related literature in research definition

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Literature Reviews

Introduction, what is a literature review.

• Literature Reviews for Thesis or Dissertation
• Stand-alone and Systemic Reviews
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Texts on Conducting a Literature Review
• Identifying the Research Topic
• The Persuasive Argument
• Searching the Literature
• Creating a Synthesis
• Critiquing the Literature
• Building the Case for the Literature Review Document
• Presenting the Literature Review

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Higher Education Research
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mixed Methods Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Politics of Education
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• English as an International Language for Academic Publishing
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Literature Reviews by Lawrence A. Machi , Brenda T. McEvoy LAST REVIEWED: 27 October 2016 LAST MODIFIED: 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0169

Literature reviews play a foundational role in the development and execution of a research project. They provide access to the academic conversation surrounding the topic of the proposed study. By engaging in this scholarly exercise, the researcher is able to learn and to share knowledge about the topic. The literature review acts as the springboard for new research, in that it lays out a logically argued case, founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about the topic. The case produced provides the justification for the research question or problem of a proposed study, and the methodological scheme best suited to conduct the research. It can also be a research project in itself, arguing policy or practice implementation, based on a comprehensive analysis of the research in a field. The term literature review can refer to the output or the product of a review. It can also refer to the process of Conducting a Literature Review . Novice researchers, when attempting their first research projects, tend to ask two questions: What is a Literature Review? How do you do one? While this annotated bibliography is neither definitive nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject, it is designed to provide a beginning researcher, who is pursuing an academic degree, an entry point for answering the two previous questions. The article is divided into two parts. The first four sections of the article provide a general overview of the topic. They address definitions, types, purposes, and processes for doing a literature review. The second part presents the process and procedures for doing a literature review. Arranged in a sequential fashion, the remaining eight sections provide references addressing each step of the literature review process. References included in this article were selected based on their ability to assist the beginning researcher. Additionally, the authors attempted to include texts from various disciplines in social science to present various points of view on the subject.

Novice researchers often have a misguided perception of how to do a literature review and what the document should contain. Literature reviews are not narrative annotated bibliographies nor book reports (see Bruce 1994 ). Their form, function, and outcomes vary, due to how they depend on the research question, the standards and criteria of the academic discipline, and the orthodoxies of the research community charged with the research. The term literature review can refer to the process of doing a review as well as the product resulting from conducting a review. The product resulting from reviewing the literature is the concern of this section. Literature reviews for research studies at the master’s and doctoral levels have various definitions. Machi and McEvoy 2016 presents a general definition of a literature review. Lambert 2012 defines a literature review as a critical analysis of what is known about the study topic, the themes related to it, and the various perspectives expressed regarding the topic. Fink 2010 defines a literature review as a systematic review of existing body of data that identifies, evaluates, and synthesizes for explicit presentation. Jesson, et al. 2011 defines the literature review as a critical description and appraisal of a topic. Hart 1998 sees the literature review as producing two products: the presentation of information, ideas, data, and evidence to express viewpoints on the nature of the topic, as well as how it is to be investigated. When considering literature reviews beyond the novice level, Ridley 2012 defines and differentiates the systematic review from literature reviews associated with primary research conducted in academic degree programs of study, including stand-alone literature reviews. Cooper 1998 states the product of literature review is dependent on the research study’s goal and focus, and defines synthesis reviews as literature reviews that seek to summarize and draw conclusions from past empirical research to determine what issues have yet to be resolved. Theoretical reviews compare and contrast the predictive ability of theories that explain the phenomenon, arguing which theory holds the most validity in describing the nature of that phenomenon. Grant and Booth 2009 identified fourteen types of reviews used in both degree granting and advanced research projects, describing their attributes and methodologies.

Bruce, Christine Susan. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education 19.2: 217–229.

DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382057

A phenomenological analysis was conducted with forty-one neophyte research scholars. The responses to the questions, “What do you mean when you use the words literature review?” and “What is the meaning of a literature review for your research?” identified six concepts. The results conclude that doing a literature review is a problem area for students.

Cooper, Harris. 1998. Synthesizing research . Vol. 2. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

The introductory chapter of this text provides a cogent explanation of Cooper’s understanding of literature reviews. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive discussion of the synthesis review. Chapter 5 discusses meta-analysis and depth.

Fink, Arlene. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper . 3d ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.

The first chapter of this text (pp. 1–16) provides a short but clear discussion of what a literature review is in reference to its application to a broad range of social sciences disciplines and their related professions.

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. 2009. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2: 91–108. Print.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

This article reports a scoping review that was conducted using the “Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis” (SALSA) framework. Fourteen literature review types and associated methodology make up the resulting typology. Each type is described by its key characteristics and analyzed for its strengths and weaknesses.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . London: SAGE.

Chapter 1 of this text explains Hart’s definition of a literature review. Additionally, it describes the roles of the literature review, the skills of a literature reviewer, and the research context for a literature review. Of note is Hart’s discussion of the literature review requirements for master’s degree and doctoral degree work.

Jesson, Jill, Lydia Matheson, and Fiona M. Lacey. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 1: “Preliminaries” provides definitions of traditional and systematic reviews. It discusses the differences between them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to explaining the traditional review, while Chapter 7 explains the systematic review. Chapter 8 provides a detailed description of meta-analysis.

Lambert, Mike. 2012. A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project . Los Angeles: SAGE.

Chapter 6 (pp. 79–100) presents a thumbnail sketch for doing a literature review.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2016. The literature review: Six steps to success . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The introduction of this text differentiates between a simple and an advanced review and concisely defines a literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2012. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . 2d ed. Sage Study Skills. London: SAGE.

In the introductory chapter, Ridley reviews many definitions of the literature review, literature reviews at the master’s and doctoral level, and placement of literature reviews within the thesis or dissertation document. She also defines and differentiates literature reviews produced for degree-affiliated research from the more advanced systematic review projects.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

What's a literature review.

• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• 1. Identify the Question
• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• 6. Synthesize
• 7. Write a Literature Review

What's a Literature Review? 

A literature review (or "lit review," for short) is an in-depth critical analysis of published scholarly research related to a specific topic. Published scholarly research (aka, "the literature") may include journal articles, books, book chapters, dissertations and thesis, or conference proceedings. 

A solid lit review must:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you're developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

• << Previous: Start
• Next: Literature Reviews: A Recap >>
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 5:17 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

• 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 9, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core Collection This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

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

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that 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 make sure 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).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Review of Related Literature: Format, Example, & How to Make RRL

A review of related literature is a separate paper or a part of an article that collects and synthesizes discussion on a topic. Its purpose is to show the current state of research on the issue and highlight gaps in existing knowledge. A literature review can be included in a research paper or scholarly article, typically following the introduction and before the research methods section.

This article will clarify the definition, significance, and structure of a review of related literature. You’ll also learn how to organize your literature review and discover ideas for an RRL in different subjects.

🔤 What Is RRL?

• ❗ Significance of Literature Review
• 🔎 How to Search for Literature
• 🧩 Literature Review Structure
• 📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others
• ✍️ How to Write an RRL
• 📚 Examples of RRL

🔗 References

A review of related literature (RRL) is a part of the research report that examines significant studies, theories, and concepts published in scholarly sources on a particular topic. An RRL includes 3 main components:

• A short overview and critique of the previous research.
• Similarities and differences between past studies and the current one.
• An explanation of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the research.

❗ Significance of Review of Related Literature

Although the goal of a review of related literature differs depending on the discipline and its intended use, its significance cannot be overstated. Here are some examples of how a review might be beneficial:

• It helps determine knowledge gaps .
• It saves from duplicating research that has already been conducted.
• It provides an overview of various research areas within the discipline.
• It demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the topic.

🔎 How to Perform a Literature Search

Including a description of your search strategy in the literature review section can significantly increase your grade. You can search sources with the following steps:

🧩 Literature Review Structure Example

The majority of literature reviews follow a standard introduction-body-conclusion structure. Let’s look at the RRL structure in detail.

Introduction of Review of Related Literature: Sample

An introduction should clarify the study topic and the depth of the information to be delivered. It should also explain the types of sources used. If your lit. review is part of a larger research proposal or project, you can combine its introductory paragraph with the introduction of your paper.

Here is a sample introduction to an RRL about cyberbullying:

Bullying has troubled people since the beginning of time. However, with modern technological advancements, especially social media, bullying has evolved into cyberbullying. As a result, nowadays, teenagers and adults cannot flee their bullies, which makes them feel lonely and helpless. This literature review will examine recent studies on cyberbullying.

Sample Review of Related Literature Thesis

A thesis statement should include the central idea of your literature review and the primary supporting elements you discovered in the literature. Thesis statements are typically put at the end of the introductory paragraph.

Look at a sample thesis of a review of related literature:

This literature review shows that scholars have recently covered the issues of bullies’ motivation, the impact of bullying on victims and aggressors, common cyberbullying techniques, and victims’ coping strategies. However, there is still no agreement on the best practices to address cyberbullying.

Literature Review Body Paragraph Example

The main body of a literature review should provide an overview of the existing research on the issue. Body paragraphs should not just summarize each source but analyze them. You can organize your paragraphs with these 3 elements:

• Claim . Start with a topic sentence linked to your literature review purpose.
• Evidence . Cite relevant information from your chosen sources.
• Discussion . Explain how the cited data supports your claim.

Here’s a literature review body paragraph example:

Scholars have examined the link between the aggressor and the victim. Beran et al. (2007) state that students bullied online often become cyberbullies themselves. Faucher et al. (2014) confirm this with their findings: they discovered that male and female students began engaging in cyberbullying after being subject to bullying. Hence, one can conclude that being a victim of bullying increases one’s likelihood of becoming a cyberbully.

Review of Related Literature: Conclusion

A conclusion presents a general consensus on the topic. Depending on your literature review purpose, it might include the following:

• Introduction to further research . If you write a literature review as part of a larger research project, you can present your research question in your conclusion .
• Overview of theories . You can summarize critical theories and concepts to help your reader understand the topic better.
• Discussion of the gap . If you identified a research gap in the reviewed literature, your conclusion could explain why that gap is significant.

Check out a conclusion example that discusses a research gap:

There is extensive research into bullies’ motivation, the consequences of bullying for victims and aggressors, strategies for bullying, and coping with it. Yet, scholars still have not reached a consensus on what to consider the best practices to combat cyberbullying. This question is of great importance because of the significant adverse effects of cyberbullying on victims and bullies.

📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others

In this section, we will discuss how to format an RRL according to the most common citation styles: APA, Chicago, MLA, and Harvard.

Writing a literature review using the APA7 style requires the following text formatting:

• When using APA in-text citations , include the author’s last name and the year of publication in parentheses.
• For direct quotations , you must also add the page number. If you use sources without page numbers, such as websites or e-books, include a paragraph number instead.
• When referring to the author’s name in a sentence , you do not need to repeat it at the end of the sentence. Instead, include the year of publication inside the parentheses after their name.
• The reference list should be included at the end of your literature review. It is always alphabetized by the last name of the author (from A to Z), and the lines are indented one-half inch from the left margin of your paper. Do not forget to invert authors’ names (the last name should come first) and include the full titles of journals instead of their abbreviations. If you use an online source, add its URL.

The RRL format in the Chicago style is as follows:

• Author-date . You place your citations in brackets within the text, indicating the name of the author and the year of publication.
• Notes and bibliography . You place your citations in numbered footnotes or endnotes to connect the citation back to the source in the bibliography.
• The reference list, or bibliography , in Chicago style, is at the end of a literature review. The sources are arranged alphabetically and single-spaced. Each bibliography entry begins with the author’s name and the source’s title, followed by publication information, such as the city of publication, the publisher, and the year of publication.

Writing a literature review using the MLA style requires the following text formatting:

• In the MLA format, you can cite a source in the text by indicating the author’s last name and the page number in parentheses at the end of the citation. If the cited information takes several pages, you need to include all the page numbers.
• The reference list in MLA style is titled “ Works Cited .” In this section, all sources used in the paper should be listed in alphabetical order. Each entry should contain the author, title of the source, title of the journal or a larger volume, other contributors, version, number, publisher, and publication date.

The Harvard style requires you to use the following text formatting for your RRL:

• In-text citations in the Harvard style include the author’s last name and the year of publication. If you are using a direct quote in your literature review, you need to add the page number as well.
• Arrange your list of references alphabetically. Each entry should contain the author’s last name, their initials, the year of publication, the title of the source, and other publication information, like the journal title and issue number or the publisher.

✍️ How to Write Review of Related Literature – Sample

Literature reviews can be organized in many ways depending on what you want to achieve with them. In this section, we will look at 3 examples of how you can write your RRL.

Thematic Literature Review

A thematic literature review is arranged around central themes or issues discussed in the sources. If you have identified some recurring themes in the literature, you can divide your RRL into sections that address various aspects of the topic. For example, if you examine studies on e-learning, you can distinguish such themes as the cost-effectiveness of online learning, the technologies used, and its effectiveness compared to traditional education.

Chronological Literature Review

A chronological literature review is a way to track the development of the topic over time. If you use this method, avoid merely listing and summarizing sources in chronological order. Instead, try to analyze the trends, turning moments, and critical debates that have shaped the field’s path. Also, you can give your interpretation of how and why specific advances occurred.

Methodological Literature Review

A methodological literature review differs from the preceding ones in that it usually doesn’t focus on the sources’ content. Instead, it is concerned with the research methods . So, if your references come from several disciplines or fields employing various research techniques, you can compare the findings and conclusions of different methodologies, for instance:

• empirical vs. theoretical studies;
• qualitative vs. quantitative research.

📚 Examples of Review of Related Literature and Studies

We have prepared a short example of RRL on climate change for you to see how everything works in practice!

Climate change is one of the most important issues nowadays. Based on a variety of facts, it is now clearer than ever that humans are altering the Earth's climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, causing sea level rise, a significant loss of Arctic ice, and other climate-related changes. This literature review provides a thorough summary of research on climate change, focusing on climate change fingerprints and evidence of human influence on the Earth's climate system.

Physical Mechanisms and Evidence of Human Influence

Scientists are convinced that climate change is directly influenced by the emission of greenhouse gases. They have carefully analyzed various climate data and evidence, concluding that the majority of the observed global warming over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Instead, there is compelling evidence pointing to a significant contribution of human activities, primarily the emission of greenhouse gases (Walker, 2014). For example, based on simple physics calculations, doubled carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere can lead to a global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius. (Elderfield, 2022). In order to determine the human influence on climate, scientists still have to analyze a lot of natural changes that affect temperature, precipitation, and other components of climate on timeframes ranging from days to decades and beyond.

Fingerprinting Climate Change

Fingerprinting climate change is a useful tool to identify the causes of global warming because different factors leave unique marks on climate records. This is evident when scientists look beyond overall temperature changes and examine how warming is distributed geographically and over time (Watson, 2022). By investigating these climate patterns, scientists can obtain a more complex understanding of the connections between natural climate variability and climate variability caused by human activity.

Modeling Climate Change and Feedback

To accurately predict the consequences of feedback mechanisms, the rate of warming, and regional climate change, scientists can employ sophisticated mathematical models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice (the cryosphere). These models are grounded in well-established physical laws and incorporate the latest scientific understanding of climate-related processes (Shuckburgh, 2013). Although different climate models produce slightly varying projections for future warming, they all will agree that feedback mechanisms play a significant role in amplifying the initial warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. (Meehl, 2019).

In conclusion, the literature on global warming indicates that there are well-understood physical processes that link variations in greenhouse gas concentrations to climate change. In addition, it covers the scientific proof that the rates of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and continue to rise fast. According to the sources, the majority of this recent change is almost definitely caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities. Citizens and governments can alter their energy production methods and consumption patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, the magnitude of climate change. By acting now, society can prevent the worst consequences of climate change and build a more resilient and sustainable future for generations to come.

Have you ever struggled with finding the topic for an RRL in different subjects? Read the following paragraphs to get some ideas!

Nursing Literature Review Example

Many topics in the nursing field require research. For example, you can write a review of literature related to dengue fever . Give a general overview of dengue virus infections, including its clinical symptoms, diagnosis, prevention, and therapy.

Another good idea is to review related literature and studies about teenage pregnancy . This review can describe the effectiveness of specific programs for adolescent mothers and their children and summarize recommendations for preventing early pregnancy.

📝 Check out some more valuable examples below:

• Hospital Readmissions: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Lower Sepsis Mortality Rates .
• Breast Cancer: Literature Review .
• Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Literature Review .
• PICO for Pressure Ulcers: Literature Review .
• COVID-19 Spread Prevention: Literature Review .
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Literature Review .
• Hypertension Treatment Adherence: Literature Review .
• Neonatal Sepsis Prevention: Literature Review .
• Healthcare-Associated Infections: Literature Review .
• Understaffing in Nursing: Literature Review .

Psychology Literature Review Example

If you look for an RRL topic in psychology , you can write a review of related literature about stress . Summarize scientific evidence about stress stages, side effects, types, or reduction strategies. Or you can write a review of related literature about computer game addiction . In this case, you may concentrate on the neural mechanisms underlying the internet gaming disorder, compare it to other addictions, or evaluate treatment strategies.

A review of related literature about cyberbullying is another interesting option. You can highlight the impact of cyberbullying on undergraduate students’ academic, social, and emotional development.

📝 Look at the examples that we have prepared for you to come up with some more ideas:

• Mindfulness in Counseling: A Literature Review .
• Team-Building Across Cultures: Literature Review .
• Anxiety and Decision Making: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on Depression .
• Literature Review on Narcissism .
• Effects of Depression Among Adolescents .
• Causes and Effects of Anxiety in Children .

Literature Review — Sociology Example

Sociological research poses critical questions about social structures and phenomena. For example, you can write a review of related literature about child labor , exploring cultural beliefs and social norms that normalize the exploitation of children. Or you can create a review of related literature about social media . It can investigate the impact of social media on relationships between adolescents or the role of social networks on immigrants’ acculturation .

📝 You can find some more ideas below!

• Single Mothers’ Experiences of Relationships with Their Adolescent Sons .
• Teachers and Students’ Gender-Based Interactions .
• Gender Identity: Biological Perspective and Social Cognitive Theory .
• Gender: Culturally-Prescribed Role or Biological Sex .
• The Influence of Opioid Misuse on Academic Achievement of Veteran Students .
• The Importance of Ethics in Research .
• The Role of Family and Social Network Support in Mental Health .

Education Literature Review Example

For your education studies , you can write a review of related literature about academic performance to determine factors that affect student achievement and highlight research gaps. One more idea is to create a review of related literature on study habits , considering their role in the student’s life and academic outcomes.

You can also evaluate a computerized grading system in a review of related literature to single out its advantages and barriers to implementation. Or you can complete a review of related literature on instructional materials to identify their most common types and effects on student achievement.

📝 Find some inspiration in the examples below:

• Literature Review on Online Learning Challenges From COVID-19 .
• Education, Leadership, and Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Standardized Testing Bias .
• Bullying of Disabled Children in School .
• Interventions and Letter & Sound Recognition: A Literature Review .
• Social-Emotional Skills Program for Preschoolers .
• Effectiveness of Educational Leadership Management Skills .

Business Research Literature Review

If you’re a business student, you can focus on customer satisfaction in your review of related literature. Discuss specific customer satisfaction features and how it is affected by service quality and prices. You can also create a theoretical literature review about consumer buying behavior to evaluate theories that have significantly contributed to understanding how consumers make purchasing decisions.

📝 Look at the examples to get more exciting ideas:

• Leadership and Communication: Literature Review .
• Human Resource Development: Literature Review .
• Project Management. Literature Review .
• Strategic HRM: A Literature Review .
• Customer Relationship Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on International Financial Reporting Standards .
• Cultures of Management: Literature Review .

To conclude, a review of related literature is a significant genre of scholarly works that can be applied in various disciplines and for multiple goals. The sources examined in an RRL provide theoretical frameworks for future studies and help create original research questions and hypotheses.

When you finish your outstanding literature review, don’t forget to check whether it sounds logical and coherent. Our text-to-speech tool can help you with that!

• Literature Reviews | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review | Purdue Online Writing Lab
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature | University of Wisconsin-Madison
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It | University of Toronto
• Writing a Literature Review | UC San Diego
• Conduct a Literature Review | The University of Arizona
• Methods for Literature Reviews | National Library of Medicine
• Literature Reviews: 5. Write the Review | Georgia State University

How to Write an Animal Testing Essay: Tips for Argumentative & Persuasive Papers

Descriptive essay topics: examples, outline, & more.

• #WalangPasok
• Breaking News
• Photography
• ALS Exam Results
• Aeronautical Engineering Board Exam Result
• Agricultural and Biosystem Engineering Board Exam Result
• Agriculturist Board Exam Result
• Architecture Exam Results
• BAR Exam Results
• CPA Exam Results
• Certified Plant Mechanic Exam Result
• Chemical Engineering Exam Results
• Chemical Technician Exam Result
• Chemist Licensure Exam Result
• Civil Engineering Exam Results
• Civil Service Exam Results
• Criminology Exam Results
• Customs Broker Exam Result
• Dental Hygienist Board Exam Result
• Dental Technologist Board Exam Result
• Dentist Licensure Exam Result
• ECE Exam Results
• ECT Board Exam Result
• Environmental Planner Exam Result
• Featured Exam Results
• Fisheries Professional Exam Result
• Geodetic Engineering Board Exam Result
• Guidance Counselor Board Exam Result
• Interior Design Board Exam Result
• LET Exam Results
• Landscape Architect Board Exam Result
• Librarian Exam Result
• Master Plumber Exam Result
• Mechanical Engineering Exam Results
• MedTech Exam Results
• Metallurgical Engineering Board Exam Result
• Midwives Board Exam Result
• Mining Engineering Board Exam Result
• NAPOLCOM Exam Results
• Naval Architect and Marine Engineer Board Exam Result
• Nursing Exam Results
• Nutritionist Dietitian Board Exam Result
• Occupational Therapist Board Exam Result
• Ocular Pharmacologist Exam Result
• Optometrist Board Exam Result
• Pharmacist Licensure Exam Result
• Physical Therapist Board Exam
• Physician Exam Results
• Principal Exam Results
• Professional Forester Exam Result
• Psychologist Board Exam Result
• Psychometrician Board Exam Result
• REE Board Exam Result
• RME Board Exam Result
• Radiologic Technology Board Exam Result
• Real Estate Appraiser Exam Result
• Real Estate Broker Exam Result
• Real Estate Consultant Exam Result
• Respiratory Therapist Board Exam Result 
• Sanitary Engineering Board Exam Result 
• Social Worker Exam Result
• UPCAT Exam Results
• Upcoming Exam Result
• Veterinarian Licensure Exam Result 
• X-Ray Technologist Exam Result
• Programming
• Smartphones
• Web Hosting
• Social Media
• SWERTRES RESULT
• EZ2 RESULT TODAY
• STL RESULT TODAY
• 6/58 LOTTO RESULT
• 6/55 LOTTO RESULT
• 6/49 LOTTO RESULT
• 6/45 LOTTO RESULT
• 6/42 LOTTO RESULT
• 6-Digit Lotto Result
• 4-Digit Lotto Result
• 3D RESULT TODAY
• 2D Lotto Result
• English to Tagalog
• English-Tagalog Translate
• Maikling Kwento
• EUR to PHP Today
• Pounds to Peso
• Binibining Pilipinas
• Miss Universe
• Family (Pamilya)
• Life (Buhay)
• Love (Pag-ibig)
• School (Eskwela)
• Work (Trabaho)
• Pinoy Jokes
• Tagalog Jokes
• Referral Letters
• Student Letters
• Employee Letters
• Business Letters
• Pag-IBIG Fund
• Home Credit Cash Loan
• Pick Up Lines Tagalog
• Pork Dishes
• Lotto Result Today
• Viral Videos

Related Literature – What Is Review Of Related Literature (RRL)?

Here are top 5 things to know about your review of related literature (rrl).

FACTS ABOUT RELATED LITERATURE – When conducting research, especially one academic in nature, you would most likely need to include an RRL.

Related literature is defined as a composition of facts, studies, principles, which are related to your research topic. Furthermore, you can find RRL materials in books, professional journals, articles, and other forms of publication.

However, before we continue to discuss more facts about the RRL, we need to know the difference between related studies and related literature.

RELATED STUDIES VS RELATED LITERATURE

Official and public offices along with University thesis’ are examples of related studies . These are publicized source materials that have been peer-reviewed or sourced through facts and intensive research.

Meanwhile, related literature can stem from journalists, officials, or any influential figure. As such, the opinions, facts, and other details introduced can greatly affect the public’s opinion and thinking.

What is RRL?

Quick Answer: The RRL ( review of related literature ) is an overview of pre-existing literature which holds a relation to the topic of an individual’s research, thesis, or dissertation topic.

Moreover, through an RRL, researchers can identify potentially better topics through an excess of already available studies. With this, individuals can then identify the strengths and weaknesses of a given study.

Best Sources For Related Studies

Having access to primary sources of information are key when creating an RRL. Thus, researchers should include the following for their RRL:

• Diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, records, eyewitness reports, and memoirs
• Research articles, clinical reports, case studies, and dissertations
• Poetry, music, video, and photography

Importance of RRL and research studies:

The goal of literature or research studies is to get a better grasp of the existing research and discussions on a certain topic or field of study. Additionally, it can provide information in the form of a written report as well as conducting aiding the development of your field expertise.

Thanks for reading. We aim to provide our readers with the freshest and most in-demand content. Come back next time for the latest news here on Philnews.

READ ALSO: Grade 10 Science Module DepEd – Learner’s Module PDF Free

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

What is a related work? A typology of relationships in research literature

• Original Research
• Open access
• Published: 09 January 2023
• Volume 201 , article number  24 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Shayan Doroudi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0602-1406 1  

1903 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

An important part of research is situating one’s work in a body of existing literature, thereby connecting to existing ideas. Despite this, the various kinds of relationships that might exist among academic literature do not appear to have been formally studied. Here I present a graphical representation of academic work in terms of entities and relations, drawing on structure-mapping theory (used in the study of analogies). I then use this representation to present a typology of operations that could relate two pieces of academic work. I illustrate the various types of relationships with examples from medicine, physics, psychology, history and philosophy of science, machine learning, education, and neuroscience. The resulting typology not only gives insights into the relationships that might exist between static publications, but also the rich process whereby an ongoing research project evolves through interactions with the research literature.

Similar content being viewed by others

Understanding Research Dynamics

The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern physics

Introduction

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

An important part of the research process is literature search: identifying prior work that is of relevance to the present idea being investigated. In many cases, this is an activity that a researcher may defer until writing up the results of the project, in which case, it is primarily an activity one does because one “has to” rather than an activity that can substantially change the course of the research. In some cases, whether due to negligence or the difficulty of finding related works, a researcher may never come across the fact that someone had previously tackled the same problem or made a similar discovery, and perhaps only years later (if ever) it may be realized (Merton, 1963 ; Ke et al., 2015 ; Sacks, 2002 ). But at its best, this is an activity that leads to new insights into the research problem, generates new ideas, and alters the course of the research. In fact, in some cases, searching for related work can become the research process itself; through connecting various pieces of research literature alone, one can discover previously undiscovered public knowledge (Swanson, 1986 ).

Despite the importance of prior literature in the research process, there has been little effort, if any, dedicated to developing a typology of related works, that is, a typology of relationships that might exist among different pieces of research literature. (Of course, it is entirely possible that such a typology has been constructed, but I have missed it due to an inadequate search of the literature!) In this paper, I propose such a typology to help us better understand the kinds of prior work that might have bearing on a research project. I first present a form of knowledge representation that can theoretically be used to represent any piece of research literature or research project. I then present a typology of relationships that can connect two pieces of research in terms of operations that can apply to the two representations, thereby resulting in a representation of the relationship. I will demonstrate the various operations and how they might be employed with a variety of examples from different fields, including medicine, physics, psychology, history and philosophy of science, machine learning, education, and neuroscience. The same form of representation applies to both published research literature and research projects or topics, whether nascent or fully-fledged. In fact, some of the relationships discussed below make more sense in the context of research projects (or broader research agendas) that can dynamically evolve as relevant literature is encountered, rather than research papers whose underlying representations are static. As such, I will use the terms publication, literature, project, and topic somewhat interchangeably.

The specific representation I use is borrowed from structure-mapping theory (Gentner, 1983 ; Falkenhainer et al., 1989 ), which was originally developed as a way to structurally represent analogies. Structure-mapping theory is particularly useful here, both because we can use it when discussing abstractions and analogies, and because the underlying representation can also handle other types of relationships among literature. I could have instead used other forms of knowledge representation, such as conceptual graphs (Sowa, 1976 ), entailment meshes (Pask et al., 1975 ; Pask, 1988 ), or category theoretic representations like ologs (Spivak & Kent, 2012 ). There may be relative advantages to each of these, but the representation used here is both simple and powerful enough to clearly demonstrate the typology. The exact choice of representation may need further consideration if one wants to perform inference on the representations or utilize them in information retrieval tools. For now, we are not concerned with how one might construct these representations or even the fidelity with which it is possible (though we revisit these questions in Sect. 6 ). The possibility that research projects could in theory be represented in the way described below is sufficient to formulate the typology.

While the form of representation and typology presented below may not be directly used in information retrieval tools, I contend that they may be useful in guiding the overall direction that research on such tools might take (e.g., what kinds of papers should a tool search for?). Moreover, the typology may provide some clarity to researchers going through the literature search process for a project. Constructing a graphical representation of one’s paper may be a useful exercise, and can possibly illuminate different searches that are needed to find related work. Seeing how the representation of one’s paper changes over time can also be a useful documentation of the research and literature search process. Beyond such potential practical uses of the typology, I believe it can simply be beneficial to understand the various ways in which one product of research may relate to another. If alongside the physical and social worlds, the world of research literature “also qualifies as an endless frontier” (Swanson, 1986 , p. 115), then our efforts to make sense of the former should be accompanied by efforts to make sense of the latter.

2 Related work on related work

Related work on related work exists in a number of different disciplines. Literature search is central to all research after all! Fittingly, the typology we develop combines research that exists in different, largely isolated, strands.

In the information sciences and medicine, work on “literature-based discovery” (LBD), dating back to Swanson ( 1986 ), is concerned with making new scientific discoveries by establishing novel connections between different pieces of literature. Swanson ( 1986 ) describes literature-based discovery as a form of scientific discovery that takes place in Karl Popper’s world 3—the “world of the products of the human mind” (Popper, 1978 , p. 144)—whereby search functions are likened to scientific theories and the “logic of undiscovered public knowledge” (p. 116) is analogous to the logic of scientific discovery. In doing so, Swanson ( 1986 ) made a contribution to the philosophy of science, though it seems to have not been recognized in the philosophy of science community. A number of different information-retrieval techniques have been proposed to aid in LBD (Smalheiser, 2017 ; Sebastian et al., 2017 ). Some authors have presented categorizations of different types of “undiscovered public knowledge” or different forms of LBD (Davies, 1989 ; Smalheiser, 2017 ). While these categorizations can be useful in aiding researchers who want to perform literature-based discovery, our typology has a somewhat broader scope in that not all related work necessarily results in LBD. LBD is one potential use case of literature search, and its various methods span across the relationships in the typology presented here, as discussed below.

More broadly, in information retrieval, the notion of “relevance” is central, and some researchers have tried to develop theories around what relevance is—typically conceived of as the relationship between an information need and a document (Saracevic, 1975 , 2016 ; Huang & Soergel, 2013 ). Green ( 1995 ) and Huang and Soergel ( 2013 ) pointed out that most discussions of relevance are around “topic matching,” but that this is only one form of relevance. Green and Bean ( 1995 ) then constructed a typology of different notions of relevance, and Huang ( 2009 ) expanded this to a typology consisting of over 200 notions of relevance. Huang ( 2009 ) considers three broad categories of relationships: (1) “What functional role a piece of information plays in the overall structure of a topic,” (2) “How information contributes to users’ reasoning about a topic,” and (3) “How information connects to a topic semantically” (p. 411). As examples of functional roles, an information source might present a solution to a problem, the cause of an effect, etc. As examples of contributing to reasoning, an information source might provide an analogy to the topic or might be used to deduce something about the topic. While this work is very relevant to the present paper, there are two key differences. First, their work is about the broader concept of relevance between information and needs, while this paper focuses on relevance in academic literature. One would expect that many of the kinds of broader relevance typologies would also hold for research publications, but given the particularities of literature search and the role it plays in the broader process of scientific research, it seems worth studying in its own right. Second, these prior typologies largely focus on the variety of semantic relationships between two topics, while the approach we present here views relevance in terms of operations that operate on knowledge representations of topics. In this sense, the typology I present here can express how to relate different research topics in terms of a small number of mathematically precise operations (that are hopefully easy to remember), rather than a plethora of different possible semantic relationships. The two approaches are complementary, but I contend that the approach taken here is more useful for conceptualizing the evolution of a research project over time.

In computer science and artificial intelligence, there has been a recent thread of work on citation recommendation, concerned with identifying relevant citations given a piece of text and possibly other meta-data (e.g., authors, etc.) (Strohman et al., 2007 ; Liang et al., 2011 ; Ren et al., 2014 ; Bhagavatula et al., 2018 ). Interestingly, this work has not really considered automated techniques for LBD, and it does not cite the vast literature on LBD or on relevance. Indeed, most of the work in this area is concerned with topic matching (finding citations that topically overlap). One notable exception is work by Chan et al. ( 2018 ) and Kang et al. ( 2022 ). Chan et al. ( 2018 ) presented a technique that combines crowdsourcing and machine learning to find analogies between different papers. They utilize a “soft” relational schema, a very coarse-grained representation of a research paper; they explicitly avoid using representations like the one described below, because they can be very difficult to construct for many publications. Kang et al. ( 2022 ) built on this work by training deep learning algorithms on the crowdsourced representations of abstracts to be able to automatically detect the “purpose” and “mechanism” of a paper. An analogy in this context is two papers that have a similar underlying purpose but achieve that purpose through a different mechanism. Kang et al. ( 2022 ) used this to prototype an analogical search engine for scientific literature. While their representation may be useful for LBD, I contend that it can only capture certain kinds of relationships between papers, and, as I discuss further below, some of their methods do not appear to actually look for analogies as per the typology we develop below. As such, our typology can potentially be useful in classifying the different kinds of relationships that various existing LBD and citation recommendation methods can uncover, and the kinds of relationships that they cannot.

3 A representation of a research project

In our representation, a research project or publication \(P \in \Pi \) is represented as a set of entities and relations, \(P = (E, \mathcal {R})\) . An entity conceptually represents any specific topic of relevance to the project, usually expressed as a noun or a noun phrase (e.g., DNA, the civil rights movement, high blood pressure, theorems). Notice that entities can come in different degrees of specificity (e.g., theorems vs. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem); the important thing is that entities across all topics and publications are represented at the same level of granularity. We allow entities to be hierarchically defined as functions of other entities (e.g., the entity “volume of a cup” can be thought of as the “volume of” function applied to “cup”).

Relations define a relationship between some number of entities, such that the predicate \(R(e_1, e_2, \dots , e_n)\) indicates that \(e_1\) , \(e_2\) , ..., \(e_n\) are related as specified by the relation R . Binary relations are perhaps the most common. For example, in the sentence “stress causes high blood pressure”, “causes” is a relation that takes relates two entities (in this case, “stress” and “high blood pressure”). We might represent this as causes (stress, high blood pressure). As an example of a tertiary relation, consider the sentences “ribosomes translate mRNA into sequences of amino acids” and “Arab translators translated Greek texts into Arabic translations”; they could both be said to use the relation x-translates-y-into-z (though if we think the word “translates” has a very different semantic meaning in these two cases, we could suggest there are two different relations at play here). We also allow for unary relations; for example, “blood pressure is high” can be represented as is-high (blood pressure). Unary relations are called attributes in structure-mapping theory and they effectively allow assigning adjectives to entities; for example, high (blood pressure) would mean “high blood pressure.” With slight abuse of notation, I will use unary relations both as relations (e.g., is-high (blood pressure)) and as attributes (e.g., high (blood pressure)). Finally, we allow for higher-order relations, which take relations as input instead of, or in addition to, entities. causes is a higher-order relation because we can say, for example, causes ( provided ( treatment (subjects), New Curriculum), learn-more-than ( treatment (subjects), control (subjects))).

As with Gentner’s ( 1983 ) structure-mapping theory, the classification of relationships between research has more to do with the structure of the representation (i.e., the presence of certain entities and relations) rather than the semantic meaning of the nodes. However, semantics still play an important role in informing whether a particular relationship is sensible or important in a particular situation. That is, someone without a semantic understanding of a given domain can still apply the operators described below in the sense that one can execute \(4 + 7\) and \(4 \times 7\) , without regard to which operation makes more sense in the given situation. Furthermore, one aspect of semantics is necessary in the application of some of the operators. Namely, there is a general relation, “is a” (or “is an instance of”), which can capture any situation where a particular entity can be categorized as a special case or instance of another entity. Consistent with earlier work on knowledge representation, we will refer to this relation as is-a (Brachman, 1983 ). For example, is-a (Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, theorem) and is-a (the civil rights movement, historical occurrence). A single entity can be an instance of many entities (e.g., a cat can be considered an animal, a pet, and an Internet phenomenon). The is-a operator is also reflexive (e.g., is-a (cat, cat)). Finally, with slight abuse of notation, we will also have is-a be a higher-order relation that can designate when one relation is an instance of another. For example, is-a ( holds (person, ball), possesses (person, object)), because holding something is a special case of possessing it and a ball is an object. Some of the operators below can only be applied with an understanding of what things are instances of other things; however, when the relationship is more abstract, sometimes even a domain expert will not readily see these connections.

The set of entities and relations that are used in the representation of a research publication will likely not include all entities and relations included in that publication (e.g., all nouns and verbs), but rather they should include the concepts that are focal to that publication. Of course, that is somewhat subjective, but a useful heuristic is to include all entities and relations that are involved in a system of relationships that might be worth providing citations in reference to, as well as any new entities and relations that are being introduced in the paper. For example, in a paper that runs an experiment with seven conditions, the number of seven is probably not an entity that should be included, but in Miller’s ( 1956 ) paper on working memory capacity or a paper on the religious symbolism of the number seven, it likely should be included.

As suggested above, there is no single correct way to represent a research project. In fact, there can be multiple different views of a research project, which induce different representations. Each of these views can be more or less useful depending on how they are to be used. Moreover, even simple relations can be expressed in different ways. For our purposes, there is a relationship between two research projects if there is at least some view of each that permits the relationship. Since we are not concerned with the practical side of how to best represent projects here, we do not worry about how one would go about discovering the “right” views. In practice though, seeing two related papers from the “wrong” viewpoint is one reason why researchers and information retrieval tools might not notice an important relationship.

We can represent these representations graphically using a graph-like structure as shown in Fig.  1 a. Boxes indicate entities, and the text outside of boxes indicate relations. The arrows coming out of a relation point to its arguments in order from left to right. Nested boxes (e.g., “some part of a new thing”) show hierarchically defined entities. For simplicity, we show binary relations as labeled directed edges for asymmetric relations and labeled undirected edges for symmetric relations, as shown in Fig.  1 b.

Examples of how to graphically represent research projects/publications. a An example of a tertiary relation with three entities that would be read as “An old thing can become some part of a new thing through some process.” There are also two unary relations: is-old and is-new . b Two examples of binary relations. The causes relation is asymmetric while the correlated relation is symmetric

This representation could be couched in the language of model-theoretic philosophy of science (Suppes, 1957 , 1960 ), in particular using the partial structures formalism (French, 2000 ; Da Costa & French, 1990 ), which is also often expressed in terms of entities and (partial) relations. Doing so may be appealing since it would connect literature search to an existing framework for discussing scientific theories. The partial structures formalism has also been used in describing analogies and abstractions in science and provides a way to formalize research undergoing change. However, the ideas presented here not only apply to formal scientific theories, but also to non-scientific literature and more nascent representations of scientific topics, and I do not want to associate the typology presented here with a particular interpretation of scientific theories.

4 A typology of related works

We can now describe the different kinds of relationships that can exist between a research project and prior work. Suppose we have a research project \(P = (E_P, \mathcal {R}_P)\) and a piece of literature \(L = (E_L, \mathcal {R}_L)\) . We assume that P is an ongoing project that can potentially change, while L is already published literature and hence static. Below we describe a set of operations that can be used to describe the relationship between P and L . These operations are functions that take the representations of P and L as inputs and output a representation \(\rho \) of the relationship between P and L (as defined by the operation). Since we allow for composing these operations in sequence, some of the operations will actually take as input P , L , and our current representation of the relationship between the two ( \(\rho _i\) ), and will output a modified representation of the relationship ( \(\rho _{i+1}\) ). Moreover, when applying multiple operations in sequence, we may want to keep track of the ongoing relationship, which we can do by merging multiple relationships (i.e., taking the union of entities and the union of relations in the sequence of relationships). After each operation is applied, we can also potentially modify P Footnote 1 , thereby modifying the relationship between P and L as well. The series of operations and modifications reflects the iterative and influential nature of literature search in the research process. The operations, described below, are called intersection, interpretation, expansion, abstraction, reification, analogy, and substitution. Table  1 lists some basic information about the operations, which may be useful when reading the sections below. I do not make any claims that the typology presented here is complete. There might be other operations, or perhaps more useful categorizations of the operations presented here, which can be elucidated upon in future work. In what follows, I will describe each of the operators in words as well as mathematical formalism when needed; readers can safely skip the mathematical formalism and still grasp the key ideas.

4.1 Intersection

The first and probably most prevalent operation is intersection , which outputs a subset of entities that are shared by P and L and a subset of relations shared by the two. Specifically, intersection outputs a representation \(\rho = (E_{PL}, \mathcal {R}_{PL})\) , where \(E_{PL} \subseteq E_P \cap E_L\) and \(\mathcal {R}_{PL} \subseteq \mathcal {R}_P \cap \mathcal {R}_L\) . The exact subset depends on what is determined to be relevant between the two representations. A simple special case of this would be when P and L share just a single entity. For example, suppose P and L both have to do with DNA, but one is about DNA to solve computational problems (Adleman, 1994 ) and the other is about DNA vaccines for coronavirus (Callaway, 2020 ). It is unlikely that these publications have other entities in common. In many such cases, publications are not worth citing, and such an intersection would actually not be relevant. A relationship is worth noting when the degree of overlap is large enough; this can be measured by associating some degree of importance to each entity in P and taking the sum (or some non-linear function) of importances across all the entities in \(\rho \) .

In some cases, overlap in a single entity may be enough to warrant citation or even to alter the course of a research project. For example, one of the examples that Swanson ( 1986 ) gives for undiscovered public knowledge has to do with a potential research publication on the “all swans are white hypothesis,” a hypothesis that states that all swans are white. This hypothesis could be supported inductively if there was a lack of any documented evidence of black swans. As Swanson ( 1986 ) says:

Suppose for the sake of argument that scientists living in a remote part of the world were to publish, in a local wildlife journal, some observations about a family of black swans living on a nearby lake. We suppose further that the report comes from a half-dozen people who are reliable observers, and that they are unaware that other people in the world think that all swans are white. (p. 109)

As shown in Fig.  2 , the potential all-swans-are-white hypothesis publication ( P ) is represented using three entities and two relations, although it can be interpreted as two entities and the relationship between them (“the all-swans-are-white hypothesis is proved by the fact that there is no evidence of black swans”); on the other hand, the article in the wildlife journal ( L ) only concerns itself with black swans and possibly other topics of local interest. As such, the two articles overlap in only one entity: black swans. It just so happens that the existence of black swans is a critical refutation of the theory (i.e., “evidence of black swans” is a very important entity in P ), and so this single article can change the course of the research project (e.g., the authors publish a refutation of the all-swans-are-white hypothesis rather than a proclamation of it).

Notice that the intersection of the two articles was “black swans” not “evidence of black swans.” (The wildlife journal is not trying to present evidence of black swans; it is discussing a piece of wildlife whose existence they never called into question.) The intersection of “black swans” by itself is not necessarily meaningful. Another paper that discusses black swans but provides no evidence for them is of less value to P . How then can we capture the obvious fact that L presents evidence of black swans, even though it is not captured in its representation? The answer lies in the interpretation operation.

Swanson’s ( 1986 ) black swans example as an example of intersection

4.2 Interpretation

An interpretation takes an existing relationship between P and L and adds additional entities and/or relations from P (not included in L ) that can help interpret the current relationship. Namely, if \(\rho _{i} = (E_{\rho _{i}}, \mathcal {R}_{\rho _{i}})\) is the output of a previous operation, then \(\rho _{i+1} = (E_{\rho _{i}} \cup E_{PS}, \mathcal {R}_{\rho _{i}} \cup \mathcal {R}_{PS})\) , where \(E_{PS} \subseteq E_P \setminus E_L\) and \(\mathcal {R}_{PS} \subseteq \mathcal {R}_P \setminus \mathcal {R}_L\) . (I use PS and LS as subscripts to denote subsets of P and L .) A natural use of interpretation is to apply it after an intersection. For example, in the black swans example above, we can interpret the intersection of P and L as being “evidence of black swans.” Clearly, L does present evidence of black swans, but it was not interpreted that way until it was interpreted in light of P . Notice that if a researcher conducting project P were to construct the representation of L , they might do so according to their interpretation, whereby “evidence of black swans” would appear in L . Therefore, interpretation steps may often be implicit or hidden in the particular view of L that a researcher adopts. In this paper, I try to represent prior work in a way that is faithful to the original authors’ meaning, though we must recognize that views of prior work will always be informed by our worldview.

4.3 Expansion

An expansion takes an existing relationship between P and L and adds additional entities and/or relations from L (not included in P ) to potentially expand the content of P or to bring new insights into the picture. Notice that structurally, the expansion operation is equivalent to the interpretation operation with P and L swapped; however, semantically, the two are often quite different. An expansion will often result in a change in P . As a result, it makes the most sense when P is an ongoing research topic (or a follow-up investigation to published work), rather than a final publication. Once P has changed to \(P'\) to incorporate the new entities and relations, what was once an expansion between P and L may be viewed as an intersection between \(P'\) and L . Therefore expansions play developmental roles in the research process, which are often not captured in publications. That is, many research projects may have changed course as a result of particular publications, but the final publication may only refer to the relationship to prior work at the time of publication, rather than the developmental influence of that prior work.

For example, in the related works section above, I acknowledged connections to Chan et al. ( 2018 ); these connections would be viewed as intersections (e.g., both papers have to do with academic literature, analogies, knowledge representation, etc.). However, what I did not state was that reading Chan et al. ( 2018 ) led me to read about structure-mapping theory (Gentner, 1983 ), and the two publications combined (and considered in relation to Swanson ( 1986 )) resulted in the beginnings of this paper. That is, before this paper was even conceived of, the aforementioned prior works resulted in a series of expansions, which turned into the present piece only after many iterations, which involved a series of other operations applied to various publications (some of which are cited, and some of which may not be). This reflects the role of literature search in the messy process that is research. I suspect that researchers rarely document the series of expansions (and other steps) that lead to the final state of a publication.

In fact, at times, some prior work may only play the role of a stepping stone to discovering other, more relevant, prior works. That is, an expansion of P by \(L_1\) may result in an exploration of the new entities in the expansion, which results in discovering \(L_2\) , which intersects with P . At that point, \(L_1\) may no longer really be relevant; that is, the extent of \(L_1\) ’s relevance may be better captured by \(L_2\) .

One broad category of expansions falls under Swanson’s ( 1986 ) second example—“A Missing Link in the Logic of Discovery” or what is often referred to as the ABC model. As Swanson ( 1986 ) originally expressed it:

Suppose the following two reports are published separately and independently, the authors of each report being unaware of the other report: (i) a report that process A causes the result B, and (ii) a separate report that B causes the result C. It follows of course that A leads to, causes, or implies C. That is, the proposition that A causes C objectively exists, at least as a hypothesis. (p. 110)

Swanson gave a specific example of a discovery he made (the first of his several literature-based discoveries in medicine): connecting (a) literature on how fish oil causes a reduction of blood viscosity with (b) literature on how reducing blood viscosity leads to an improvement in symptoms of Raynaud’s syndrome. The intersection of these two literatures is the entity “reduction of blood viscosity.” An expansion adds the causal link to “relief from Raynaud’s syndrome” and that link is then interpreted in light of the connection to “dietary fish oil.” Connecting these two literatures via these steps can result in a change in P as shown in Fig.  3 . Notice that the addition of a new causal relation between dietary fish oil and relief from Raynaud’s syndrome was inferred from this expansion, but had never been experimentally shown or even published about. Two years later, a clinical trial independently confirmed this hypothesis (Swanson & Smalheiser, 1996 ).

Swanson’s ( 1986 ) example of the ABC model as an example of expansion

Literature-based discovery often involves this kind of linking between two “non-interactive literatures,” literatures that are rarely, if ever, cited in the same publications (Swanson & Smalheiser, 1996 ). However, expansion need not always be between two non-interactive literatures. Indeed, researchers may often be unaware of highly relevant work within their own research community (or other interactive literatures) that build upon the concepts they are investigating. Such cases can often be caught by the researchers themselves when conducting a more expansive literature review, or by reviewers during the peer review process, but likely often go undetected.

4.4 Abstraction

An abstraction applies if P contains a subset of entities and relations that are instances of entities and relations in L . In other words, we have an abstraction when L contains a more abstract or generalized representation of part of P . An abstraction can still consist of concrete entities and relations as long as they are more general or more abstract than the entities and relations in P (e.g., as suggested above is-a (cat, animal), is-a (cat, Internet phenomenon), and is-a (the civil rights movement, historical occurrence) can all be single entity abstractions).

Describing an abstraction mathematically requires a bit more care than for previous operations since abstractions must be semantically “consistent” across the entities and relations involved. Formally, an abstraction applies if there is a subset of entities and relations in P —say \(E_{PS} \subseteq E_P\) and \(\mathcal {R}_{PS} \subseteq \mathcal {R}_P\) —and a subset of entities and relations in L —say \(E_{LS} \subseteq E_L\) and \(\mathcal {R}_{LS} \subseteq \mathcal {R}_L\) —such that the following four conditions hold:

For all \(e \in E_{PS}\) , there exists a \(\tilde{e} \in E_{LS}\) such that e is an instance of \(\tilde{e}\) .

For all \(R \in \mathcal {R}_{PS}\) , there exists a \(\tilde{R} \in \mathcal {R}_{LS}\) such that R is an instance of \(\tilde{R}\) .

For all \(R \in \mathcal {R}_{PS}\) , if \(R(e_1, e_2, \dots , e_n)\) , then \(\tilde{R}(\tilde{e}_1, \tilde{e}_2, \dots , \tilde{e}_n)\) , where \(R, e_1, \dots , e_n\) are instances of \(\tilde{R}, \tilde{e},_1 \dots , \tilde{e}_n\) respectively.

At least some \(e \not = \tilde{e}\) or some \(R \not = \tilde{R}\) .

The last condition is required to make sure the abstraction is not simply mapping identical representations (in which case it would just be an intersection). The resulting representation is \(\rho = (E_{PS} \cup E_{LS}, \mathcal {R}_{PS} \cup \mathcal {R}_{LS} \cup \textsc {is-a})\) , where \(\textsc {is-a}(e, \tilde{e})\) and \(\textsc {is-a}(R(e_1, e_2, \dots , e_n), \tilde{R}(\tilde{e}_1, \tilde{e}_2, \dots , \tilde{e}_n))\) , for all e , \(\tilde{e}\) , R , and \(\tilde{R}\) as defined in the conditions above.

Abstractions need not be profound. Consider the black swans example again. The way I presented it above was actually a bit disingenuous: black swans are not the only evidence that disproves the all-swans-are-white hypothesis; any non-white swans would. Thus it might be more accurate to replace the “black swans” entity with “non-white swans” in Fig.  2 a. The relationship between P and L then first involves an abstraction (instead of an intersection)—namely is-a (black swans, non-white swans)—followed by an interpretation, as shown in Fig.  4 . This is a rather trivial kind of abstraction, which likely happens all the time when interpreting prior work in the context of current work.

The black swans example revisited. The relationship between P and L is now an interpretation of an abstraction of L . Notice that we used “are” instead of “is a” simply because the entities are expressed in plural

A more substantial form of abstraction is whenever P reports on empirical findings that can be subsumed into an existing theory described by L . For example, if researchers find that students in a collaborative problem-solving activity learned more than students who were working on the activity on their own, then they might see the ICAP hypothesis (Chi & Wylie, 2014 ), which posits that interactive learning is better than constructive learning, as an abstraction.

Finally, perhaps the most interesting (but also rarest) form of abstraction is when a body of research is interpreted or a problem is solved using some abstract formalism or framework that exists in the literature (often in a different field). For example, a notable example in the history of science is the introduction of group theory to quantum mechanics to solve certain problems related to symmetry (French, 2000 ; Scholz, 2006 ). According to French ( 2000 ):

the relationship between mathematics and physics is represented in terms of an embedding of a scientific theory into a mathematical structure. This effectively gives the theory access to ‘surplus’ mathematical structure which can play an essential role in the further development of theory. (p. 104)

This “surplus structure”—a term originally from Redhead ( 1975 )—is represented in our typology by expansion steps that can follow the abstraction. Namely, once a connection is made between L (say group theory) and P (a particular problem in physics), an expansion can be applied to bring new mathematical machinery from L to bear on P . Furthermore, an interpretation of the abstraction of L in light of P might result in new insights that could lead to further developments in L (if we do not consider L to be static literature). As French ( 2000 ) states, “it is important to acknowledge that both group theory and quantum mechanics were in a state of flux at the time they were brought into contact and both subsequently underwent further development” (p. 110).

4.5 Reification

A reification is the inverse of an abstraction. That is, a reification has the same definition of an abstraction, except that P and L are exchanged. We can say P is reified by L if L is abstracted by P . A reification can occur when prior work might contain a concrete example of a phenomenon, which one’s present work presents in more abstract or general terms. Reifications will often be used when interpreting prior empirical findings in light of a new theoretical framework. For example, when articulating his theory of the structure of scientific revolutions, Kuhn ( 2012 ) drew on myriad concrete historical examples from the history of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and other fields. These findings are reifications of particular components of Kuhn’s theory (e.g., paradigms, anomalies, paradigm shifts, etc.).

A reification can also make sense when one is in a formative stage of a project where some of the specifics have not yet been determined. For example, consider Tu Youyou’s work on finding a cure for malaria in the 1970s for which she won the Nobel Prize in 2015. The problem that Tu and her team were working on is represented in Fig.  5 a. According to Tu ( 2015 ):

After thoroughly reviewing the traditional Chinese medical literature and folk recipes and interviewing experienced Chinese medical practitioners, I collected over two thousand herbal, animal and mineral prescriptions within three months after initiation of the project.

One of the substances that showed some initial promise was sweet wormwood ( qinghao ), which was shown in the literature to cure intermittent fevers, as shown in Fig.  5 b. Therefore sweet wormwood is a reification of a potential cure for malaria, as shown in Fig.  5 c, and this can be interpreted in the broader research of finding a cure for malaria, as shown in Fig.  5 d. Yu went on to identify artemisinin as an actual cure for malaria, but there was an additional step of literature-based discovery needed first, which we will return to later.

The discovery of sweet wormwood as a cure for malaria as an example of reification

4.6 Analogy

An analogy applies when P and L both have a subset of entities and relations that have a shared abstraction. More formally, using the same notation as above, an analogy applies if there exists some other representation \(A = (E_A, \mathcal {R}_A)\) (representing an abstraction) and the following four conditions hold Footnote 2 :

For all \(\tilde{e} \in E_A\) , there exists an \(e \in E_{PS}\) and an \(e' \in E_{LS}\) such that e and \(e'\) are both instances of \(\tilde{e}\) .

For all \(\tilde{R} \in \mathcal {R}_A\) , there exists an \(R \in \mathcal {R}_{PS}\) and an \(R' \in \mathcal {R}_{LS}\) such that R and \(R'\) are both instances of \(\tilde{R}\) .

For all \(\tilde{R} \in \mathcal {R}_{A}\) and for every pair \(R \in \mathcal {R}_{PS}\) and \(R' \in \mathcal {R}_{LS}\) such that R and \(R'\) are both instances of \(\tilde{R}\) , if \(\tilde{R}(\tilde{e}_1, \tilde{e}_2, \dots , \tilde{e}_n)\) then \(R(e_1, e_2, \dots , e_n)\) and \(R'(e'_1, e'_2, \dots , e'_n)\) , where \(e_i\) and \(e'_i\) are instances of \(\tilde{e}_i\) for all i and R and \(R'\) are instances of \(\tilde{R}\) .

At least some \(e \not = e'\) or some \(R \not = R'\) .

We say that \(\textsc {analogous}(e,e')\) if and only if condition 1 holds for e and \(e'\) and similarly we say that \(\textsc {analogous}(R(e_1, e_2, \dots , e_n), R'(e'_1, e'_2, \dots , e'_n))\) if and only if the conditions 2 and 3 above hold for those entities and relations. The representation that results from an analogy operation is \(\rho = (E_{PS} \cup E_{LS}, \mathcal {R}_{PS} \cup \mathcal {R}_{LS} \cup \textsc {analogous})\) .

Analogies can span from shallow analogies between two instances of a similar phenomenon in the same field to deep analogies across scientific fields that share little apparent relation to one another on the surface. The further removed that P and L are from the abstraction A , the deeper the analogy becomes (and typically, the harder to notice). Concretely identifying the abstraction implicit in an analogy is not necessary, and in some cases, it can actually be difficult to do, but I suggest that doing so may be a useful exercise (and could lead to refining the analogy).

Like expansions, analogies can sometimes result in modifying P by looking at the research project in a whole new light. Like expansions, this also means the way in which an analogy might have helped develop P over time may not always be apparent from the final product. Even if a publication discusses an analogy, it may not always be clear if that analogy was instrumental in developing the idea in the first place or if it was an afterthought that the two ideas were related.

An example of an analogy where the impact of prior work on a research project is actually made explicit is the analogy between Thomas Kuhn’s historical philosophy of science and Jean Piaget’s psychological and epistemological theory of how a child develops knowledge. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Kuhn ( 2012 ) gives us a brief sense of his indebtedness to Piaget:

A footnote encountered by chance led me to the experiments by which Jean Piaget has illuminated both the various worlds of the growing child and the process of transition from one to the next. (p. xi)

The extent of this has recently been clarified by historians examining Kuhn’s other works and archival materials (Galison, 2016 ; Burman, 2020 ). For example, Kuhn ( 1977 , as cited in Burman, 2020) states:

Almost twenty years ago I first discovered, very nearly at the same time, both the intellectual interest of the history of science and the psychological studies of Jean Piaget. Ever since that time the two have interacted closely in my mind and in my work. (p. 21)

So what was the nature of this close interaction? One can draw a clear analogy between the two. At risk of oversimplification, a representation of the analogy between Kuhn’s theory and Piaget’s is shown in Fig.  6 , adapted from a mapping given by MacIsaac ( 1991 ). This is not at all to say that this is the precise analogy that Kuhn drew which led to a refinement of his theory as presented in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . However, he probably made similar mappings that changed over time as he developed his theory. Similar analogies can also be drawn from Kuhn’s theory to gestalt theory and Bruner and Postman’s ( 1949 ) psychological theory of how people perceive incongruities, both of which Kuhn ( 2012 ) explicitly builds off of. Interestingly enough, the Piagetian analogy, while very influential on the development of Kuhn’s theory, was not retained in the final representation of his book, while the analogies to gestalt theory and Bruner and Postman ( 1949 ) were explicitly an important part of his narrative. Note that the relations in P and L are identical in this case, but this need not be the case in general; in fact, they may only be identical because I constructed them that way, but perhaps if the representations were to be derived independently, the relations would be non-identical, but share a common abstraction.

The representation of the analogy between Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Piagetian theory. The analogous relations are shown as dotted lines without labels for ease of reading

To provide a more recent example of analogy, we can consider the relationship between the recent machine learning literature on fairness ( P ) in relation to older literature from the 1960s-1970s on fairness in educational and employment testing ( L ). As Hutchinson and Mitchell ( 2019 ) point out, the two literatures share much in common including many mathematical definitions of fairness. To formalize this, Hutchinson and Mitchell ( 2019 ) explicitly construct an analogy between the two literatures:

Test items (questions) are analogous to model features, and item responses analogous to specific activations of those features. Scoring a test is typically a simple linear model which produces a (possibly weighted) sum of the item scores....Because of this correspondence, much of the math is directly comparable; and many of the underlying ideas in earlier fairness work trivially map on to modern day ML fairness. “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”; and by hearing this rhyme, we hope to gain insight into the future of ML fairness. (p. 49)

Their last sentence suggests that the goal of pointing out the relationship between these two literatures are further steps of expansion and interpretation, or in other words, exploiting the “surplus of structure.” Indeed, the authors surface several definitions from test fairness that had not been proposed in machine learning (i.e., an expansion). Notice that in this case, the underlying abstraction may not be immediately obvious (e.g., what is the abstraction underlying both a test item and a feature?); in fact, in some cases, there may not be a simple word or phrase to describe the abstraction, but the fact that a clear analogy can be drawn indicates that there must be some more abstract underlying representation.

Finally, in my own research, I have found that there is an analogy between debates in education research and the bias-variance tradeoff in machine learning (Doroudi, 2020 ). Here an analogy was determined by directly formulating the abstraction (a generalized version of the bias-variance decomposition theorem). This abstraction has four components that any instance must specify: a target, an approximator, a random mechanism, and a source of randomness; once these components are specified, one can derive other phenomena (e.g., the meaning of bias, variance, etc.). This naturally sounds very abstract, but it is more concrete once instantiated in specific contexts. Table  2 gives an example of the analogy between these concepts in machine learning and debates around pedagogy. Once this analogy is drawn, it may be possible to expand techniques that are developed in machine learning to bear on educational debates (Doroudi, 2020 ). One benefit of making the abstraction concrete is that the same abstraction can be used to draw analogies to other fields as well.

4.7 Substitution

The analogy operator as described above can be applied in cases that do not semantically appear to be analogies. For example, consider two papers that use different methods to achieve the same outcome; many of the entities and relations may be the same across the two representations, but the entity (or entities) representing the methods would be different. Colloquially we would probably not say there is an analogy between the two approaches. For this reason, we make a distinction between substitutions and analogies. A substitution operates exactly in the same way as an analogy, but it should be applied when it is more sensible. The analogous relation can be replaced with the substitutes relation for semantic clarity. Therefore, unlike the other operators, the distinction between the analogy and substitution operators is semantic. However, there are typically clear structural differences between the two. In a substitution, typically only one or a few entities and relations will change, and the rest will be identical across P and L . Moreover, a substitution is similar to what Gentner ( 1983 ) terms a literal similarity. Namely, Gentner ( 1983 ) suggests that the difference between a literal similarity and an analogy is typically that a literal similarity will involve a greater number of identical attributes (or unary relations).

Consider the following four scenarios that loosely describe different papers:

Convolutional neural networks are trained to classify histopathological images of breast tissue as benign or malignant (Spanhol et al., 2016 ).

Support vector machines are trained to classify histopathological images of breast tissue as benign or malignant (Aswathy & Jagannath, 2021 ).

Human crowdworkers are trained to classify histopathological images of breast tissue as benign or malignant (Eickhoff, 2014 ).

Pigeons are trained to classify histopathological images of breast tissue as benign or malignant (Levenson et al., 2015 ).

In cases 1 and 2, it would be a stretch to say that there is an analogy between “convolutional neural networks” and “support vector machines,” which are both machine learning algorithms that can be applied to the same classification tasks. Thus, here is a clear case of substitution. However, with case 4, even though one could argue a pigeon is being substituted for a machine learning algorithm, the idea of training pigeons and the idea of training machine learning algorithms both have long histories and are often used for different purposes. Thus, it seems more natural to say pigeons are analogical to neural networks or support vector machines in these scenarios (with the underlying abstraction being a learning agent). Pigeons and support vector machines have a lot fewer attributes in common than convolutional neural networks and support vector machines. Unlike pigeons, the latter two are both algorithms implemented in computer code that were designed specifically for classification tasks. Pigeons, on the other hand, are animals, fly, eat, and make sounds. Some attributes of pigeons are actually important for the training process but not shared by any standard machine learning algorithms, such as their hunger. While we might say getting hungry is analogous to the “reward seeking” or “loss minimizing” property of machine learning algorithms, there is no literal hunger in those algorithms.

Case 3 is less clear-cut. While human crowdworkers are also significantly different from machine learning algorithms, crowdsourcing is often used for tasks where state-of-the-art machine learning is not good enough or a machine learning engineer might want to compare the performance of their algorithm against crowdworkers. On the other hand, human crowdworkers and pigeons share a lot of similar attributes that are lacking in machine learning algorithms. These ambiguities point out that ultimately the decision of whether an analogy or a substitution applies is in the eyes of the beholder. In other words, the degree of overlap in attributes depends on what attributes are most salient to the researcher. If a crowdworker is seen as an alternative to artificial intelligence and its humanity is not at the forefront, then perhaps a substitution would apply. On the other hand, researchers interested in using pigeons’ visual properties as a substitute for human labelers (Levenson et al., 2015 ) could also see a substitution between crowdworkers and pigeons.

As mentioned earlier, Kang et al.’s ( 2022 ) analogical search engine looks for papers that overlap in terms of purpose with a researchers’ study (as represented in the form of a search query). However, if the purpose is virtually identical, then replacing one mechanism for another may often be a substitution, not an analogy, as seen in cases 1 and 2 above. In some cases, such as using pigeons vs. neural networks to classify images, swapping mechanisms may result in an analogy. On the other hand, when the purpose is only similar (but not identical), there is no guarantee that the purpose-mechanism relationship will be analogical across different papers. Footnote 3 Thus, while Kang et al. ( 2022 ) find that their search engine is more likely to identify papers that trigger creative adaptations of the original idea (when compared to a standard keyword-based search engine), it is important to distinguish related work that might result in generating novel ideas and related work that actually has an analogical relationship with the present work.

Returning to Tu’s work on discovering a cure for malaria, she found that wormwood “showed some effects in inhibiting malaria parasites during initial screening, but the result was inconsistent and not reproducible.” Scouring over the relevant literature, she then identified a relevant sentence in Ge Hong’s fifth century A Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergencies : “A handful of Qinghao immersed in two liters of water, wring out the juice and drink it all” (Tu, 2015 ). Tu realized that while herbs are typically boiled, Ge’s recipe did not advocate for boiling it so perhaps the heat killed the active components in the wormwood. This led to a new method for extracting artemisinin from wormwood. To model this we would have to add entities to Fig.  5 that account for the method by which the drug is extracted. In that case, Ge’s method can be seen as a substitution for Tu’s original method. This substitution led to a drastic change in the research direction, eventually resulting in a cure for malaria.

Example of literature search as a sequence of operators applied to a research question on how memory is stored in synapses

5 Putting the pieces together

Now that we have seen the various operations that can relate two pieces of research to one another, it is worth discussing how these operations might be used in sequence over the scope of a research project. To do so, I provide a hypothetical example. As a disclaimer, the example is not from an area I have any expertise in; in fact, I encountered the relationships described below in the process of writing this paper (although not in the exact sequence described below). On the one hand, this suggests that the example may be oversimplified; on the other hand, perhaps it gives a somewhat authentic account of a non-expert navigating a new research field.

Suppose we are interested in conducting a literature review related to the question “how are memories stored in synapses?” This research question can be represented as “memories are stored in synapses through some mechanism” as shown at the top of Fig.  7 . Some of the steps described below are also represented in Fig.  7 ; in those cases, I will mention the number of the step in parentheses. Operator names are italicized below. If the reader wants to assess their understanding of the operators (or perhaps assess the degree to which there could be subjectivity in which operators apply), the reader can guess which operator applies for each step of the figure before reading the rest of this section.

When embarking on this literature search process, we are likely already aware of some answers to the question. For example, “some mechanism” could be reified by “synaptic plasticity” (Step 1). But synaptic plasticity is quite broad and could be reified further by several more specific forms of plasticity, such as “long-term potentiation” (Step 2) and “long-term depression.” Further literature search might reveal a plethora of other mechanisms such as “protein synthesis,” “epigenetic mechanisms,” or “the standard model of synaptic consolidation.” However, these mechanisms are not necessarily mutually exclusive, perhaps leading to a revision of the question formulation to “memories are stored in synapses through a combination of X, Y, ...” (or some more hierarchical representation). On the other hand, some proposed mechanisms may be competing, like “the standard model of synaptic consolidation” and “multiple trace theory” (i.e., one can be substituted for the other). Moreover, we might realize that the “memory” entity can also be reified into particular kinds of memory, like “episodic memory” or “semantic memory.”

Searching the literature further may reveal that there are recent suggestions that memory is not (only) stored in synapses, but could be stored in sub-cellular materials. This might result in a substitution of certain molecules (e.g., “RNA”) for synapse (Step 3 \('\) ). Alternatively, to keep our options open we may apply an abstraction of “synapse,” such as “parts of the brain” (Step 3). “Parts of the brain” can then be reified with many different entities, like “RNA” (Step 4). But it can also be substituted for regions of the brain where memories are stored, like the hippocampus. This may subsequently lead to the realization that rather than just asking how memories are stored, we should also be asking where memories are stored, leading to an expansion of the initial representation.

So far we have primarily considered literature that directly bears on the initial question. But sometimes surprising related works can also be discovered through intersections . For example, once we have established that RNA may be involved in memory, a colleague who is a molecular biologist might point out that there is an intersection with the literature on RNA interference (Step 5). Indeed, Smalheiser et al. ( 2001 ) noticed connections between a series of controversial 1960s studies on RNA-mediated memory transfer and RNAi; Smalheiser was a pioneer of literature-based discovery. We might then posit a relation that was neither present in our initial representation nor in related work: RNAi is potentially involved in the memory storage mechanism (i.e., “some mechanism” in our representation). Although it took over a decade, Smalheiser eventually found evidence to suggest that RNAi could indeed be involved in memory transfer (Smalheiser, 2017 ).

Finally, upon contemplating the initial representation further, the researcher may recognize an analogy to “how is memory stored in computer hardware?” (Step 6) or “how is memory stored in artificial neural networks?” Studying the literature in either of these areas may lead to the addition of new hypothesized mechanisms through an interpretation in light of the analogies. Notice that while in some cases a researcher notices an analogy when examining related literature, in other cases a researcher might think of an analogy, and then search for related literature. The related literature could either be about the analog (e.g., how memory is encoded in artificial neural networks) or about the analogy itself (Langille & Gallistel, 2020 ,e.g., how do theories of memory storage in the human brain relate to theories of memory storage in computer science). In the latter case, we have an intersection applied to the entire analogy .

6 The typology in practice

In this section, we discuss some important considerations for how the representation and typology could be used in practice. In theory, an understanding of the various ways in which one piece of literature may relate to a research topic can inform directions in information retrieval and citation recommendation. Such systems could potentially represent papers in terms of entities and relations by using named entity recognition (Nadeau & Sekine, 2007 ) and relation extraction (Bach & Badaskar, 2007 ); they can also leverage a growing body of work on using knowledge graphs for information retrieval (Reinanda et al., 2020 ). The typology can then inform the kinds of relationships that such systems can explore and possibly recommend to users. However, we reiterate that there is no single way to represent a paper or single way of applying the operators to identify relationships to prior work. As noted above, the choice of what operators apply and hence which relationships to related works will be noticed depends on the view one takes of one’s work and related work. One way to potentially mitigate this challenge is by having users specify their current view of their work in terms of its representation, or perhaps by allowing them to simultaneously represent their work in multiple ways. Furthermore, recognizing that different researchers and papers will use slightly different terms to refer to identical or very similar entities and relations, search engines could try to treat semantically similar phrases as being identical or provide a pre-selected set of entities and relations that they recommend users use.

However, even if the representations of papers are completely aligned, the task of retrieving good analogies and abstractions may be computationally intractable in the worst case (Wareham et al., 2011 ). Indeed, in automated analogical search, simplifications are made to make finding potential analogies more tractable. For example, the MAC/FAC algorithm—which is rooted in structure-mapping theory—first finds several examples that have the most surface-level overlap in terms of relations and then identifies the analogy Footnote 4 that is structurally strongest (Forbus et al., 1995 ). In Kang et al.’s ( 2022 ) analogical search engine, they look for papers that have a similar purpose, where similarity is measured by neural network embeddings rather than looking for a formally analogical structure. Although such algorithms may not be perfect, they could still potentially surface candidate analogies that would be given to a researcher who would ultimately identify when an analogy operator is applicable and useful.

Given the ongoing challenges in automated search, perhaps the typology would be more useful as a conceptual tool for researchers. Huang and Soergel ( 2013 ) found that “teaching users about the different kinds of topical relevance relationships may open their minds and make them better searchers and users of information.” Similarly, perhaps the typology presented here could be used as a tool to familiarize researchers with the different ways in which their research may relate to prior work, and how to use search tools to find such works. As mentioned before, simply representing one’s paper as a network of entities and relations may be a useful exercise to help researchers realize new insights about their research; future experimental studies could confirm whether this is true. Moreover, in discussing the potential value of their analogical search engine, Kang et al. ( 2022 ) mention the importance of “how deeply the human users can reflect on the retrieved analogs...and recognize how different notions of relevance may exist for their own problem context, despite potential dissimilarity on the surface” (p. 125). They suggest that “one approach to explaining relevance might be to surface a small number of core common features between an analog and a problem query” (p. 126). The representation presented here provides a natural way of showing users the potential relevance of related work. For example, when one searches for literature (even using a traditional search engine), representations could be generated on demand for the resulting papers such that they maximally align with the user’s query (at least in terms of number of entities and relations, if not in terms of higher-order relationships). Moreover, if the user specifies multiple research projects, a search engine could potentially represent each paper in terms of the representation that best aligns with each project.

7 Conclusion

I have tried to make the case that literature search is a complex process that can influence and be influenced by research in a variety of ways. By describing research papers and projects in terms of concrete representations, we can formally articulate how different pieces of research might relate to one another. As discussed in the last section, this could have practical ramifications in terms of how search engines could better support the literature search process or how to design training for researchers to improve the way they approach literature search.

Beyond practical applications, the typology presented here could give us insight into the ways in which literature search might iteratively change the course of a research project as a sequence of operations. Although it goes beyond the scope of this paper, it might be worth briefly considering some of the ways in which a research project might be modified as a result of these operations. One form of modification is simply adding new entities and relations to P as a result of an expansion; we can view this as a natural extension of the expansion operator. Several other forms of modifications can fall under the category of logical inference (i.e., deduction , induction , and abduction ). For example, in the black swans example, evidence of black swans triggers a modus ponens argument that proves the “all-swans-are-white” hypothesis is false, thereby changing P . Similarly, in Swanson’s ABC model, we can discern the presence of a new relation through the transitivity of the causal relation. If the representations are well-specified, one can imagine creating an inference engine that can automatically detect such changes in P after coming into contact with related work.

However, literature search cannot be considered in isolation from the other aspects of scientific discovery. Another form of modification to P might be the result of an experimentation operation, whereby a deduced relation is tested. We saw this both in the case of medical research that confirmed the causal link deduced by Swanson, and Tu’s experimental confirmation that wormwood can cure malaria. Finally, there is the construction operation, whereby a new entity or relation is created. Construction can result from either literature search (e.g., where an interpretation of some finding results in the discovery of a new finding, or where the expansion of an analogy results in an analogous entity that was not previously conceived of) or from research itself (e.g., the discovery of a new molecule or a new experimental finding). A thorough understanding of the processes of inference, experimentation, and construction is beyond the scope of this paper, but they begin to give us a hint as to how literature search is an iterative process that interacts with other aspects of the research process.

As pointed out by Swanson ( 1986 ), world 3 is also a world where scientific discovery takes place, by interacting with world 1 (the physical world) and world 2 (the subjective world of mental states). Philosophy of science should try to understand how these worlds interact in the process of scientific discovery; this paper is a step in that direction.

Availability of data and material:

This can be formalized using the partial structures formalism mentioned above (Da Costa & French, 1990 ).

Gentner ( 1983 ) did not explicitly define an analogy in terms of an abstraction, but I believe it is useful to recognize that there is always implicitly an abstraction present, and in many cases, it might be useful to reason about what that abstraction is. Gentner ( 1983 ) further differentiates between abstractions, analogies, and literal similarities. These are differentiated by how many attributes and relations are shared between the two and the degree of abstractness of the entities (i.e., in an abstraction, entities are more abstract). While this is sensible, we allow for abstractions that are more concrete, so long as the entities in one representation are still instances of the entities in the other.

For example, one participant’s research question was how to “Grow plants better by optimizing entry of nanoparticle fertilizers into the plant” (p. 14). One paper identified by analogical search was about identifying plants by applying image analysis techniques to their leaves. It is not clear what the similar purpose is in this case, but regardless, the paper does not obviously share an analogical relationship with the research question. While this paper inspired a novel idea that the researcher thought would be relevant to her project, the relationship is captured by an intersection (through the “plant” entity) and possibly the application of interpretation and expansion operators.

Technically it looks for matches in terms of literal similarity to mimic people’s tendencies to find literally similar matches, but the algorithm could be easily modified to search for analogies.

Adleman, L. M. (1994). Molecular computation of solutions to combinatorial problems. Science, 266 (5187), 1021–1024. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7973651

Aswathy, M., & Jagannath, M. (2021). An SVM approach towards breast cancer classification from H &E-stained histopathology images based on integrated features. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 59 (9), 1773–1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-021-02403-0

Bach, N., & Badaskar, S. (2007). A review of relation extraction. Literature Review for Language and Statistics II, 2 , 1–15. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nbach/papers/A-survey-on-Relation-Extraction.pdf

Bhagavatula, C., Feldman, S., Power, R., & Ammar, W. (2018, June). Content-based citation recommendation. In M. Walker, H. Ji, & A. Stent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) (pp. 238–251). ACL.

Brachman, R. J. (1983). What IS-A is and isn’t: An analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. Computer, 16 (10), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1983.1654194

Article   Google Scholar  

Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1949). On the perception of incongruity: A paradigm. Journal of Personality, 18 (2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01241.x

Burman, J. T. (2020). On Kuhn’s case, and Piaget’s: A critical two-sited hauntology (or, on impact without reference). History of the Human Sciences, 33 (3–4), 129–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695120911576

Callaway, E. (2020). The race for coronavirus vaccines: A graphical guide. Nature, 576–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01221-y

Chan, J., Chang, J. C., Hope, T., Shahaf, D., & Kittur, A. (2018). Solvent: A mixed initiative system for finding analogies between research papers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2 , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274300

Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49 (4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Da Costa, N. C., & French, S. (1990). The model-theoretic approach in the philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 57 (2), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/289546

Davies, R. (1989). The creation of new knowledge by information retrieval and classification. Journal of Documentation . https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026846

Doroudi, S. (2020). The bias-variance tradeoff: How data science can inform educational debates. AERA Open, 6 (4), 2332858420977208. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420977208

Eickhoff, C. (2014). Crowd-powered experts: Helping surgeons interpret breast cancer images. In F. Hopfgartner, G. Kazai, U. Kruschwitz, & M. Meder (Eds.), GamifIR ’14: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Gamification for Information Retrieval (pp. 53–56). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2594776.2594788

Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41 (1), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5

Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1995). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19 (2), 141–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_1

French, S. (2000). The reasonable effectiveness of mathematics: Partial structures and the application of group theory to physics. Synthese, 125 (1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005246608001

Galison, P. (2016). Practice all the way down. R.J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ at fifty (pp. 42–70). University of Chicago Press

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7 (2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3

Green, R. (1995). Topical relevance relationships. I. Why topic matching fails. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (9), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199510)46:93C646::AID-ASI2%3E3.0.CO;2-1

Green, R., & Bean, C. A. (1995). Topical relevance relationships. II. An exploratory study and preliminary typology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (9), 654–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199510)46:9%3C654::AID-ASI33E3.0.CO;2-3

Huang, X. (2009). Topical relevance, rhetoric, and argumentation: A cross- disciplinary inquiry into patterns of thinking and information structuring. [Doctoroal dissertation, University of Maryland]. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/9577

Huang, X., & Soergel, D. (2013). Relevance: An improved framework for explicating the notion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22811

Hutchinson, B., & Mitchell, M. (2019). 50 years of test (un)fairness: Lessons for machine learning. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 49–58). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287600

Kang, H. B., Qian, X., Hope, T., Shahaf, D., Chan, J., & Kittur, A. (2022). Augmenting scientific creativity with an analogical search engine. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1 , 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530013

Ke, Q., Ferrara, E., Radicchi, F., & Flammini, A. (2015). Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (24), 7426–7431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424329112

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Concepts of cause in the development of physics. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 21–30). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1971. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226217239-003

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition . University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)

Langille, J. J., & Gallistel, C. R. (2020). Locating the engram: Should we look for plastic synapses or information-storing molecules? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 169 , 107164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107164

Levenson, R. M., Krupinski, E. A., Navarro, V. M., & Wasserman, E. A. (2015). Pigeons (columba livia) as trainable observers of pathology and radiology breast cancer images. PLoS ONE, 10 (11), e0141357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141357

Liang, Y., Li, Q., & Qian, T. (2011). Finding relevant papers based on citation relations. In International conference on web-age information management (pp. 403–414). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141357

MacIsaac, D. (1991). The pedagogical implications of parallels between Kuhn’s philosophy of science and Piagets’ model of cognitive development. Retrieved from http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/danowner/kuhnpiaget/KP1.html

Merton, R. K. (1963). Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 4(2) , 237–282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600000801

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Nadeau, D., & Sekine, S. (2007). A survey of named entity recognition and classification. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 30 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.19.03nad

Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 83–100). Springer.

Pask, G., Kallikourdis, D., & Scott, B. C. (1975). The representation of knowables. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7 (1), 15–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(75)80003-4 .

Popper, K. (1978). Three worlds. [Lecture transcript]. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/p/popper80.pdf

Redhead, M. L. (1975). Symmetry in intertheory relations. Synthese, 32, 77–112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20115097 .

Reinanda, R., Meij, E., de Rijke, M., et al. (2020). Knowledge graphs: An information retrieval perspective (Vol. 14(4), pp. 289–444). Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000063

Ren, X., Liu, J., Yu, X., Khandelwal, U., Gu, Q., Wang, L., & Han, J. (2014). Cluscite: Effective citation recommendation by information networkbased clustering. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 821–830). https://doi.org/10.1145/2623330.2623630

Sacks, O. (2002). Scotoma: Forgetting and neglect in science. Prematurity in scientific discovery (pp. 70–84). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520927735-010

Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (6), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630260604

Saracevic, T. (2016). The notion of relevance in information science: Everybody knows what relevance is. But, what is it really ? https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02302-6

Scholz, E. (2006). Introducing groups into quantum theory (1926–1930). Historia Mathematica, 33 (4), 440–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hm.2005.11.007

Sebastian, Y., Siew, E.-G., & Orimaye, S. O. (2017). Emerging approaches in literature-based discovery: Techniques and performance review. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 32 , e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888917000042

Smalheiser, N. R. (2017). Rediscovering Don Swanson: The past, present and future of literature-based discovery. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2 (4), 43. https://doi.org/10.15152Fjdis-2017-0019 .

Smalheiser, N. R., Manev, H., & Costa, E. (2001). RNAi and brain function: Was McConnell on the right track? Trends in Neurosciences, 24 (4), 216–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01739-2

Sowa, J. F. (1976). Conceptual graphs for a data base interface. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 20 (4), 336–357. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.204.0336

Spanhol, F. A., Oliveira, L. S., Petitjean, C., & Heutte, L. (2016). Breast cancer histopathological image classification using convolutional neural networks. In 2016 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) (pp. 2560–2567). https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2016.7727519

Spivak, D. I., & Kent, R. E. (2012). Ologs: A categorical framework for knowledge representation. PLoS ONE, 7 (1), e24274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024274

Strohman, T., Croft, W. B., & Jensen, D. (2007). Recommending citations for academic papers. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 705–706). https://doi.org/10.1145/1277741.1277868

Suppes, P. (1957). Introduction to logic . D. van Norstrand Co.

Suppes, P. (1960). A comparison of the meaning and uses of models in mathematics and the empirical sciences. Synthese, 12 , 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485107

Swanson, D. R. (1986). Undiscovered public knowledge. The Library Quarterly, 56 (2), 103–118 University of Chicago Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4307965

Swanson, D. R., & Smalheiser, N. R. (1996). Undiscovered public knowledge: A ten-year update. In E. Simoudis, J. Han, & U. Fayyad (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 295–298). https://www.aaai.org/Papers/KDD/1996/KDD96-051.pdf

Tu, Y. (2015). Tu Youyou—Biographical. NobelPrize.org. Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/tu/lecture/

Wareham, T., Evans, P., & van Rooij, I. (2011). What does (and doesn’t) make analogical problem solving easy? A complexity-theoretic perspective. The Journal of Problem Solving, 3 (2), 30–70. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1091

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (2033868). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Provided by National Science Foundation, Award Number: 2033868

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of California, Irvine, 401 E. Peltason Drive, Suite 3200, Irvine, CA, 92617, USA

Shayan Doroudi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Sole authored publication

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shayan Doroudi .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests, code availability:, 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

Doroudi, S. What is a related work? A typology of relationships in research literature. Synthese 201 , 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03976-5

Download citation

Received : 09 September 2021

Accepted : 10 November 2022

Published : 09 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03976-5

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

• Literature search
• Literature-based discovery
• Information retrieval
• Abstraction
• Structure-mapping theory
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

At LanguageHumanities, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.

Learn more...

What Is Literature Research?

Literature research refers to the scholarly, critical study of literature, generally for analysis purposes. It is often done as part of a degree program, such as a degree in English, but some people simply choose to study literature on their own as part of a hobby. Basic literature research may also take place in high school, but most students don't really begin diving into true literary analysis until college. For professors of literature, this type of research will generally continue throughout their careers, as they publish scholarly papers on their topics of choice. Many universities require this of their professors.

The methods for literature research are generally fairly similar across the board. An individual wanting to study a certain aspect of a piece of literature, such as a certain theme, piece of imagery, type of characterization, etc., will generally form a question about this idea. It is necessary that the question be debatable in order to produce a truly interesting, worthwhile paper. Then, the individual will begin examining the research that already exists in this topic from other scholarly researchers.

In most cases, the researcher will make sure to study and respond to all sides of a debatable issue when writing his or her own literature research. Of course, it is entirely possible that no one else has written about one specific idea for one specific piece of literature before; in this case, the researcher will need to find related examples for similar ideas or other similar pieces of literature. It is also common practice for literature researchers to compare a few different works to each other; this can be different works by the same author or by different authors.

The process of literary review, critique, and analysis can be lengthy and challenging. It is necessary in literature research for the researcher to add his or her own ideas in addition to the primary and secondary sources she collects for the research. If the research will eventually be published in a scholarly journal, it will be necessary for the piece to go through a lengthy peer review process as well. In this process, the researcher's colleagues will review the piece and offer critical feedback on it to ensure that the piece is the best it can be. Students completing this type of research that will not be published will not need to go through the peer review process, though some instructors will encourage peer reviews in the classroom to get students in practice of critiquing others' work.

AS FEATURED ON:

Related Articles

• What Are the Best Tips for Writing a Literature Review?
• What Is Classic Literature?
• What Is Involved in the Study of Literature?
• What Is Literature Analysis?
• What Is Comparative Literature?
• What Is Literary Criticism?
• What is Jungian Literary Criticism?

Discussion Comments

Post your comments.

• By: Chris Hart The classics are a common focus of literary research.
• By: Chris Tefme Literature research refers to the scholarly, critical study of literature, generally for analysis purposes.
• By: Syda Productions Literature research may be conducted online.
• By: daniaphoto College students often review literature research when writing an essay.
• By: nyul Some instructors strongly encourage peer reviews to get students in practice of critiquing the work of others.
• By: Kenneth Sponsler Literature research may focus on comparing different texts.