trending words with the highest frequency in the last ten years are “port operations”, followed by “Container terminal”, “Data Envelopment Analysis”, “efficiency”, and “Sustainability” with the count as 341, 168, 155,136 and 92 respectively. Automation has been the trending word in recent years, with the previous years trending with the COVID-19 keyword, followed by performance, port automation, and economic development.

Top Trending words

4.11 Thematic evolution analysis

Thematic evolution using a longitudinal map (alluvial graph) divides the timespan of the research field into slices of time duration prescribed based on the developments in the field. It illustrates the continuation and discontinuation of identified themes, thus explaining the conceptual structure of the field of interest [ 67 , 68 ]. The thematic evolution shown in Fig.  13 demonstrates the evolution of the themes with three cutting points in the years 2008, 2014, and 2020. 2008 was set as the first cutting point as the publications trend showed an exponential increase after 2007. Then, the remaining cutting points were set as equal intervals to assess the thematic evolution. The word count was set to default as 200, with a minimum cluster frequency of 5, the number of labels for each cluster as 4 with a minimum weight index of 0.1, and thematic analysis using the Louvain algorithm.

Thematic evolution since 1979 using R-bibliometrix package

Callon et al. [ 69 ] developed the co-word analysis technique based on the centrality and density matrix to analyze and explain word interactions in any research field over some time. According to Cobo et al. [ 57 ], the thematic map comprises four quadrants on which the themes are placed based on the centrality and density of the themes over the years. Centrality demonstrates the theme's importance or relevance within the given study area, whereas density represents the development of the theme over the selected timespan. The bubbles in the graph indicate the size of the occurrence within the cluster, comprised of interacting words demonstrating the co-occurrence network. Each quadrant has its characteristics based on the degree of centrality and density measures. Motor themes are those of high importance and development happening in the field. Niche themes are, by and large, isolated and highly developed combined with negligible, low, or limited importance. Emerging or declining themes are of low significance, and the density of the theme needs to be vigorously developed. Basic themes are characterized by high-importance and relevant and low-density themes. They are reasonably crucial for research since those topics still need to be fully developed and, therefore, potential issues for conducting future research [ 57 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. The recent 4th stage of the thematic map is shown in Fig.  14 for the 2019 to 2024 time span.

Thematic map of the 4th stage from 2018 till date using R-bibliometric package

The thematic map resulted in nine clusters in the 4th stage, as tabulated in Table  6 , summarising the themes and the related topics associated with each cluster.

The theme with the highest centrality, complimented with high density, is “sustainability” among the topics mapped. To get more insight into the theme of “sustainability” topic identified, the trend of sustainability keywords in the previous two decades was visualized as shown in Fig. 15 . Through the review of literature, it was also determined that the surge in usage of sustainability terms in research started after the pioneering work of Yap et al. [ 72 ], who initiated the focused discussions on sustainability-related topics, and after that, the usage has steadily grown exponentially.

Frequency Trend of Sustainability keyword

5 Discussions

This study focused on bibliometric analysis of port performance-related studies based on the bibliometric data available on the Scopus database. This article critically examined bibliometric data of studies related to the performance of ports to explore the evolution, identify trends of articles published from 1975 till April 20th, 2024, the leading authors, top journals, impact metrics, and leading countries in terms of publications, and thereby highlight the research directions on port performance studies. From the trend of publications, it is evident that there has been a significant spike in the number of publications after 2007. After that, it has been exponentially increasing in concurrence with the findings of Pallis et al. [ 8 ], indicating that port performance is one of the highly focused research areas in recent times with over 10 percent annual growth rate. OConnor et al. [ 5 ] also highlighted the growing desire of policymakers and stakeholders in port performance evaluation and policy development, keeping in mind the interests of the public as well. The average citations were over 20 per document; however, the citations fluctuated with irregular peaking and flattening patterns. The timespan from 2000 to 2007 saw the highest number of citations and, after that, has been moderate but more significant than the rate of publications over the years except for the last two years, where the citations are yet to pick up due to the recently published articles. A review of publications gives insight into the fact that the articles are predominantly on port efficiency-related studies, with many articles starting to focus on DEA methodology application on port efficiency and port performance evaluation studies. Other studies [ 49 , 50 ] also found that DEA-based studies have the highest number of publications and citations.

Among the various pre-defined subject areas of port-performance-related publications in Scopus, “Business, Management, and Accounting” contributes close to 12 percent, about half of the contribution in the “Social Sciences” subject area and, indicating “Business, Management, and Accounting” as a highly potential subject area for focused contribution in the port performance related field. Somensi et al. [ 50 ] also highlighted the need to enhance the research on business management. Among the sources of publications, “Maritime Policy & Management” leads the race in publications, with close to 7 percent of the publications. Our findings concur with the observations of Somensi et al. [ 50 ], who found similar results in their systematic literature review on the performance of the port topic. In their content analysis study, Notteboom et al. [ 49 ] highlighted 267 articles published in the “Maritime Policy & Management” journal, and the leading and continuous contributions of studies related to port were highlighted in the journal. Therefore, “Maritime Policy & Management” should be one of the primary journals researchers must subscribe to for notifications and regularly track updates on port research. The publications in “Maritime Policy & Management” are equal to the publications in “Maritime Economics and Logistics” and “Sustainability” journals. In the source of publication analysis, “Maritime Economics and Logistics” and “Sustainability” were identified as the sources with the highest growth rate for publications related to port performance. These two journals were at the bottom during 2000 and have shown exponential growth, especially the “Maritime Economics and Logistics” journal, which has reached second in annual publications growth, closely followed by the exponentially growing “Sustainability” journal, which has been gaining momentum since 2015. The “Sustainability” journal is growing steadily and exponentially compared to other trailing journals behind “Maritime Policy & Management”. The findings of Zhou et al. [ 73 ] also confirm that “Sustainability” and “Maritime Policy & Management” journals are the leading journals in port-related studies.

Among the authors contributing, Lam JSL, Notteboom, Song DW, Pallis, Ng AKY, Yang Z, and Ducruet C are a few critical leading authors with the highest contribution and co-citation in port performance-related studies. Zhou et al. [ 73 ] have a fascinating insight into the changing pattern of research hot spots in port-related studies and their associated dynamics. The study of Wang et al. [ 35 ] also identified LSL Lam as the most productive contributor with the highest number of publications. The collaborations network shows collaborations happening in some pockets within the US, UK, some parts of Europe, and South Korea to a greater level, thus taking international collaboration to 30% share. Although the US is ahead of the UK in publications, the normalized FWCI for the UK is higher by 30% at 1.75 compared to the US. It is worth highlighting that in addition to the multi-country-author collaboration, industry-institute collaboration is also improving and uplifting the impact further. Analyzing the country of publications, with about 20% contributions, China is the only developing economy in the leading countries of publications and citations, followed by the US, UK, Korea, Spain, and Italy. However, regarding citations, the UK has dominated other countries with the highest citations, followed by China and the US. This finding confirms the past conclusions [ 35 , 73 ], where China was identified as the leading country regarding the number of publications, followed by the US and South Korea.

Density visualization of co-occurrences categorized the keywords into 3 clusters centered around the port operation, container terminal, and efficiency topics. The port operations-centered cluster had related keywords: performance assessment, competitiveness, sustainability, sustainable port development, decision-making, and policy. The container terminal-centered cluster had container cargo handling and computer simulation aspects. Lastly, the port efficiency-centered cluster had DEA, benchmarking, and productivity aspects. In the top ten labels based on occurrence frequency, DEA and efficiency are the most weighted labels, which aligns with the findings of the past conclusions [ 49 , 50 ]. An overview of existing literature on port performance research also shows the studies were predominantly based on applying DEA methodology to compute the efficiency of the port, simulation modeling followed by critical dimensions such as port competitiveness, port performance, and sustainability, along with port governance and strategic management. DEA and efficiency labels were followed by a simulation of the performance of seaports and container terminals and then the constructs related to performance, such as competitiveness, governance, management, and sustainability practices.

Remarkably, thematic evolution shows the absence of DEA methodology after the cutting point in 2018, where it peaked and was later taken over by the sustainability theme. The sustainability theme started to evolve in 2013, far below DEA, and attained the top position from 2019 to 2024. The DEA theme, which has evolved since 2008, has been taken over by the port performance theme since 2019. The thematic analysis has also shed light on the themes revolving around the port hinterland theme, which have evolved through DEA methodology and recently, since 2017, into sustainability-related themes along with port performance. Container terminal and port governance have been themes that have continued to exist since 2008. The “COVID-19 pandemic” and “automatic detection systems” (AIS) were the latest themes that have explicitly evolved. As the entire world faced the wrath and impact of the global pandemic, the port industry was also not left free, and many studies [ 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ] have evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on the port sector. Alongside this, most industries have adopted automation technologies to overcome the challenges and effects of the pandemic. This phenomenon is confirmed by the top trending words “automation” and “technology adoption” in 2023 and 2024. The application of robotics and other AIS in port operations became eminent, leading to many studies [ 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ] exploring innovative applications and opportunities for automation and digital technology adoption. Even the keywords analysis indicates that technology adoption and automation have been the topics that have been highly discussed in recent times.

Yang et al. [ 81 ] also highlighted the increasing popularity of AIS in their review work on AIS and big data in maritime research. Ashrafi et al. [ 83 ] discussed the design of games to address various contain terminal problems. They proposed using virtual and augmented reality and Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies through simulation games in the dynamic port industry that can train and develop professionals who handle port planning, operations, and management. Meanwhile, Lee et al. [ 84 ] underlined the crucial role of AI and computer vision technology in response to dynamics in the port industry, specifically focusing on intelligent traffic management and parking space and container operations optimization in maritime ports. Applications of AIS and IoT through the “Smart Port” concept were detailed by Rajabi et al. [ 82 ] to overcome the challenges in port operations in the dynamic environment within which the port operates. Similar to the Industry 4.0 framework, the new-age innovative automation and robotics applications in seaport operations were conceptualized under the Shipping 4.0 framework in the study of Muhammad et al. [ 79 ].

The most trending words with the highest frequency in the last five years were identified as “Sustainability”, similar to the findings of Sung-Woo et al. [ 49 ], who highlighted the term as a core focus area in port-related research since 2010. They reviewed port-related research works applying the computational text analysis approach to the articles available in both the Scopus database and WoS database related to port research and published in international journals indexed in the Science Citation Index and Korea Citation Index also highlighted the need for sustainable port development and more focus on environmental sustainability alongside the development of port competitiveness. A similar finding was underscored by Wagner (2019) in the bibliometric data-based study on port cities. Sustainability is the new theme that has taken center stage, with a high density of publications and high importance and greater centrality, indicating the relevance of the studies in the current context. Most recent studies have spotted sustainability in the maritime industry as a topic of focused interest, as pointed out by Lee et al. [ 85 ], ever since the term was used at the first Earth Summit in 1992. It is emphasized as the need of the hour, supported by SDGs of the UN’s 2030 Agenda on emission reduction and sustainable maritime operations that have put significant pressure on maritime seaports, thereby demanding regulator compliance and sustainability reporting. Sustainability and intelligent ports were part of the motor theme cluster, indicating the theme of high importance and development happening in the field. AIS and ML were part of Motor cum niche cross-over themes indicating they are developed in isolation but are niche in nature. Similarly, the blockchain technology keyword in the niche theme is a highly developed concept, but it is isolated from the application in port in the development and growth stage.

We identified some of the major theoretical foundations that were adopted in port-related studies, such as “Business model innovation theory”, “resilience theory”, “resource dependence theory” and “stakeholder theory”. Ashrafi et al. [ 83 ] adopted stakeholder theory to synthesize the drivers of sustainability in maritime ports in the systematic review study. They discussed the sustainability strategies grouped into different clusters based on multi-stakeholder perspectives to integrate into port planning and operations as a response to the changing industry dynamics. Denktas-Sakar et al. [ 86 ] adopted the “resource dependence theory” to conceptualize a framework to integrate the relationships between the supply chain and port stakeholders to identify the impact on the sustainability of ports. Giudice et al. [ 13 ] adopted the “Business model innovation theory” and “resilience theory” to determine the innovative technologies and digitization of port operations as a solution for the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of ports in line with the description of Elkington [ 87 ] who coined the “Triple Bottom Line” foundations of sustainability. No specific definition of sustainability has been universally accepted, even though many have attempted to define it [ 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 ]; however, there is a common understanding from different schools of thought [ 88 , 89 ] that sustainability encompasses most frequently related dimensions which are termed as the three pillars of sustainability have respective practices, viz economic sustainability practices, environmental sustainability practices, and social sustainability practices, that facilitate and lead towards sustainable development through practicing these practices. Recently, Jugović et al. [ 32 ] highlighted the emerging concept of a green port governance model of adopting sustainability practices in the port. Many studies [ 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ] defined sustainability practices as the practices that aid organizations in developing opportunities and, at the same time, managing the three dimensions of organizational processes—economic, environmental, and social aspects in value creation over the long term.

Furthermore, Bjerkan et al. [ 96 ] highlighted the need for more port sustainability-related studies and empirical research on port sustainability. Adding to that, Lim et al. [ 97 ] also emphasized the importance of sustainable port performance in their systematic review of port sustainability and performance-related studies. They raised the flag on the focus of extant studies, mainly on environmental sustainability, and the need for more importance placed on social and economic sustainability in research studies. Multiple studies [ 98 , 99 , 100 ] have pointed out the uncertainty and lack of clarity among industry professionals and other research-oriented consultants and academicians on approaches to excel in sustainable performance and whether there are any significant positive results on performance due to sustainability. This considerable gap must be addressed and indicates the dire need for research incorporating sustainability concepts within the framework related to port performance. Many studies [ 14 , 49 , 101 , 102 ] also acknowledged sustainability as one of the primary factors contributing to port competitiveness and performance enhancement. The report by UNCTAD [ 1 ] highlights the expectations of ports to consider sustainability aligned with port performance through strategic and operational steps as it has become a priority in overall maritime shipment. The report also opined that ports operating with higher sustainability have greater chances of attracting investments and increased support from various port stakeholders. Lim et al. [ 97 ] also highlighted the importance of sustainable port performance in their systematic review of port sustainability and performance. They mentioned the focus on only environmental sustainability and the need for more importance on social and economic sustainability in research studies. A similar emphasis on the ecological sustainability of green and sustainable ports was found in other studies [ 103 , 104 ]. However, their studies also mentioned incorporating sustainability's economic and social dimensions in future research. Lee et al. [ 85 ] also outlined the need to explore the methodologies adopted in sustainability-related studies in their proposed future research directions.

Even though Sung-Woo et al. [ 49 ] highlighted quality and sustainability as the focus areas of port-related research since 2010, [ 99 ] opined that sustainability is an emerging concept that has yet to be overlooked. They also raised doubts about practitioners' and researchers' need for more clarity on whether the sustainability concept can yield positive results or has been successful. Broccardo et al. [ 100 ] also highlight the concern and crucial gap of need for clarity among academicians and researchers on the excellence that can be achieved in sustainability and performance. Further, in the review of tools and technologies work by Bjerkan et al. [ 96 ], empirical data-based research on the sustainability of ports was demanded due to the need for more sufficient studies related to experiences on implementation and associated challenges in port operations. More importantly, empirical data-driven research on sustainability-related topics and port performance will be critical to the growing body of knowledge.

Summarising the above discussions and findings, the insight drawn indicates that sustainability” is the most highlighted and evolving theme in recent years in port performance-related studies. [ 105 ] also pointed out the increased focus and evolution of sustainability in the context of society, industry as well as regulatory bodies in line with the argument of Broccardo et al. [ 100 ], who highlighted the concern and gap of lack of clarity among academicians and researchers on the excellence that can be achieved in sustainability and performance and emphasizes on addressing this crucial gap. Further, although companies are becoming increasingly involved in sustainability [ 106 ], academic researchers still need to make clear how to excel in sustainability and performance [ 98 ], thus highlighting a gap that must be addressed. This has resulted in a gush of publications on topics related to sustainability, as highlighted by [ 107 ].

6 Conclusion and future research directions

To the best of the researcher's knowledge, this study is novel due to its holistic coverage of the span of publications and growth and the thematic evolution of publications in maritime port performance-related studies. The bibliometric exploratory data analysis of articles published from 1979 to April 2024 was conducted to review the trend, explore the existing characteristics of port performance-related studies, and identify opportunities for future research. The increasing number of publications related to port performance indicates the extreme importance and focus on the performance of ports and related topic areas, especially from 2008 onwards.

The study contributes in the following ways. Firstly, it contributes to the overall understanding of the introduction and growth of port performance-related studies worldwide. Secondly, it provides exploratory data analysis on key characteristics such as the occurrence of keywords, research subject areas, top publishing journals, and country-wise research publications. Lastly, the findings give possible future research directions and opportunities. This is also a pioneer study that demonstrated the use of Python software and relevant packages for creating advanced visualizations using bibliometric data and the Bibliometrix package of the R-programming tool.

The study and the outcome discussions are bound with limitations, as in most research, and future research can address the shortcomings. Primarily, this study was limited to articles published in the Scopus database alone. Even institutional ranking agencies like Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE) are adopting indexing matrices from Scopus due to its popularity and reliability of peer-reviewed publications in reputed journals. However, future research could integrate articles from other databases like WoS, ProQuest, IEEE, and Google Scholar for a holistic view of research publications available in other leading scholarly databases. An extended scoping review study can be conducted to understand better the underlying themes and the antecedents of port performance variables. Also, the studies should be focused on port management, competitiveness, and sustainability constructs to keep in line with the growing number of studies on these important and relevant labels related to sustainable port performance management. As recommended by Jeevan et al. [ 14 ], topic modeling, also termed LDA, to uncover the specific themes in port performance can be explored for further thematic research and comparing the studies between countries. Further, the digital and technology revolution has given way to innovative technologies and automation systems that aid resource optimization in various port operations and management. The extent of AI and ML applications supported with big data and blockchain concepts could also be explored for technology-aided sustainable development.

Despite the limitations mentioned above, the study contributes to the body of knowledge in terms of the evolution and trend of ongoing research in port performance, the leading journals of publication, publication citations, the most prolific authors, the co-authorship and occurrence network, top frequently used labels and topics, the thematic evolution and subject areas of study which will be of significant review and reference to researchers, academicians, and industry practitioner giving future directions of research on port performance and increased focus on a sustainability theme.

Data availability

The data for analysis in the study was based on the bibliometric data downloaded from the scholarly database Scopus and was limited to published research and review articles in English till March 2024. The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are private for some as the bibliometric data search is available for subscribed users but from the corresponding author at a reasonable request.

UNCTAD. International maritime trade and port traffic; 2019. pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18356/bdd3e686-en

Wang Y, Wang N. The role of the port industry in China’s national economy: an input–output analysis. Transp Policy (Oxf). 2019;78:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.03.007 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Kuo KC, Lu WM, Le MH. Exploring the performance and competitiveness of Vietnam port industry using DEA. Asian J Shipp Logist. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.01.002 .

Thai VV, Yeo GT, Pak JY. Comparative analysis of port competency requirements in Vietnam and Korea. Marit Policy Manag. 2016;43(5):614–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1106017 .

OConnor E, Evers N, Vega A. Port performance from a policy perspective—a systematic review of the literature. J Ocean Coast Econ. 2019. https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1093 .

Moral-Muñoz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Santisteban-Espejo A, Cobo MJ. Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: an up-to-date review. Prof Inf. 2020;29(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03

Junquera B, Mitre M. Value of bibliometric analysis for research policy: a case study of Spanish research into innovation and technology management. Scientometrics. 2007;71(3):443–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1689-9 .

Pallis AA, Vitsounis TK, de Langen PW. Port Economics, policy and management: review of an emerging research field. Transp Rev. 2010;30(1):115–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902843208 .

Davarzani H, Fahimnia B, Bell M, Sarkis J. Greening ports and maritime logistics: a review. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2016;48:473–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.007 .

Lau Y, Ducruet C, Ng AKY, Fu X. Across the waves: a bibliometric analysis of container shipping research since the 1960s. Marit Policy Manag. 2017;44(6):667–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1311425 .

Munim ZH, Saeed N. Seaport competitiveness research: the past, present and future. Int J Shipp Transp Logist. 2019;11(6):533–57. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2019.103877 .

Miraj P, Berawi MA, Zagloel TY, Sari M, Saroji G. Research trend of dry port studies: a two-decade systematic review. Marit Policy Manag. 2021;48(4):563–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1798031 .

Del Giudice M, Di Vaio A, Hassan R, Palladino R. Digitalization and new technologies for sustainable business models at the ship–port interface: a bibliometric analysis. Marit Policy Manag. 2022;49(3):410–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1903600 .

Jeevan J, Selvaduray M, Mohd Salleh NH, Ngah AH, Zailani S. Evolution of Industrial Revolution 4.0 in seaport system: an interpretation from a bibliometric analysis. Austr J Marit Ocean Aff. 2022;14(4):229–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1962068 .

Weerasinghe BA, Perera HN, Bai X. Optimizing container terminal operations: a systematic review of operations research applications. Marit Econ Logist. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00254-0 .

Pham TY. A smart port development: systematic literature and bibliometric analysis. Asian J Shipp Logist. 2023;39(3):57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2023.06.005 .

Pallis AA, Kladaki P, Notteboom T. Port economics, management and policy studies (2009–2020): a bibliometric analysis. WMU J Marit Aff. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-023-00325-2 .

Megawati AP, Wayan-Nurjaya I, Machfud, Suseno SH. Bibliometric mapping of research developments on the topic of fishing port management using VOSviewer. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1266/1/012019 .

Zhang Z, et al. Digitalization and innovation in green ports: a review of current issues, contributions and the way forward in promoting sustainable ports and maritime logistics. Sci Total Environ. 2024;912:169075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169075 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dragović B, Zrnić N, Dragović A, Tzannatos E, Dulebenets MA. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis and assessment of high-impact research on the berth allocation problem. Ocean Eng. 2024;300:117163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117163 .

Beyene ZT, Nadeem SP, Jaleta ME, Kreie A. Research trends in dry port sustainability: a bibliometric analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2024;16(1):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010263 .

Diniz NV, Cunha DR, de Santana Porte M, Oliveira CBM, de Freitas Fernandes F. A bibliometric analysis of sustainable development goals in the maritime industry and port sector. Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2024;69:103319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103319 .

Bottasso A, Conti M, Ferrari C, Merk O, Tei A. The impact of port throughput on local employment: Evidence from a panel of European regions. Transp Policy (Oxf). 2013;27:32–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.12.001 .

Clark X, Dollar D, Micco A. Port efficiency, maritime transport costs, and bilateral trade. J Dev Econ. 2004;75(2):417–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.06.005 .

Tongzon J. Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using data envelopment analysis. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2001;35(2):107–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00049-X .

Jung BM. Economic contribution of ports to the local economies in Korea. Asian J Shipp Logist. 2011;27:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2092-5212(11)80001-5 .

Munim ZH, Schramm H-J. The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: the mediating role of seaborne trade. J Shipp Trade. 2018;3(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 .

Chen L, Xu X, Zhang P, Zhang X. Analysis on port and maritime transport system researches. J Adv Transp. 2018;2018:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6471625 .

Wagner N. Sustainability in port cities—A bibliometric approach. Transp Res Proc. 2019;39:587–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.060 .

Xu X, Wang H, Wu Y, Yi W. Bibliometric analysis on port and shipping researches in scope of management science. Asia-Pac J Oper Res. 2021;38(3):21400273. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595921400273 .

Jović M, Tijan E, Brčić D, Pucihar A. Digitalization in maritime transport and seaports: bibliometric, content and thematic analysis. J Mar Sci Eng. 2022;10(4):486. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10040486 .

Jugović A, Sirotić M, Poletan Jugović T. Identification of pivotal factors influencing the establishment of green port governance models: a bibliometric analysis, content analysis, and DPSIR framework. J Mar Sci Eng. 2022;10(11):1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111701 .

Lin C-Y, Dai G-L, Wang S, Fu X-M. The evolution of green port research: a knowledge mapping analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022;14(19):11857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911857 .

Li KX, Li M, Zhu Y, Yuen KF, Tong H, Zhou H. Smart port: a bibliometric review and future research directions. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev. 2023;174:103098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103098 .

Wang S-B, Peng X-H. Knowledge mapping of port logistics in the recent 20 Years: a bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace. Marit Policy Manag. 2023;50(3):335–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1990429 .

Adarrab A, Mamad M, Houssaini A, Behlouli M. Systematic review of port choice criteria for evaluating port attractiveness determinants (PART i): Bibliometric and content analyses. Pomorstvo. 2023;37(1):86–105. https://doi.org/10.31217/p.37.1.8 .

Chen S, Ding Q, Liang K. Research on green port based on LDA model and CiteSpace bibliometric analysis. In: Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2679115

Kuakoski HS, Lermen FH, Graciano P, Lam JSL, Mazzuchetti RN. Marketing, entrepreneurship, and innovation in port management: trends, barriers, and research agenda. Marit Policy Manag. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2023.2180548 .

Gerrero-Molina M, Vasquez-Suarez Y, Valdes-Mosquera D. Smart, green, and sustainable: unveiling technological trajectories in maritime port operations. IEEE Access. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3376431 .

du Plessis F, Goedhals-Gerber L, van Eeden J. The impacts of climate change on marine cargo insurance of cold chains: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2024;23:101018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101018 .

Mojica Herazo JC, Piñeres Castillo AP, Cabello Eras JJ, Salais Fierro TE, Araújo JFC, Gatica G. Bibliometric analysis of energy management and efficiency in the maritime industry and port terminals: Trends. Proc Comput Sci. 2024;231:514–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.12.243 .

Pallis AA. Chapter 11 whither port strategy? Theory and practice in conflict. Res Transp Econ. 2007;21:343–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0739-8859(07)21011-X .

Le PT, Nguyen H-O. Influence of policy, operational and market conditions on seaport efficiency in newly emerging economies: the case of Vietnam. Appl Econ. 2020;52(43):4698–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1740159 .

Li W, Bai X, Yang D, Hou Y. Maritime connectivity, transport infrastructure expansion and economic growth: a global perspective. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2023;170:103609. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2023.103609 .

Geng X, Wen Y, Zhou C, Xiao C. Establishment of the sustainable ecosystem for the regional shipping industry based on system dynamics. Sustainability. 2017;9(5):742. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050742 .

Mantry S, Ghatak RR. Comparing and contrasting competitiveness of major indian and select international ports. Int J Res Finance Market. 2017;7(5):1–19.

Google Scholar  

UNCTAD. Reflecting on the past , exploring the future. In: 50 Years of Review of Maritime Transport, 1968–2018: reflecting on the past, exploring the future, no. 10; 2018.

Xiu G, Zhao Z. Sustainable development of port economy based on intelligent system dynamics. IEEE Access. 2021;9:14070–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051065 .

Sung-Woo L, Sung-Ho S. A review of port research using computational text analysis: a comparison of Korean and International Journals. Asian J Shipp Logist. 2019;35(3):138–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.09.002 .

Somensi K, Ensslin S, Dutra A, Ensslin L, Ripoll-Feliu VM, Dezem V. Knowledge construction about port performance: evaluation: an international literature analysis. Intang Cap. 2017;13(4):720–44. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.956 .

Akbari M, Khodayari M, Danesh M, Davari A, Padash H. A bibliometric study of sustainable technology research. Cogent Bus Manag. 2020;7(1):1751906. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751906 .

“Scopus,” Abstract and citation database. Elsevier. Accessed: 04 April 2024. [Online]. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus

Bartol T, Budimir G, Dekleva-Smrekar D, Pusnik M, Juznic P. Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics. 2014;98(2):1491–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1148-8 .

Lasda Bergman EM. Finding citations to social work literature: the relative benefits of using web of science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. J Acad Librariansh. 2012;38(6):370–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002 .

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. VOSviewer: a computer program for bibliometric mapping. In: 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2009; 2009.

Castillo-Vergara M, Alvarez-Marin A, Placencio-Hidalgo D. A bibliometric analysis of creativity in the field of business economics. J Bus Res. 2018;85:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.011 .

Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. J Informetr. 2011;5(1):146–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002 .

Wang C, Lv T, Cai R, Xu J, Wang L. Bibliometric analysis of multi-level perspective on sustainability transition research. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022;14(7):4145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074145 .

Singh D, Garg R. Comparative analysis of sequential community detection algorithms based on internal and external quality measure. J Stat Manag Syst. 2020;23(7):1129–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720510.2020.1800189 .

Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp. 2008;10:2008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 .

Ahrens JP. Irregular wave runup. In: Coastal structures 79, speciality conference on the design construction, maintenance and performance of port and coastal structure, vol. 2; 1979. pp. 998–1041.

Thomas BJ. Port management development—a strategy for the provision of a training capability in developing countries. Marit Policy Manag. 1981;8(3):179–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088838100000043 .

Roll Y, Hayuth Y. Port performance comparison applying data envelopment analysis (DEA). Marit Policy Manag. 1993;20(2):153–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839300000025 .

Lin LC, Tseng CC. Operational performance evaluation of major container ports in the Asia-Pacific region. Marit Policy Manag. 2007;34(6):535–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830701695248 .

Intelligence ER. Research Metrics Guidebook; 2019.

Purkayastha A, Palmaro E, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Baas J. Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). J Informetr. 2019;13(2):635–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.012 .

Rosvall M, Bergstrom CT. Mapping change in large networks. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(1):e8694. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008694 .

Khare A, Jain R. Mapping the conceptual and intellectual structure of the consumer vulnerability field: a bibliometric analysis. J Bus Res. 2022;150:567–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.039 .

Callon M, Courtial JP, Laville F. Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics. 1991;22(1):155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280 .

Madsen DØ, Berg T, Di Nardo M. Bibliometric Trends in industry 5.0 research: an updated overview. Applied System Innovation. 2023;6(4):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi6040063 .

Della Corte V, Del Gaudio G, Sepe F, Sciarelli F. Sustainable tourism in the open innovation realm: a bibliometric analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2019;11(21):6114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216114 .

Yap WY, Lam JSL. 80 million-twenty-foot-equivalent-unit container port? Sustainability issues in port and coastal development. Ocean Coast Manag. 2013;71:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.10.011 .

Zhou F, Yu K, Xie W, Lyu J, Zheng Z, Zhou S. Digital twin-enabled smart maritime logistics management in the context of industry 5.0. IEEE Access. 2024;12:10920–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3354838 .

Zhou X, Jing D, Dai L, Wang Y, Guo S, Hu H. Evaluating the economic impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on shipping and port industry: a case study of the port of Shanghai. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022;230:106339. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2022.106339 .

Michail NA, Melas KD. Shipping markets in turmoil: an analysis of the Covid-19 outbreak and its implications. Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2020;7:100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRIP.2020.100178 .

Notteboom T, Pallis T, Rodrigue JP. Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: the COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Maritime Econ Logist. 2021;23(2):179–210. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41278-020-00180-5/FIGURES/14 .

Cullinane K, Haralambides H. Global trends in maritime and port economics: the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Maritime Econ Logist. 2021;23(3):369–80. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41278-021-00196-5/FIGURES/1 .

Notteboom TE, Pallis AA, De Langen PW, Papachristou A. Advances in port studies: the contribution of 40 years Maritime Policy & Management. Marit Policy Manag. 2013;40(7):636–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.851455 .

Muhammad B, Kumar A, Cianca E, Lindgren P. Improving port operations through the application of robotics and automation within the framework of shipping 4.0. In: International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications, WPMC, vol. 2018-November; 2018. pp. 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1109/WPMC.2018.8712998 .

Feng M, Shaw SL, Peng G, Fang Z. Time efficiency assessment of ship movements in maritime ports: A case study of two ports based on AIS data. J Transp Geogr. 2020;86:102741. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2020.102741 .

Yang D, Wu L, Wang S, Jia H, Li KX. How big data enriches maritime research – a critical review of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data applications. Transp Rev. 2019;39(6):755–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649315 .

Rajabi A, Khodadad Saryazdi A, Belfkih A, Duvallet C. Towards smart port: an application of AIS data. In: Proceedings - 20th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, 16th International Conference on Smart City and 4th International Conference on Data Science and Systems, HPCC/SmartCity/DSS 2018; 2019. pp. 1414–1421, https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC/SMARTCITY/DSS.2018.00234 .

Ashrafi M, Walker TR, Magnan GM, Adams M, Acciaro M. A review of corporate sustainability drivers in maritime ports: a multi-stakeholder perspective. Marit Policy Manag. 2020;47(8):1027–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1736354 .

Lee H, Chatterjee I, Cho G. A systematic review of computer vision and AI in parking space allocation in a seaport. Applied Sciences (Switzerland). 2023;13(18):10254. https://doi.org/10.3390/app131810254 .

Lee PTW, Kwon OK, Ruan X. Sustainability challenges in maritime transport and logistics industry and its way ahead. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2019;11(5):1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11051331 .

Denktas-Sakar G, Karatas-Cetin C. Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: a framework on resource dependence theory. Asian J Shipp Logist. 2012;28(3):301–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJSL.2013.01.002 .

Elkington J. Tripple bottom line. In: Cannibals with Forks; 1997.

Ruggerio CA. Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Sci Total Environ. 2021;786:147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.147481 .

Moore JE, Mascarenhas A, Bain J, Straus SE. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13012-017-0637-1/TABLES/3 .

Amui LBL, Jabbour CJC, de Sousa Jabbour ABL, Kannan D. Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: a systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. J Clean Prod. 2017;142:308–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.103 .

Montiel I, Delgado-Ceballos J. Defining and measuring corporate sustainability. Organ Environ. 2014;27(2):113–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614526413 .

Seuring S, Müller M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod. 2008;16(15):1699–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2008.04.020 .

Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause T-S. “Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Acad Manag Rev. 1995;20(4):874–907. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9512280024 .

Ameer R, Othman R. Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a study based on the top global corporations. J Bus Ethics. 2012;108(1):61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-011-1063-Y/TABLES/7 .

Chakrabarty S, Wang L. The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: a dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization. J Bus Ethics. 2012;110(2):205–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-012-1422-3 .

Bjerkan KY, Seter H. Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: Does research enable decision making in ports? Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2019;72:243–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.003 .

Lim S, Pettit S, Abouarghoub W, Beresford A. Port sustainability and performance: a systematic literature review. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2019;72:47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2019.04.009 .

Lee MT, Raschke RL. Innovative sustainability and stakeholders’ shared understanding: the secret sauce to ‘performance with a purpose.’ J Bus Res. 2020;108:20–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.020 .

Ducruet C, Panahi R, Ng AKY, Jiang C, Afenyo M. Between geography and transport: a scientometric analysis of port studies in Journal of Transport Geography. J Transp Geogr. 2019;81:102527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102527 .

Broccardo L, Truant E, Dana L-P. The interlink between digitalization, sustainability, and performance: an Italian context. J Bus Res. 2023;158:113621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113621 .

Parola F, Risitano M, Ferretti M, Panetti E. The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review. Transp Rev. 2017;37(1):116–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232 .

Woo SH, Pettit SJ, Kwak DW, Beresford AKC. Seaport research: a structured literature review on methodological issues since the 1980s. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2011;45(7):667–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.04.014 .

Di Vaio A, Varriale L. Management innovation for environmental sustainability in seaports: managerial accounting instruments and training for competitive green ports beyond the regulations. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2018;10(3):783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030783 .

Balić K, Žgaljić D, Ukić Boljat H, Slišković M. The port system in addressing sustainability issues—a systematic review of research. J Mar Sci Eng. 2022;10(8):1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081048 .

Oh H, Lee S-W, Seo Y-J. The evaluation of seaport sustainability: the case of South Korea. Ocean Coast Manag. 2018;161:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.028 .

Busco C, Fiori G, Frigo ML, Riccaboni A. Sustainable development goals: integrating sustainability initiatives with long-term value creation. Strategic Finance. 2017;99(3):28–37.

Wu Q, He Q, Duan Y. Explicating dynamic capabilities for corporate sustainability. EuroMed J Bus. 2013;8(3):255–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-05-2013-0025 .

Download references

Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. This study has not received any funding from institutions or agencies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

L. Kishore & Bidyut Kumar Ghosh

Department of Humanities & Management, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Yogesh P. Pai

Department of Library and Information Science, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysore, Karnataka, India

Sheeba Pakkan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Kishore L conceptualized the manuscript, collected the data, performed analysis, and authored the manuscript. Dr. Yogesh Pai P conducted an in-depth literature review of the bibliometric studies available in the Scopus database, authored the manuscript, and contributed to the results and discussion chapter along with justifications. Dr.Bidyut Kumar Ghosh co-authored the analysis and discussion chapter of the manuscript. Dr. Sheeba Pakkan contributed to co-occurrence, co-authorship network analysis, citation impact-related data collection, analysis, and discussion.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Kishore .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest for financial or personal relationships with a third party whose interests could be positively or negatively influenced by the article’s content.

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kishore, L., Pai, Y.P., Ghosh, B.K. et al. Maritime shipping ports performance: a systematic literature review. Discov Sustain 5 , 108 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00299-y

Download citation

Received : 07 December 2023

Accepted : 29 May 2024

Published : 04 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00299-y

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

• Maritime shipping port
• Port performance
• Sustainability of ports
• Sustainability practices
• Bibliometric analysis
• Data visualization
• Thematic analysis

Advertisement

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