how to write a scientific literature review pdf

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

My pivot from grain scientist to slave-trade historian

Career Q&A 14 JUN 24

Securing your science: the researcher’s guide to financial management

Career Feature 14 JUN 24

It’s time to talk about menstruation and fieldwork

Three ways to recognize hidden labour in research

Nature Index 13 JUN 24

Cyberattacks are hitting research institutions — with devastating effects

News 13 JUN 24

Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance

Article 12 JUN 24

Twelve scientist-endorsed tips to get over writer’s block

Career Feature 13 JUN 24

Elite researchers in China say they had ‘no choice’ but to commit misconduct

News 11 JUN 24

Open access is working — but researchers in lower-income countries enjoy fewer benefits

Nature Index 11 JUN 24

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor

Westlake Center for Genome Editing seeks exceptional scholars in the many areas.

Westlake Center for Genome Editing, Westlake University

Subeditor, Nature Magazine

About the Brand Nature Portfolio is a flagship portfolio of journals, products and services including Nature and the Nature-branded journals, dedic...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Faculty Positions in Bioscience and Biomedical Engineering (BSBE) Thrust, Systems Hub, HKUST (GZ)

Tenure-track and tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor)

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

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

Quick links

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

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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.

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Agraphia. Tiu JB, Carter AR. Tiu JB, et al. 2022 Dec 4. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. 2022 Dec 4. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 32809557 Free Books & Documents.
• How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
• How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
• A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
• Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
• Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
• Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
• Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
• Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
• Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

Chat with Paper: Save time, read 10X faster with AI

Content maybe subject to  copyright     Report

Citation Count

SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles

Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors, ten simple rules for writing a literature review, the impact of review articles, an introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews - tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors., related papers (4), trending questions (3).

- Purpose, relevance, study design, conclusions, strengths, limitations, discussion, editorials - Validity, balance, critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, time management

- Select focused topic, conduct literature search, critical analysis. - Maintain objectivity, avoid tedious data presentation, budget time wisely.

- Select topic, conduct literature search, critical analysis, write article sections. - Tips: focus topic, maintain objectivity, avoid tedious data presentation.

How to Write a Scientific Paper: Step-by-Step Guide

Learn how to write a scientific paper with our step-by-step guide. From research to publication, master the essential skills for successful scientific writing.

Glice Martineau

Jun 12, 2024

Scientific Writing

Scientific Publication

Scientific Paper

Research Paper

Have you ever wondered what it takes to write a groundbreaking scientific paper that advances our understanding of the world around us?

Writing scientific papers is a crucial skill for researchers, academics , and students alike. A well-written scientific paper not only communicates your research findings effectively but also showcases your critical thinking and analytical skills.

In this step-by-step guide, we’ll walk you through the process of writing a scientific paper, from choosing a research topic to submitting your paper for publication.

How to Write a Scientific Paper in 8 Steps

Writing a scientific paper can seem daunting at first. So we broke down the process into 8 manageable steps to help you write a paper that is well-structured, informative, and engaging.

Whether you're a seasoned researcher or a student just starting, this guide will provide you with the tools and knowledge you need to write a compelling scientific paper that stands out from the rest.

Step 1: Choose a Research Topic

The first and most crucial step in writing a scientific paper is choosing a research topic. Your topic should be both interesting and relevant to your field of study. To identify a suitable research topic, start by reviewing the current literature in your area of interest.

Look for gaps in the existing research or unanswered questions that you could potentially address through your own research project. Creating a research paper outline to organize key topics, arguments, and evidence can make the writing process more efficient and prevent important information from being overlooked.

When selecting a research paper topic, it’s essential to ensure that it is feasible given your available resources, time, and expertise. Consider factors such as access to necessary equipment, data, or study participants.

You should also assess whether your topic aligns with your research goals and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the greater scientific community.

Once you have identified a potential research topic, it’s important to narrow down its scope. A broad topic can be overwhelming and difficult to address within the confines of a single scientific paper.

By focusing on a specific aspect of your topic, you can create a more manageable and targeted question for research. This will help you to develop a clear hypothesis and design a focused research methodology.

For example, instead of choosing a broad topic like “climate change,” you might narrow your focus to “the impact of rising sea levels on coastal ecosystems in a specific region.”

This narrower topic allows you to delve deeper into a specific aspect of climate change while still addressing a relevant and important issue.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review

Once you have chosen your research paper topic, the next step in the scientific writing process is conducting a thorough literature review.

Using academic papers as credible sources is essential for a comprehensive literature review.

This involves searching for and analyzing existing research related to your topic.

This step is crucial as it helps you understand the current state of knowledge in your field and identify key concepts, theories, and gaps in the research that your study aims to address.

To begin, use academic databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed , or Web of Science to search for relevant scientific articles and studies.

Use keywords related to your main question to narrow down your search results. As you read through the previous research, take notes on the main findings, methodologies, and conclusions of each study.

When analyzing the literature, look for patterns, trends, and inconsistencies in the findings.

Synthesize the information from multiple sources to create a comprehensive understanding of your research topic. Identify the key concepts and theories that are most relevant to your study and consider how your research fits into the broader context of the existing knowledge.

As you conduct your literature review, keep track of the sources you consult.

You’ll need to cite these sources in your scientific paper to demonstrate your understanding of the current research and to give credit to the original authors . Citing sources is an essential part of academic writing and helps to avoid plagiarism.

By conducting a thorough literature review, you’ll gain a deeper understanding of your research topic and identify the key questions that your study aims to answer.

Step 3: Develop a Research Question and Hypothesis

With a solid understanding of the existing research, the next step is to develop a clear and specific question and hypothesis.

It should be focused, relevant, and address a gap in the current knowledge or explore a new aspect of your research topic.

Qualities of a strong research question

A strong research question should be:

• Specific: Narrow and focused, addressing a specific aspect of your topic
• Measurable: Answerable through empirical research and data collection
• Relevant: Significant and contributing to the broader understanding of your field
• Clear: Clearly stated and easily understood by your target audience

For example, instead of asking, "How does climate change affect ecosystems?" a more specific question could be, "How do rising sea levels impact the biodiversity of coastal wetlands in the southeastern United States?"

This question is directly relevant to the broader context of climate change while focusing on a particular topic that can be investigated through scientific research.

After developing a clear question, create a testable hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a prediction about the relationship between variables based on your question. It should be specific, measurable, and falsifiable.

Qualities of a well-constructed hypothesis

A well-constructed hypothesis should:

• Identify the independent and dependent variables
• Predict the direction of the relationship between variables
• Be testable through empirical research

For example, a hypothesis based on the question above could be, "Rising sea levels will lead to a decrease in the biodiversity of coastal wetlands in the southeastern United States."

A clear hypothesis provides a roadmap for your research paper.

They guide your research design, data collection, and analysis, ensuring that your study remains focused and relevant.

Step 4: Design Your Research Methodology and Research Paper Outline

The next step is to design your research methodology.

A well-designed methodology ensures the validity and reliability of your findings and is key to writing research papers accepted by peer-reviewed journals.

Tips for Designing a Methodology for your Research

• Choose an appropriate research design that aligns with your question and hypothesis.
• Consider the nature of your variables, the level of control you have over them, and the feasibility of your study when selecting your design. The research design you choose will impact the statistical methods you use and the conclusions you can draw.
• Define your variables and measurement tools.
• Clearly operationalize your variables by specifying how they will be measured.
• Identify your independent, dependent, and control variables.
• Select reliable and valid measurement tools appropriate for your variables and research design.
• The methods section of your research paper will describe your variables and measurement tools in detail, allowing for replication.
• Determine your sample size and sampling method. Your sample should be representative of your target population and large enough to detect significant effects.
• Consider the variability of your variables, desired statistical power, and available resources when determining sample size.
• Choose a sampling method appropriate for your research design that ensures an unbiased and representative sample.

For example, if you are studying the impact of a new teaching method on student learning outcomes , you may choose an experimental design with treatment and control groups.

The independent variable would be the teaching method, and the dependent variable would be student learning outcomes, measured through standardized tests.

Determine the appropriate sample size based on score variability and desired statistical power, and use random assignment for unbiased groups.

Your manuscript's results section will present the statistical tests comparing learning outcomes between groups.

A well-designed methodology provides a strong foundation for data collection, analysis, and the conclusions drawn in your research paper. It demonstrates your understanding of the scientific writing process and your ability to conduct high-quality research that contributes to your field.

Step 5: Collect and Analyze Data

With your research methodology designed, it's time to collect and analyze your data. This step involves gathering data using your chosen methods, organizing and cleaning the data, and conducting statistical analyses to interpret the results.

This section is crucial for writing scientific manuscripts that effectively communicate your findings.

Gather data using the methodology you outlined in the previous step.

This may involve conducting experiments, surveys, interviews, or observations, depending on your research design.

Follow your methodology closely and document any deviations or challenges encountered. Accurate and reliable data collection is essential for producing valid results that can withstand the peer review process when submitting your research paper to scientific journals.

Organize and clean your data. Enter your data into a spreadsheet or statistical software, check for errors or missing values, and code any qualitative data.

Ensure your data is in a format that is easy to analyze and interpret. Well-organized data is crucial for conducting appropriate statistical tests and presenting your results clearly in the results and discussion sections of your scientific article.

Conduct statistical analyses to interpret your results. The specific analyses you use will depend on your research question, hypothesis, and the type of data collected.

Common statistical methods include t-tests, ANOVA , regression, and correlation analyses. Use appropriate statistical software to run these analyses and interpret the results.

When reporting your findings, include relevant statistical information, such as p-values and effect sizes, to help readers understand the significance of your results.

When interpreting your results, consider the statistical and practical significance of your findings. Look for patterns or trends in your data that support or refute your hypothesis.

Consider alternative explanations for your findings and any limitations of your study. Discussing these key points in your scientific writing demonstrates your critical thinking skills and helps other researchers evaluate the validity and importance of your work.

For example, if you are studying the impact of a new teaching method on student learning outcomes, collect data on student test scores before and after implementing the new method.

Organize this data in a spreadsheet, checking for missing or incorrect values.

Conduct a t-test to compare the mean test scores of the treatment and control groups, looking for a statistically significant effect.

Interpret these results in the context of your hypothesis and the practical implications for teaching and learning, discussing how your findings relate to previous research.

By collecting and analyzing your data carefully and systematically, you ensure that your findings are accurate, reliable, and meaningful. This step is crucial for drawing valid conclusions and making recommendations based on your research, which are essential elements of effective scientific writing.

Step 6: Write Your Research Paper

With your data collected and analyzed, it’s time to write your research paper.

A well-structured paper is crucial for effectively communicating your research to the scientific community. Effective science writing is essential for clearly communicating research findings to specialized audiences.

Follow the IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) to organize your paper. This logical organization helps readers understand the key points of your research and is the standard format for most scientific journals.

Introduction

Begin your paper with an introduction that provides background information and context for your research. Clearly state your research questions and hypothesis, and explain why your study is important and how it contributes to the field.

A strong introduction sets the stage for the rest of your research article and is essential for effective scientific writing.

In the methods section, describe your research methodology in detail. Explain how you collected and analyzed your data, including any equipment or software used.

Provide enough detail so that other researchers can replicate your study. Address any limitations or potential sources of bias. A clear and detailed methods section is crucial for demonstrating the validity of your research and is a key component of scientific manuscripts.

Present your findings objectively in the results section. Use tables, graphs, and charts to visualize your data and make it easier for readers to understand.

Report all relevant results, including those that do not support your hypothesis. Avoid interpreting your results in this section. The results section should be clear and concise, highlighting the most important findings of your research.

In the discussion section, interpret your results and discuss their implications. Explain how your findings support or refute your hypothesis, and compare your results to past research in the field.

Discuss any limitations of your study and suggest directions for future research. Consider the broader implications of your findings and how they contribute to the larger body of knowledge.

The discussion section is where you demonstrate your critical thinking and analysis skills and is often the most challenging part of scientific writing.

Use clear and concise language, and follow the formatting guidelines of your target journal. Use headings and subheadings to organize your paper. Cite relevant sources to support your arguments and give credit to previous research.

Remember that writing scientific papers is a process, and it may take several drafts and revisions before your manuscript is ready for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

With practice and persistence, you can develop your scientific writing skills and become a successful author of scientific publications.

Step 7: Edit, Revise, and Understand the Peer Review Process

Once you have completed the first draft of your research paper, it's essential to edit and revise your work.

This step ensures that your paper is clear, concise, and error-free.

Editing and revising can also improve the overall quality of your writing and make your arguments more compelling. The writing process is not complete until you have thoroughly reviewed and refined your work.

Start by checking your paper for grammatical and spelling errors.

Use a spelling and grammar checker to identify mistakes, but don't rely on these tools entirely. Read through your paper carefully, sentence by sentence, to ensure that your writing is clear and error-free.

Pay attention to common mistakes, such as using the wrong word or forgetting to include a comma. Misspelled words and poor word choice can detract from the quality of your scientific writing and undermine your credibility as a researcher.

Consider using a text-to-speech tool like Listening.com to listen to your paper and catch any errors or awkward phrasing that you might miss when reading silently.

Next, ensure that your paper follows the proper formatting and citation style for your target journal. Different journals have different requirements for formatting, such as margin size, font type and size, and line spacing.

Make sure your paper adheres to these guidelines and that your references are formatted correctly. Consistent formatting and proper citation style demonstrate your attention to detail and respect for academic conventions. A well-formatted reference list is a key component of any research paper.

Finally, seek feedback from peers or mentors and incorporate their suggestions into your paper. Ask colleagues or advisors to read through your paper and provide constructive criticism.

They may identify areas where your arguments are unclear or where you need more evidence to support your claims.

Be open to their feedback and use it to improve your paper. Incorporating suggestions from others can refine your writing and make your research more impactful. The review process is an essential part of scientific writing and can help you develop your writing skills and improve your work's quality.

Remember that editing and revising your research paper is an iterative process. You may need several rounds of revisions before your paper is ready for submission. Don't be discouraged if your first draft requires significant changes; this is normal in the writing process.

Step 8: Submit Your Paper for Publication

Once you have completed the editing and revision process, it's time to submit your research paper for publication . Choosing the right journal or conference is crucial for ensuring that your work reaches the appropriate audience and has the greatest impact.

This step can be daunting, especially for graduate students or early-career researchers, but it is essential for disseminating your research and advancing your academic career.

Start by researching potential journals or conferences in your field.

Look for publications that have a scope and audience that align with your research topic and objectives. Consider factors such as the journal's impact factor, publication frequency, and acceptance rate.

Aim to submit your paper to the most prestigious and relevant journal or conference that is likely to accept your work.

Keep in mind that most journals have a high rejection rate, so it's important to have a list of alternative publications in case your first choice does not accept your paper.

Before submitting your research paper, carefully review the submission guidelines and requirements for your chosen publication. These guidelines will specify the required format, length, and style of your paper, as well as any additional materials that must be included, such as a cover letter or author biography.

Follow these guidelines closely to ensure that your paper is not rejected on technical grounds. Many journals and conferences have specific formatting requirements, such as page numbers, font size, and reference list style, so be sure to pay attention to these details.

Once you have submitted your research paper, be prepared to respond to reviewer comments and make necessary revisions.

Most journals and conferences use a peer review process to evaluate submitted papers, which means that your work will be reviewed by experts in your field.

These reviewers may request changes or additional information to strengthen your paper and improve its clarity and impact. Responding to reviewer comments is an important part of the writing process and can help you refine your research and improve your writing ability.

When responding to reviewer comments, be professional and courteous, even if you disagree with their suggestions. Address each comment individually and provide a clear explanation of how you have revised your paper in response.

If you choose not to make a suggested change, provide a compelling reason for your decision. Remember that reviewers are experts in their field and their feedback can be invaluable in improving the quality of your research paper.

After making the necessary revisions, resubmit your paper and wait for a decision.

If your paper is accepted, congratulations!

Your work will be published and made available to the wider scientific community. This is a significant achievement and can help establish your reputation as a researcher in your field. If your paper is rejected, don't be discouraged.

Use the reviewer feedback to improve your work and consider submitting it to another publication. Many successful research papers have been rejected multiple times before finding the right home.

Final Thoughts

By following these steps and dedicating yourself to the scientific writing process, you can develop your skills as a researcher and communicator.

Whether you are a student, early-career researcher, or experienced academic, writing scientific papers is essential for advancing knowledge and making a difference in your field.

Start applying the tips and techniques outlined in this guide to your own research projects. With practice and persistence, you can become a successful scientific writer and make a lasting impact on your field.

Remember, the scientific community relies on the contributions of dedicated researchers like you to push the boundaries of knowledge and drive progress in science and society.

Recent articles

How to Write Faster In Exams? 7 Tips and Strategies

Amethyst Rayne

What to Do After Your PhD? Post PhD Career Guide

Derek Pankaew

Jun 13, 2024

Post PhD Careers

PhD Career Guide

Non-Academic Careers

Professional Development,

Career Transition

What Can I Do With My PhD in Psychology? 10 Job Options For You

PhD in Psychology

Applied Psychology

Psychology Careers

Mental Health Careers

Academic Psychology

How to write a scientific report at university

David foster, professor in science and engineering at the university of manchester, explains the best way to write a successful scientific report.

David H Foster

At university, you might need to write scientific reports for laboratory experiments, computing and theoretical projects, and literature-based studies – and some eventually as research dissertations. All have a similar structure modelled on scientific journal articles. Their special format helps readers to navigate, understand and make comparisons across the research field.

Scientific report structure

The main components are similar for many subject areas, though some sections might be optional.

If you can choose a title, make it informative and not more than around 12 words. This is the average for scientific articles. Make every word count.  

The abstract summarises your report’s content in a restricted word limit. It might be read separately from your full report, so it should contain a micro-report, without references or personalisation.  

Usual elements you can include:  

• Some background to the research area.
• Reason for the work.
• Main results.
• Any implications.

Ensure you omit empty statements such as “results are discussed”, as they usually are.  

Introduction  

The introduction should give enough background for readers to assess your work without consulting previous publications.  

It can be organised along these lines:  

• An opening statement to set the context.  
• A summary of relevant published research.
• Your research question, hypothesis or other motivation.  
• The purpose of your work.
• An indication of methodology.
• Your outcome.

Choose citations to any previous research carefully. They should reflect priority and importance, not necessarily recency. Your choices signal your grasp of the field.  

Literature review  

Dissertations and literature-based studies demand a more comprehensive review of published research than is summarised in the introduction. Fortunately, you don’t need to examine thousands of articles. Just proceed systematically.  

• Use two to three published reviews to familiarise yourself with the field.  
• Use authoritative databases such as Scopus or Web of Science to find the most frequently cited articles.  
• Read these articles, noting key points. Experiment with their order and then turn them into sentences, in your own words.  
• Get advice about expected review length and database usage from your individual programme.

Aims and objectives  

Although the introduction describes the purpose of your work, dissertations might require something more accountable, with distinct aims and objectives.

The aim or aims represent the overall goal (for example, to land people on the moon). The objectives are the individual tasks that together achieve this goal (build rocket, recruit volunteers, launch rocket and so on).

The method section must give enough detail for a competent researcher to repeat your work. Technical descriptions should be accessible, so use generic names for equipment with proprietary names in parentheses (model, year, manufacturer, for example). Ensure that essential steps are clear, especially any affecting your conclusions.

The results section should contain mainly data and analysis. Start with a sentence or two to orient your reader. For numeric data, use graphs over tables and try to make graphs self-explanatory. Leave any interpretations for the discussion section.

The purpose of the discussion is to say what your results mean. Useful items to include:  

• A reminder of the reason for the work.
• A review of the results. Ensure you are not repeating the results themselves; this should be more about your thoughts on them.
• The relationship between your results and the original objective.
• Their relationship to the literature, with citations.  
• Any limitations of your results.  
• Any knowledge you gained, new questions or longer-term implications.

The last item might form a concluding paragraph or be placed in a separate conclusion section. If your report is an internal document, ensure you only refer to your future research plans.  

Try to finish with a “take-home” message complementing the opening of your introduction. For example: “This analysis has shown the process is feasible, but cost will decide its acceptability.”  

Five common mistakes to avoid when writing your doctoral dissertation   9 tips to improve your academic writing Five resources to help students with academic writing

Acknowledgements  

If appropriate, thank colleagues for advice, reading your report and technical support. Make sure that you secure their agreement first. Thank any funding agency. Avoid emotional declarations that you might later regret. That is all that is required in this section.  

Referencing  

Giving references ensures other authors’ ideas, procedures, results and inferences are credited. Use Web of Science or Scopus as mentioned earlier. Avoid databases giving online sources without journal publication details because they might be unreliable.

Don’t refer to Wikipedia. It isn’t a citable source.  

Use one referencing style consistently and make sure it matches the required style of your degree or department. Choose either numbers or author and year to refer to the full references listed near the end of your report. Include all publication details, not just website links. Every reference should be cited in the text.  

Figures and tables  

Each figure should have a caption below with a label, such as “Fig. 1”, with a title and a sentence or two about what it shows. Similarly for tables, except that the title appears above. Every figure and table should be cited in the text.

Theoretical studies  

More flexibility is possible with theoretical reports, but extra care is needed with logical development and mathematical presentation. An introduction and discussion are still needed, and possibly a literature review.

Final steps

Check that your report satisfies the formatting requirements of your department or degree programme. Check for grammatical errors, misspellings, informal language, punctuation, typos and repetition or omission.

Ask fellow students to read your report critically. Then rewrite it. Put it aside for a few days and read it afresh, making any new edits you’ve noticed. Keep up this process until you are happy with the final report. 

You may also like

.css-185owts{overflow:hidden;max-height:54px;text-indent:0px;} How to write an undergraduate university dissertation

Grace McCabe

How to use digital advisers to improve academic writing

How to write a successful research piece at university

Maggie Tighe

Register free and enjoy extra benefits

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

The Online Writing Lab (the Purdue OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The On-Campus and Online versions of Purdue OWL assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue OWL serves the Purdue West Lafayette and Indianapolis campuses and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

• DOI: 10.46306/jpee.v2i2.48
• Corpus ID: 268973524

KEBIJAKAN KURIKULUM MERDEKA DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA DI SEKOLAH DASAR

• Slamet Widodo , ‪Adhy Putri Rilianti‬ , +2 authors A. Fathoni
• Published in Journal of Professional… 30 September 2023
• Journal of Professional Elementary Education

One Citation

Development of interactive food web learning media to improve mastery of science concepts and student creativity, 12 references, literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines, integrasi pembelajaran ips dan ipa kelas iv di madrasah ibtidaiyah pembina pengamalan agama (mi p2a) meri kutasari purbalingga, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers