literature review scholarly articles

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 14 October 2022
• Volume 16 , pages 2577–2595, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sascha Kraus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4886-7482 1 , 2 ,
• Matthias Breier 3 ,
• Weng Marc Lim 4 , 8 , 22 ,
• Marina Dabić 5 , 6 ,
• Satish Kumar 7 , 8 ,
• Dominik Kanbach 9 , 10 ,
• Debmalya Mukherjee 11 ,
• Vincenzo Corvello 12 ,
• Juan Piñeiro-Chousa 13 ,
• Eric Liguori 14 ,
• Daniel Palacios-Marqués 15 ,
• Francesco Schiavone 16 , 17 ,
• Alberto Ferraris 18 , 21 ,
• Cristina Fernandes 19 , 20 &
• João J. Ferreira 19  

71k Accesses

272 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Review articles or literature reviews are a critical part of scientific research. While numerous guides on literature reviews exist, these are often limited to the philosophy of review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures, triggering non-parsimonious reporting and confusion due to overlapping similarities. To address the aforementioned limitations, we adopt a pragmatic approach to demystify and shape the academic practice of conducting literature reviews. We concentrate on the types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions of literature reviews as independent, standalone studies. As such, our article serves as an overview that scholars can rely upon to navigate the fundamental elements of literature reviews as standalone and independent studies, without getting entangled in the complexities of review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

A literature review – or a review article – is “a study that analyzes and synthesizes an existing body of literature by identifying, challenging, and advancing the building blocks of a theory through an examination of a body (or several bodies) of prior work (Post et al. 2020 , p. 352). Literature reviews as standalone pieces of work may allow researchers to enhance their understanding of prior work in their field, enabling them to more easily identify gaps in the body of literature and potential avenues for future research. More importantly, review articles may challenge established assumptions and norms of a given field or topic, recognize critical problems and factual errors, and stimulate future scientific conversations around that topic. Literature reviews Footnote 1 come in many different formats and purposes:

Some review articles conduct a critical evaluation of the literature, whereas others elect to adopt a more exploratory and descriptive approach.

Some reviews examine data, methodologies, and findings, whereas others look at constructs, themes, and theories.

Some reviews provide summaries by holistically synthesizing the existing research on a topic, whereas others adopt an integrative approach by assessing related and interdisciplinary work.

The number of review articles published as independent or standalone studies has been increasing over time. According to Scopus (i.e., search database ), reviews (i.e., document type ) were first published in journals (i.e., source type ) as independent studies in 1945, and they subsequently appeared in three digits yearly from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, four digits yearly from the early 2000s to the late 2010s, and five digits in the year 2021 (Fig.  1 ). This increase is indicative that reviewers and editors in business and management research alike see value and purpose in review articles to such a level that they are now commonly accepted as independent, standalone studies. This development is also reflected in the fact that some academic journals exclusively publish review articles (e.g., the Academy of Management Annals , or the  International Journal of Management Reviews ), and journals publishing in various fields often have special issues dedicated to literature reviews on certain topic areas (e.g., the Journal of Management and the Journal of International Business Studies ).

Full-year publication trend of review articles on Scopus (1945–2021)

One of the most important prerequisites of a high-quality review article is that the work follows an established methodology, systematically selects and analyzes articles, and periodically covers the field to identify latest developments (Snyder 2019 ). Additionally, it needs to be reproducible, well-evidenced, and transparent, resulting in a sample inclusive of all relevant and appropriate studies (Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020; Hansen et al. 2021 ). This observation is in line with Palmatier et al. ( 2018 ), who state that review articles provide an important synthesis of findings and perspectives in a given body of knowledge. Snyder ( 2019 ) also reaffirmed this rationale, pointing out that review articles have the power to answer research questions beyond that which can be achieved in a single study. Ultimately, readers of review articles stand to gain a one-stop, state-of-the-art synthesis (Lim et al. 2022a ; Popli et al. 2022) that encapsulates critical insights through the process of re-interpreting, re-organizing, and re-connecting a body knowledge (Fan et al. 2022 ).

There are many reasons to conduct review articles. Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) explicitly mention the benefits of conducting systematic reviews by declaring that they often represent the first step in the context of larger research projects, such as doctoral dissertations. When carrying out work of this kind, it is important that a holistic overview of the current state of literature is achieved and embedded into a proper synthesis. This allows researchers to pinpoint relevant research gaps and adequately fit future conceptual or empirical studies into the state of the academic discussion (Kraus et al., 2021 ). A review article as an independent or standalone study is a viable option for any academic – especially young scholars, such as doctoral candidates – who wishes to delve into a specific topic for which a (recent) review article is not available.

The process of conducting a review article can be challenging, especially for novice scholars (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015 ). Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous guides have been written in an attempt to improve the quality of review studies and support emerging scholars in their endeavors to have their work published. These guides for conducting review articles span a variety of academic fields, such as engineering education (Borrego et al. 2014 ), health sciences (Cajal et al. 2020 ), psychology (Laher and Hassem 2020 ), supply chain management (Durach et al. 2017 ), or business and entrepreneurship (Kraus et al. 2020 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ) – the latter were among the first scholars to recognize the need to educate business/management scholars on the roles of review studies in assembling, ascertaining, and assessing the intellectual territory of a specific knowledge domain. Furthermore, they shed light on the stages (i.e., planning the review, conducting the review, reporting, and dissemination) and phases (i.e., identifying the need for a review, preparation of a proposal for a review, development of a review protocol, identification of research, selection of studies, study quality assessment, data extraction and monitoring progress, data synthesis, the report and recommendations, and getting evidence into practice) of conducting a systematic review. Other scholars have either adapted and/or developed new procedures (Kraus et al. 2020 ; Snyder 2019 ) or established review protocols such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Moher et al. 2015 ). The latter provides a checklist that improves transparency and reproducibility, thus reducing questionable research practices. The declarative and procedural knowledge of a checklist allows users to derive value from (and, in some cases, produce) methodological literature reviews.

Two distinct and critical gaps or issues provide impetus for our article. First, while the endeavors of the named scholars are undoubtedly valuable contributions, they often encourage other scholars to explain the methodology of their review studies in a non-parsimonious way ( 1st issue ). This can become problematic if this information distracts and deprives scholars from providing richer review findings, particularly in instances in which publication outlets impose a strict page and/or word limit. More often than not, the early parts (i.e., stages/phases, such as needs, aims, and scope) of these procedures or protocols are explained in the introduction, but they tend to be reiterated in the methodology section due to the prescription of these procedures or protocols. Other parts of these procedures or protocols could also be reported more parsimoniously, for example, by filtering out documents, given that scientific databases (such as Scopus or Web of Science ) have since been upgraded to allow scholars to select and implement filtering criteria when conducting a search (i.e., criterion-by-criterion filtering may no longer be necessary). More often than not, the procedures or protocols of review studies can be signposted (e.g., bracket labeling) and disclosed in a sharp and succinct manner while maintaining transparency and replicability.

Other guides have been written to introduce review nomenclatures (i.e., names/naming) and their equivalent philosophical underpinnings. Palmatier et al. ( 2018 ) introduced three clearly but broadly defined nomenclatures of literature reviews as independent studies: domain-based reviews, theory-based reviews, and method-based reviews. However, such review nomenclatures can be confusing due to their overlapping similarities ( 2nd issue ). For example, Lim et al. ( 2022a ) highlighted their observation that the review nomenclatures associated with domain-based reviews could also be used for theory-based and method-based reviews.

The two aforementioned issues – i.e., the lack of a parsimonious understanding and the reporting of the review methodology , and the confusion emerging from review nomenclatures – are inarguably the unintended outcomes of diving into an advanced (i.e., higher level) understanding of literature review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures from a philosophical perspective (i.e., underpinnings) without a foundational (i.e., basic level) understanding of the fundamental (i.e., core) elements of literature reviews from a pragmatic perspective. Our article aims to shed light on these issues and hopes to provide clarity for future scholarly endeavors.

Having a foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent studies is (i) necessary when addressing the aforementioned issues; (ii) important in reconciling and scaffolding our understanding, and (iii) relevant and timely due to the proliferation of literature reviews as independent studies. To contribute a solution toward addressing this gap , we aim to demystify review articles as independent studies from a pragmatic standpoint (i.e., practicality). To do so, we deliberately (i) move away from review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures, and (ii) invest our attention in developing a parsimonious, scaffolded understanding of the fundamental elements (i.e., types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions) of review articles as independent studies.

Three contributions distinguish our article. It is worth noting that pragmatic guides (i.e., foundational knowledge), such as the present one, are not at odds with extant philosophical guides (i.e., advanced knowledge), but rather they complement them. Having a foundational knowledge of the fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies is valuable , as it can help scholars to (i) gain a good grasp of the fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies ( 1st contribution ), and (ii) mindfully adopt or adapt existing review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures to better suit the circumstances of their reviews (e.g., choosing and developing a well-defined review nomenclature, and choosing and reporting on review considerations and steps more parsimoniously) ( 2nd contribution ). Therefore, this pragmatic guide serves as (iii) a foundational article (i.e., preparatory understanding) for literature reviews as independent studies ( 3rd contribution ). Following this, extant guides using a philosophical approach (i.e., advanced understanding) could be relied upon to make informed review decisions (e.g., adoption, adaptation) in response to the conventions of extant review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures (Fig.  2 ).

Foundational and advanced understanding of literature reviews as independent studies

2 Fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies

A foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent studies can be acquired through the appreciation of five fundamental elements – i.e., types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions – which are illustrated in Fig.  3 and summarized in the following sections.

Fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies

There are two types of literature reviews as independent studies: systematic literature reviews ( SLRs ) and non-systematic literature reviews ( non-SLRs ). It is important to recognize that SLRs and non-SLRs are not review nomenclatures (i.e., names/naming) but rather review types (i.e., classifications).

In particular, SLRs are reviews carried out in a systematic way using an adopted or adapted procedure or protocol to guide data curation and analysis, thus enabling transparent disclosure and replicability (Lim et al. 2022a ; Kraus et al. 2020 ). Therefore, any review nomenclature guided by a systematic methodology is essentially an SLR. The origin of this type of literature review can be traced back to the evidence-based medicine movement in the early 1990s, with the objective being to overcome the issue of inconclusive findings in studies for medical treatments (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015 ).

In contrast, non-SLRs are reviews conducted without any systematic procedure or protocol; instead, they weave together relevant literature based on the critical evaluations and (subjective) choices of the author(s) through a process of discovery and critique (e.g., pointing out contradictions and questioning assertions or beliefs); they are shaped by the exposure, expertise, and experience (i.e., the “3Es” in judgement calls) of the author(s). Therefore, non-SLRs are essentially critical reviews of the literature (Lim and Weissmann 2021 ).

2.2 Focuses

Unlike Palmatier et al. ( 2018 ) who considered domain-based reviews, theory-based reviews, and method-based reviews as review nomenclatures, we consider domain , theory , and method as three substantive focuses that can take center stage in literature reviews as independent studies. This is in line with our attempt to move away from review nomenclatures when providing a foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent studies.

A review that is domain-focused can examine: (i) a  concept (e.g., customer engagement; Lim et al. 2022b ; digital transformation; Kraus et al. 2021 ; home sharing; Lim et al. 2021 ; sharing economy; Lim 2020 ), (ii) a context (e.g., India; Mukherjee et al. 2022a ), (iii) a discipline (e.g., entrepreneurship; Ferreira et al. 2015 ; international business; Ghauri et al. 2021 ), (iv) a field (e.g., family business; Lahiri et al. 2020 ; Rovelli et al. 2021 ; female entrepreneurship; Ojong et al. 2021 ), or (v) an outlet (e.g., Journal of Business Research ; Donthu et al. 2020 ; Management International Review ; Mukherjee et al. 2021 ; Review of Managerial Science ; Mas-Tur et al. 2020 ), which typically offer broad, overarching insights.

Domain-focused hybrids , such as the between-domain hybrid (e.g., concept-discipline hybrid, such as digital transformation in business and management; Kraus et al. 2022 ; religion in business and entrepreneurship; Kumar et al. 2022a ; personality traits in entrepreneurship; Salmony and Kanbach 2022 ; and policy implications in HR and OB research; Aguinis et al., 2022 ) and the within-domain hybrid (e.g., the concept-concept hybrid, such as customer engagement and social media; Lim and Rasul 2022 ; and global business and organizational excellence; Lim 2022 ; and the discipline-discipline hybrid, such as neuromarketing; Lim 2018 ) are also common as they can provide finer-grained insights.

A review that is theory-focused can explore a standalone theory (e.g., theory of planned behavior; Duan and Jiang 2008 ), as well as a theory in conjunction with a domain , such as the concept-theory hybrid (e.g., behavioral control and theory of planned behavior; Lim and Weissmann 2021 ) and the theory-discipline hybrid (e.g., theory of planned behavior in hospitality, leisure, and tourism; Ulker-Demirel and Ciftci 2020 ), or a theory in conjunction with a method (e.g., theory of planned behavior and structural equation modeling).

A review that is method-focused can investigate a standalone method (e.g., structural equation modeling; Deng et al. 2018 ) or a method in conjunction with a domain , such as the method-discipline hybrid (e.g., fsQCA in business and management; Kumar et al. 2022b ).

2.3 Planning the review, critical considerations, and data collection

The considerations required for literature reviews as independent studies depend on their type: SLRs or non-SLRs.

For non-SLRs, scholars often rely on the 3Es (i.e., exposure, expertise, and experience) to provide a critical review of the literature. Scholars who embark on non-SLRs should be well versed with the literature they are dealing with. They should know the state of the literature (e.g., debatable, underexplored, and well-established knowledge areas) and how it needs to be deciphered (e.g., tenets and issues) and approached (e.g., reconciliation proposals and new pathways) to advance theory and practice. In this regard, non-SLRs follow a deductive reasoning approach, whereby scholars initially develop a set of coverage areas for reviewing a domain, theory, or method and subsequently draw on relevant literature to shed light and support scholarly contentions in each area.

For SLRs, scholars often rely on a set of criteria to provide a well-scoped (i.e., breadth and depth), structured (i.e., organized aspects), integrated (i.e., synthesized evidence) and interpreted/narrated (i.e., describing what has happened, how and why) systematic review of the literature. Footnote 2 In this regard, SLRs follow an inductive reasoning approach, whereby a set of criteria is established and implemented to develop a corpus of scholarly documents that scholars can review. They can then deliver a state-of-the-art overview, as well as a future agenda for a domain, theory, or method. Such criteria are often listed in philosophical guides on SLR procedures (e.g., Kraus et al. 2020 ; Snyder 2019 ) and protocols (e.g., PRISMA), and they may be adopted/adapted with justifications Footnote 3 . Based on their commonalities they can be summarized as follows:

Search database (e.g., “Scopus” and/or “Web of Science”) can be defined based on justified evidence (e.g., by the two being the largest scientific databases of scholarly articles that can provide on-demand bibliographic data or records; Pranckutė 2021 ). To avoid biased outcomes due to the scope covered by the selected database, researchers could utilize two or more different databases (Dabić et al. 2021 ).

Search keywords may be developed by reading scholarly documents and subsequently brainstorming with experts. The expanding number of databases, journals, periodicals, automated approaches, and semi-automated procedures that use text mining and machine learning can offer researchers the ability to source new, relevant research and forecast the citations of influential studies. This enables them to determine further relevant articles.

Boolean operators (e.g., AND, OR) should be strategically used in developing the  string   of search keywords (e.g., “engagement” AND “customer” OR “consumer” OR “business”). Furthermore, the correct and precise application of quotation marks is important but is very frequently sidestepped, resulting in incorrect selection processes and differentiated results.

Search period (e.g., between a specified period [e.g., 2000 to 2020] or up to the latest full year at the time or writing [e.g., up to 2021]) can be defined based on the justified scope of study (e.g., contemporary evolution versus historical trajectory).

Search field (e.g., “article title, abstract, keywords”) can be defined based on justified assumptions (e.g., it is assumed that the focus of relevant documents will be mentioned in the article title, abstract, and/or keywords).

Subject area (e.g., “business, management, and accounting”) can be defined based on justified principles (e.g., the focus of the review is on the marketing discipline, which is located under the “business, management, and accounting” subject area in Scopus).

Publication stage (e.g., “final”) can be defined based on justified grounds (e.g., enabling greater accuracy in replication).

Document type (e.g., “article” and/or “review”), which reflects the type of scientific/practical contributions (e.g., empirical, synthesis, thought), can be defined based on justified rationales (e.g., articles selected because they are peer-reviewed; editorials not selected because they are not peer-reviewed).

Source type (e.g., “journal”) can be defined based on justified reasons (e.g., journals selected because they publish finalized work; conference proceedings not selected because they are work in progress, and in business/management, they are usually not being considered as full-fledged “publications”).

Language (e.g., “English”) can be determined based on justified limitations (e.g., nowadays, there are not many reasons to use another language besides the academic lingua franca English). Different spellings should also be considered, as the literature may contain both American and British spelling variants (e.g., organization and organisation). Truncation and wildcards in searches are recommended to capture both sets of spellings. It is important to note that each database varies in its symbology.

Quality filtering (e.g., “A*” and “A” or “4*”, “4”, and “3”) can be defined based on justified motivations (e.g., the goal is to unpack the most originally and rigorously produced knowledge, which is the hallmark of premier journals, such as those ranked “A*” and “A” by the Australian Business Deans Council [ABDC] Journal Quality List [JQL] and rated “4*”, “4”, and “3” by the Chartered Association of Business Schools [CABS] Academic Journal Guide [AJG]).

Document relevance (i.e., within the focus of the review) can be defined based on justified judgement (e.g., for a review focusing on customer engagement, articles that mention customer engagement as a passing remark without actually investigating it would be excluded).

Others: Screening process should be accomplished by beginning with the deduction of duplicate results from other databases, tracked using abstract screening to exclude unfitting studies, and ending with the full-text screening of the remaining documents.

Others: Exclusion-inclusion criteria interpretation of the abstracts/articles is obligatory when deciding whether or not the articles dealt with the matter. This step could involve removing a huge percentage of initially recognized articles.

Others: Codebook building pertains to the development of a codebook of the main descriptors within a specific field. An inductive approach can be followed and, in this case, descriptors are not established beforehand. Instead, they are established through the analysis of the articles’ content. This procedure is made up of several stages: (i) the extraction of important content from titles, abstracts, and keywords; (ii) the classification of this content to form a reduced list of the core descriptors; and (iii) revising the codebook in iterations and combining similar categories, thus developing a short list of descriptors (López-Duarte et al. 2016 , p. 512; Dabić et al. 2015 ; Vlacic et al. 2021 ).

2.4 Methods

Various methods are used to analyze the pertinent literature. Often, scholars choose a method for corpus analysis before corpus curation. Knowing the analytical technique beforehand is useful, as it allows researchers to acquire and prepare the right data in the right format. This typically occurs when scholars have decided upon and justified pursuing a specific review nomenclature upfront (e.g., bibliometric reviews) based on the problem at hand (e.g., broad domain [outlet] with a large corpus [thousands of articles], such as a premier journal that has been publishing for decades) (Donthu et al. 2021 ). However, this may not be applicable in instances where (i) scholars do not curate a corpus of articles (non-SLRs), and (ii) scholars only know the size of the corpus of articles once that corpus is curated (SLRs). Therefore, scholars may wish to decide on a method of analyzing the literature depending on (i) whether they rely on a corpus of articles (i.e., yes or no), and (ii) the size of the corpus of articles that they rely on to review the literature (i.e., n  = 0 to ∞).

When analytical techniques (e.g., bibliometric analysis, critical analysis, meta-analysis) are decoupled from review nomenclatures (e.g., bibliometric reviews, critical reviews, meta-analytical reviews), we uncover a toolbox of the following methods for use when analyzing the literature:

Bibliometric analysis measures the literature and processes data by using algorithm, arithmetic, and statistics to analyze, explore, organize, and investigate large amounts of data. This enables scholars to identify and recognize potential “hidden patterns” that could help them during the literature review process. Bibliometrics allows scholars to objectively analyze a large corpus of articles (e.g., high hundreds or more) using quantitative techniques (Donthu et al. 2021 ). There are two overarching categories for bibliometric analysis: performance analysis and science mapping. Performance analysis enables scholars to assess the productivity (publication) and impact (citation) of the literature relating to a domain, method, or theory using various quantitative metrics (e.g., average citations per publication or year, h -index, g -index, i -index). Science mapping grants scholars the ability to map the literature in that domain, method, or theory based on bibliographic data (e.g., bibliographic coupling generates thematic clusters based on similarities in shared bibliographic data [e.g., references] among citing articles; co-citation analysis generates thematic clusters based on commonly cited articles; co-occurrence analysis generates thematic clusters based on bibliographic data [e.g., keywords] that commonly appear together; PageRank analysis generates thematic clusters based on articles that are commonly cited in highly cited articles; and topic modeling generates thematic clusters based on the natural language processing of bibliographic data [e.g., article title, abstract, and keywords]). Footnote 4 Given the advancement in algorithms and technology, reviews using bibliometric analysis are considered to be smart (Kraus et al. 2021 ) and technologically-empowered (Kumar et al. 2022b ) SLRs, in which a review has harnessed the benefits of (i) the machine learning of the bibliographic data of scholarly research from technologically-empowered scientific databases, and (ii) big data analytics involving various science mapping techniques (Kumar et al. 2022c ).

Content analysis allows scholars to analyze a small to medium corpus of articles (i.e., tens to low hundreds) using quantitative and qualitative techniques. From a quantitative perspective , scholars can objectively carry out a content analysis by quantifying a specific unit of analysis . A useful method of doing so involves adopting, adapting, or developing an organizing framework . For example, Lim et al. ( 2021 ) employed an organizing (ADO-TCM) framework to quantify content in academic literature based on: (i) the categories of knowledge; (ii) the relationships between antecedents, decisions, and outcomes; and (iii) the theories, contexts, and methods used to develop the understanding for (i) and (ii). The rapid evolution of software for content analysis allows scholars to carry out complex elaborations on the corpus of analyzed articles, so much so that the most recent software enables the semi-automatic development of an organizing framework (Ammirato et al. 2022 ). From a qualitative perspective , scholars can conduct a content analysis or, more specifically, a thematic analysis , by subjectively organizing the content into themes. For example, Creevey et al. ( 2022 ) reviewed the literature on social media and luxury, providing insights on five core themes (i.e., luxury brand strategy, luxury brand social media communications, luxury consumer attitudes and perceptions, engagement, and the influence of social media on brand performance-related outcomes) generated through a content (thematic) analysis. Systematic approaches for inductive concept development through qualitative research are similarly applied in literature reviews in an attempt to reduce the subjectivity of derived themes. Following the principles of the approach by Gioia et al. ( 2012 ), Korherr and Kanbach ( 2021 ) develop a taxonomy of human-related capabilities in big data analytics. Building on a sample of 75 studies for the literature review, 33 first-order concepts are identified. These are categorized into 15 second-order themes and are finally merged into five aggregate dimensions. Using the same procedure, Leemann and Kanbach ( 2022 ) identify 240 idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities in a sample of 34 studies for their literature review. They then categorize these into 19 dynamic sub-capabilities. The advancement of technology also makes it possible to conduct content analysis using computer assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDA) software (e.g., ATLAS.ti, Nvivo, Quirkos) (Lim et al. 2022a ).

Critical analysis allows scholars to subjectively use their 3Es (i.e., exposure, expertise, and experience) to provide a critical evaluation of academic literature. This analysis is typically used in non-SLRs, and can be deployed in tandem with other analyses, such as bibliometric analysis and content analysis in SLRs, which are used to discuss consensual, contradictory, and underexplored areas of the literature. For SLRs, scholars are encouraged to engage in critical evaluations of the literature so that they can truly contribute to advancing theory and practice (Baker et al. 2022 ; Lim et al. 2022a ; Mukherjee et al. 2022b ).

Meta-analysis allows scholars to objectively establish a quantitative estimate of commonly studied relationships in the literature (Grewal et al. 2018 ). This analysis is typically employed in SLRs intending to reconcile a myriad of relationships (Lim et al. 2022a ). The relationships established are often made up of conflicting evidence (e.g., a positive or significant effect in one study, but a negative or non-significant effect in another study). However, through meta-analysis, scholars are able to identify potential factors (e.g., contexts or sociodemographic information) that may have led to the conflict.

Others: Multiple correspondence analysis helps to map the field, assessing the associations between qualitative content within a matrix of variables and cases. Homogeneity Analysis by Means of Alternating Least Squares ( HOMALS ) is also considered useful in allowing researchers to map out the intellectual structure of a variety of research fields (Gonzalez-Loureiro et al. 2015 ; Gonzalez-Louriero 2021; Obradović et al. 2021 ). HOMALS can be performed in R or used along with a matrix through SPSS software. In summary, the overall objective of this analysis is to discover a low dimensional representation of the original high dimensional space (i.e., the matrix of descriptors and articles). To measure the goodness of fit, a loss function is used. This function is used minimally, and the HOMALS algorithm is applied to the least squares loss functions in SPSS. This analysis provides a proximity map, in which articles and descriptors are shown in low-dimensional spaces (typically on two axes). Keywords are paired and each couple that appears together in a large number of articles is shown to be closer on the map and vice-versa.

When conducting a literature review, software solutions allow researchers to cover a broad range of variables, from built-in functions of statistical software packages to software orientated towards meta-analyses, and from commercial to open-source solutions. Personal preference plays a huge role, but the decision as to which software will be the most useful is entirely dependent on how complex the methods and the dataset are. Of all the commercial software providers, we have found the built-in functions of (i) R and VOSviewer most useful in performing bibliometric analysis (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017 ; R Core Team 2021 ; Van Eck and Waltman 2014 ) and (ii) Stata most useful in performing meta-analytical tasks.

Many different analytical tools have been used. These include simple document counting, citation analysis, word frequency analysis, cluster analysis, co-word analysis, and cooperation analysis (Daim et al. 2006 ). Software has also been produced for bibliometric analysis, such as the Thomson Data Analyzer (TDA), which Thomson Reuters created, and CiteSpace developed by Chen ( 2013 ). VOSviewer helps us to construct and visualize bibliometric networks, which can include articles, journals, authors, countries, and institutions, among others (Van Eck and Waltman 2014 ). These can be organized based on citations, co-citations, bibliographic coupling, or co-authorship relations. In addition, VOSviewer provides text mining functions, which can be used to facilitate a better understanding of co-occurrence networks with regards to the key terms taken from a body of scientific literature (Donthu et al. 2021 ; Wong 2018 ). Other frequently used tools include for bibliometric analysis include Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny in R, CitNetExplorer, and Gephi, among others.

2.5 Contributions

Well-conducted literature reviews may make multiple contributions to the literature as standalone, independent studies.

Generally, there are three primary contributions of literature reviews as independent studies: (i) to provide an overview of current knowledge in the domain, method, or theory, (ii) to provide an evaluation of knowledge progression in the domain, method, or theory, including the establishment of key knowledge, conflicting or inconclusive findings, and emerging and underexplored areas, and (iii) to provide a proposal for potential pathways for advancing knowledge in the domain, method, or theory (Lim et al. 2022a , p. 487). Developing theory through literature reviews can take many forms, including organizing and categorizing the literature, problematizing the literature, identifying and exposing contradictions, developing analogies and metaphors, and setting out new narratives and conceptualizations (Breslin and Gatrell 2020 ). Taken collectively, these contributions offer crystalized, evidence-based insights that both ‘mine’ and ‘prospect’ the literature, highlighting extant gaps and how they can be resolved (e.g., flags paradoxes or theoretical tensions, explaining why something has not been done, what the challenges are, and how these challenges can be overcome). These contributions can be derived through successful bibliometric analysis, content analysis, critical analysis, and meta-analysis.

Additionally, the deployment of specific methods can bring in further added value. For example, a performance analysis in a bibliometric analysis can contribute to: (i) objectively assessing and reporting research productivity and impact ; (ii) ascertaining reach for coverage claims ; (iii) identifying social dominance and hidden biases ; (iv) detecting anomalies ; and (v) evaluating ( equitable ) relative performance ; whereas science mapping in bibliometric analysis can contribute to: (i) objectively discovering thematic clusters of knowledge ; (ii) clarifying nomological networks ; (iii) mapping social patterns ; (iv) tracking evolutionary nuances ; and (v) recognizing knowledge gaps (Mukherjee et al. 2022b , p. 105).

3 Conclusion

Independent literature reviews will continue to be written as a result of their necessity, importance, relevance, and urgency when it comes to advancing knowledge (Lim et al. 2022a ; Mukherjee et al. 2022b ), and this can be seen in the increasing number of reviews being published over the last several years. Literature reviews advance academic discussion. Journal publications on various topics and subject areas are becoming more frequent sites for publication. This trend will only heighten the need for literature reviews. This article offers directions and control points that address the needs of three different stakeholder groups: producers (i.e., potential authors), evaluators (i.e., journal editors and reviewers), and users (i.e., new researchers looking to learn more about a particular methodological issue, and those teaching the next generation of scholars). Future producers will derive value from this article’s teachings on the different fundamental elements and methodological nuances of literature reviews. Procedural knowledge (i.e., using control points to assist in decision-making during the manuscript preparation phase) will also be of use. Evaluators will be able to make use of the procedural and declarative knowledge evident in control points as well. As previously outlined, the need to cultivate novelty within research on business and management practices is vital. Scholars must also be supported to choose not only safe mining approaches; they should also be encouraged to attempt more challenging and risky ventures. It is important to note that abstracts often seem to offer a lot of potential, stating that authors intend to make large conceptual contributions, broadening the horizons of the field.

Our article offers important insights also for practitioners. Noteworthily, our framework can support corporate managers in decomposing and better understanding literature reviews as ad-hoc and independent studies about specific topics that matter for their organization. For instance, practitioners can understand more easily what are the emerging trends within their domain of interest and make corporate decisions in line with such trends.

This article arises from an intentional decoupling from philosophy, in favor of adopting a more pragmatic approach. This approach can assist us in clarifying the fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies. Five fundamental elements must be considered: types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions. These elements offer a useful frame for scholars starting to work on a literature review. Overview articles (guides) such as ours are thus invaluable, as they equip scholars with a solid foundational understanding of the integral elements of a literature review. Scholars can then put these teachings into practice, armed with a better understanding of the philosophy that underpins the procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures of literature reviews as independent studies.

Data availability

Our manuscript has no associate data.

Our focus here is on standalone literature reviews in contrast with literature reviews that form the theoretical foundation for a research article.

Scoping reviews, structured reviews, integrative reviews, and interpretive/narrative reviews are commonly found in review nomenclature. However, the philosophy of these review nomenclatures essentially reflects what constitutes a good SLR. That is to say, a good SLR should be well scoped, structured, integrated, and interpreted/narrated. This observation reaffirms our position and the value of moving away from review nomenclatures to gain a foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent studies.

Given that many of these considerations can be implemented simultaneously in contemporary versions of scientific databases, scholars may choose to consolidate them into a single (or a few) step(s), where appropriate, so that they can be reported more parsimoniously. For a parsimonious but transparent and replicable exemplar, see Lim ( 2022 ).

Where keywords are present (e.g., author keywords or keywords derived from machine learning [e.g., natural language processing]), it is assumed that each keyword represents a specific meaning (e.g., topic [concept, context], method), and that a collection of keywords grouped under the same cluster represents a specific theme.

Aguinis H, Jensen SH, Kraus S (2022) Policy implications of organizational behavior and human resource management research. Acad Manage Perspect 36(3):1–22

Article   Google Scholar  

Ammirato S, Felicetti AM, Rogano D, Linzalone R, Corvello V (2022) Digitalising the systematic literature review process: The My SLR platform. Knowl Manage Res Pract. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2041375

Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetrics 11(4):959–975

Baker WE, Mukherjee D, Perin MG (2022) Learning orientation and competitive advantage: A critical synthesis and future directions. J Bus Res 144:863–873

Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. J Inform Technol 30:161–173

Borrego M, Foster MJ, Froyd JE (2014) Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. J Eng Educ 103(1):45–76

Breslin D, Gatrell C (2020) Theorizing through literature reviews: The miner-prospector continuum. Organizational Res Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943288 (in press)

Cajal B, Jiménez R, Gervilla E, Montaño JJ (2020) Doing a systematic review in health sciences. Clínica y Salud 31(2):77–83

Chen C (2013) Mapping scientific frontiers: The quest for knowledge visualization. Springer Science & Business Media

Creevey D, Coughlan J, O’Connor C (2022) Social media and luxury: A systematic literature review. Int J Manage Reviews 24(1):99–129

Dabić M, González-Loureiro M, Harvey M (2015) Evolving research on expatriates: what is ‘known’after four decades (1970–2012). Int J Hum Resource Manage 26(3):316–337

Dabić M, Vlačić B, Kiessling T, Caputo A, Pellegrini M(2021) Serial entrepreneurs: A review of literature and guidance for future research.Journal of Small Business Management,1–36

Daim TU, Rueda G, Martin H, Gerdsri P (2006) Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73(8):981–1012

Deng L, Yang M, Marcoulides KM (2018) Structural equation modeling with many variables: A systematic review of issues and developments. Front Psychol 9:580

Donthu N, Kumar S, Pattnaik D (2020) Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric analysis. J Bus Res 109:1–14

Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM (2021) How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 133:285–296

Duan W, Jiang G (2008) A review of the theory of planned behavior. Adv Psychol Sci 16(2):315–320

Google Scholar  

Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manage 53(4):67–85

Fan D, Breslin D, Callahan JL, Szatt-White M (2022) Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency. Int J Manage Reviews 24(2):171–180

Ferreira MP, Reis NR, Miranda R (2015) Thirty years of entrepreneurship research published in top journals: Analysis of citations, co-citations and themes. J Global Entrepreneurship Res 5(1):1–22

Ghauri P, Strange R, Cooke FL (2021) Research on international business: The new realities. Int Bus Rev 30(2):101794

Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the gioia methodology. Organizational Res Methods 16(1):15–31

Gonzalez-Loureiro M, Dabić M, Kiessling T (2015) Supply chain management as the key to a firm’s strategy in the global marketplace: Trends and research agenda. Int J Phys Distribution Logistics Manage 45(1/2):159–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0124

Grewal D, Puccinelli N, Monroe KB (2018) Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. J Acad Mark Sci 46(1):9–30

Hansen C, Steinmetz H, Block J(2021) How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide.Management Review Quarterly,1–19

Korherr P, Kanbach DK (2021) Human-related capabilities in big data analytics: A taxonomy of human factors with impact on firm performance. RMS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00506-4 (in press)

Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S (2020) The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrepreneurship Manage J 16(3):1023–1042

Kraus S, Durst S, Ferreira J, Veiga P, Kailer N, Weinmann A (2022) Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current status quo. Int J Inf Manag 63:102466

Kraus S, Jones P, Kailer N, Weinmann A, Chaparro-Banegas N, Roig-Tierno N (2021) Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open 11(3):1–15

Kraus S, Mahto RV, Walsh ST (2021) The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepreneurship research. J Small Bus Manage. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955128 (in press)

Kumar S, Sahoo S, Lim WM, Dana LP (2022a) Religion as a social shaping force in entrepreneurship and business: Insights from a technology-empowered systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 175:121393

Kumar S, Sahoo S, Lim WM, Kraus S, Bamel U (2022b) Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in business and management research: A contemporary overview. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 178:121599

Kumar S, Sharma D, Rao S, Lim WM, Mangla SK (2022c) Past, present, and future of sustainable finance: Insights from big data analytics through machine learning of scholarly research. Ann Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04410-8 (in press)

Laher S, Hassem T (2020) Doing systematic reviews in psychology. South Afr J Psychol 50(4):450–468

Leemann N, Kanbach DK (2022) Toward a taxonomy of dynamic capabilities – a systematic literature review. Manage Res Rev 45(4):486–501

Lahiri S, Mukherjee D, Peng MW (2020) Behind the internationalization of family SMEs: A strategy tripod synthesis. Glob Strategy J 10(4):813–838

Lim WM (2018) Demystifying neuromarketing. J Bus Res 91:205–220

Lim WM (2020) The sharing economy: A marketing perspective. Australasian Mark J 28(3):4–13

Lim WM (2022) Ushering a new era of Global Business and Organizational Excellence: Taking a leaf out of recent trends in the new normal. Global Bus Organizational Excellence 41(5):5–13

Lim WM, Rasul T (2022) Customer engagement and social media: Revisiting the past to inform the future. J Bus Res 148:325–342

Lim WM, Weissmann MA (2021) Toward a theory of behavioral control. J Strategic Mark. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.1890190 (in press)

Lim WM, Kumar S, Ali F (2022a) Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. Serv Ind J 42(7–8):481–513

Lim WM, Rasul T, Kumar S, Ala M (2022b) Past, present, and future of customer engagement. J Bus Res 140:439–458

Lim WM, Yap SF, Makkar M (2021) Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: What do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? J Bus Res 122:534–566

López-Duarte C, González-Loureiro M, Vidal-Suárez MM, González-Díaz B (2016) International strategic alliances and national culture: Mapping the field and developing a research agenda. J World Bus 51(4):511–524

Mas-Tur A, Kraus S, Brandtner M, Ewert R, Kürsten W (2020) Advances in management research: A bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science. RMS 14(5):933–958

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Reviews 4(1):1–9

Mukherjee D, Kumar S, Donthu N, Pandey N (2021) Research published in Management International Review from 2006 to 2020: A bibliometric analysis and future directions. Manage Int Rev 61:599–642

Mukherjee D, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Goyal K (2022a) Mapping five decades of international business and management research on India: A bibliometric analysis and future directions. J Bus Res 145:864–891

Mukherjee D, Lim WM, Kumar S, Donthu N (2022b) Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. J Bus Res 148:101–115

Obradović T, Vlačić B, Dabić M (2021) Open innovation in the manufacturing industry: A review and research agenda. Technovation 102:102221

Ojong N, Simba A, Dana LP (2021) Female entrepreneurship in Africa: A review, trends, and future research directions. J Bus Res 132:233–248

Palmatier RW, Houston MB, Hulland J (2018) Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. J Acad Mark Sci 46(1):1–5

Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manage Stud 57(2):351–376

Pranckutė R (2021) Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 9(1):12

R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ Accessed 20th July 2022

Rovelli P, Ferasso M, De Massis A, Kraus S(2021) Thirty years of research in family business journals: Status quo and future directions.Journal of Family Business Strategy,100422

Salmony FU, Kanbach DK (2022) Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic literature review. RMS 16:713–749

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

Ulker-Demirel E, Ciftci G (2020) A systematic literature review of the theory of planned behavior in tourism, leisure and hospitality management research. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 43:209–219

Van Eck NJ, Waltma L (2014) CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks. J Informetrics 8(4):802–823

Vlačić B, Corbo L, Silva e, Dabić M (2021) The evolving role of artificial intelligence in marketing: A review and research agenda. J Bus Res 128:187–203

Wong D (2018) VOSviewer. Tech Serv Q 35(2):219–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1425352

Download references

Open access funding provided by Libera Università di Bolzano within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Economics & Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

Sascha Kraus

Department of Business Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

Matthias Breier

Sunway University Business School, Sunway University, Sunway City, Malaysia

Weng Marc Lim

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Marina Dabić

School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Department of Management Studies, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur, India

Satish Kumar

Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology, Kuching, Malaysia

Weng Marc Lim & Satish Kumar

Chair of Strategic Management and Digital Entrepreneurship, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig, Germany

Dominik Kanbach

School of Business, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, India

College of Business, The University of Akron, Akron, USA

Debmalya Mukherjee

Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

Vincenzo Corvello

Department of Finance, Santiago de Compostela University, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Juan Piñeiro-Chousa

Rowan University, Rohrer College of Business, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Eric Liguori

School of Engineering Design, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Daniel Palacios-Marqués

Department of Management and Quantitative Studies, Parthenope University, Naples, Italy

Francesco Schiavone

Paris School of Business, Paris, France

Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

Alberto Ferraris

Department of Management and Economics & NECE Research Unit in Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal

Cristina Fernandes & João J. Ferreira

Centre for Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

Cristina Fernandes

Laboratory for International and Regional Economics, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia

School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sascha Kraus .

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

Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W.M. et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Rev Manag Sci 16 , 2577–2595 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

Download citation

Received : 15 August 2022

Accepted : 07 September 2022

Published : 14 October 2022

Issue Date : November 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

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 reviews
• Bibliometrics
• Meta Analysis
• Contributions

JEL classification

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

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

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information

Literature Review

• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary
• Methodology
• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The literature review section of an article is a summary or analysis of all the research the author read before doing his/her own research. This section may be part of the introduction or in a section called Background. It provides the background on who has done related research, what that research has or has not uncovered and how the current research contributes to the conversation on the topic. When you read the lit review ask:

• Does the review of the literature logically lead up to the research questions?
• Do the authors review articles relevant to their research study?
• Do the authors show where there are gaps in the literature?

The lit review is also a good place to find other sources you may want to read on this topic to help you get the bigger picture.

• << Previous: Journal Information
• Next: Author and affiliation >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

Communication Studies *: The Literature Review

• Electronic Books
• Citation Tracking
• Conference Proceedings & White Papers
• Find the Full Text
• Broadcasts/Transcripts/Speeches
• Latino Newspapers
• Current News
• General Statistics
• Public Opinion
• Market Research
• Company Research
• Online videos
• Tests/Measures
• DVD Collection
• More Guides
• Research Tools
• RefWorks 2.0
• RefWorks 2.0 Tutorials
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Databases for Literature Review
• Government Websites

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits into the larger field of study.

All contect is from a Literature Review please refer to the sub-tab under The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simple a summary of key sources, but it 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, or
• usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the research problem being studied,
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration,
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in previous research,
• 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, and
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature.

All contect is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee.

Types of Literature Reviews

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, 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 original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded 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 to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

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. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused 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 [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on 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, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our 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 analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. 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?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help 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.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

• 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 of 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  The Development of the Literature Review

Four stages : 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 very specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources should I include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources? 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 reviews. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read 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 your job easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the HOMER catalog for books about the topic and review their contents for chapters that focus on more specific issues. You can also review the subject 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. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is very common in the sciences where research conducted only two years ago could be obsolete. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed because what is important is how perspectives have changed over the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some 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 consider what is consider by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronological 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 of revealed a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic (“conceptual categories”) Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in 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 will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note however 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 made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Interbnet 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 but include only what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship framework.

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History : the chronological progression of the field, the 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 : the 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 articles and journals.
• Standards : 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 in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show 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. Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute your own summary and interpretation of the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each 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 their own work. 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

The most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature are that the researcher:

• does not clearly relate the findings of the literature review to the research problem;
• does not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevent sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including 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 the literature review;
• reports isolated statistical results rather than sythesizing 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.

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. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every discipline has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to this part of writing a research 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. How are they structuring their ideas? What methods have they used to study the problem? What sources have they cited to support of their conclusions? How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

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 adequately reviewed the research 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 dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge as new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at the sources 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 introduced to the research question.
• Search the World of Knowledge Citation database and Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review. 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.
• << Previous: Ratings
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Feb 23, 2024 2:44 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/communication

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

How to Undertake an Impactful Literature Review: Understanding Review Approaches and Guidelines for High-impact Systematic Literature Reviews

• Author & abstract
• Related works & more

Corrections

• Amrita Chakraborty
• Arpan Kumar Kar

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplement Archive
• Article Collection Archive
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Call for Papers
• Why Publish?
• About Nutrition Reviews
• About International Life Sciences Institute
• Editorial Board
• Early Career Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, acknowledgments, supporting information, mapping the evidence of novel plant-based foods: a systematic review of nutritional, health, and environmental impacts in high-income countries.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Sarah Nájera Espinosa, Genevieve Hadida, Anne Jelmar Sietsma, Carmelia Alae-Carew, Grace Turner, Rosemary Green, Silvia Pastorino, Roberto Picetti, Pauline Scheelbeek, Mapping the evidence of novel plant-based foods: a systematic review of nutritional, health, and environmental impacts in high-income countries, Nutrition Reviews , 2024;, nuae031, https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae031

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Shifting from current dietary patterns to diets rich in plant-based (PB) foods and lower in animal-based foods (ABFs) is generally regarded as a suitable strategy to improve nutritional health and reduce environmental impacts. Despite the recent growth in supply of and demand for novel plant-based foods (NPBFs), a comprehensive overview is lacking.

This review provides a synthesis of available evidence, highlights challenges, and informs public health and environmental strategies for purposeful political decision-making by systematically searching, analyzing, and summarizing the available literature.

Five peer-reviewed databases and grey literature sources were rigorously searched for publications.

Study characteristics meeting the inclusion criteria regarding NPBF nutrient composition and health and environmental outcomes in high-income countries were extracted.

Fifty-seven peer-reviewed and 36 grey literature sources were identified; these were published in 2016–2022. NPBFs typically have substantially lower environmental impacts than ABFs, but the nutritional contents are complex and vary considerably across brands, product type, and main primary ingredient. In the limited evidence on the health impacts, shifts from ABFs to PB meats were associated with positive health outcomes. However, results were mixed for PB drinks, with links to micronutrient deficiencies.

If carefully selected, certain NPBFs have the potential to be healthier and nutrient-rich alternatives to ABFs and typically have smaller environmental footprints. More disaggregated categorization of various types of NPBFs would be a helpful step in guiding consumers and key stakeholders to make informed decisions. To enable informed policymaking on the inclusion of NPBFs in dietary transitions as part of a wider net-zero and health strategy, future priorities should include nutritional food standards, labelling, and subdivisions or categorizations of NPBFs, as well as short- and long-term health studies evaluating dietary shifts from ABFs to NPBFs and standardized environmental impact assessments, ideally from independent funders.

The fragile interconnection between food systems and the environment is increasingly evident. 1–3 While current agricultural practices are damaging the environment, environmental change is putting food supplies at risk of disruption if timely adaptation strategies are not used. 4–8 This relationship exists at a time when food systems are already struggling to provide healthy diets for all, with many populations experiencing a coexistence of undernutrition and obesity. 1 , 3

Structural changes in food systems are critical to both safeguard people’s health and accomplish the climate adaptation and mitigation commitments mentioned in The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 9 and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. 10 While production-side strategies can contribute toward climate mitigation, substantial opportunities for further emission reductions and acceleration toward net-zero targets can be achieved through dietary changes and the resulting lower demand for foods with a large environmental footprint.

In food-secure and high-income settings, a shift from “conventional diets” (which typically contain high amounts of animal-based foods [ABFs]) to predominantly plant-based (PB) diets could improve population and planetary health. 2 , 11 Dietary change has many obstacles, with diets influenced by many factors 12 , 13 that act as barriers to increasing consumption of minimally processed PB foods (eg, legumes, vegetables). If common barriers are removed, such as the need for additional cooking skills, major changes in taste and appearance of commonly consumed dishes, and fear of social stigma, 14 , 15 novel plant-based foods (NPBFs), products designed to mimic and replace ABFs to allow easy incorporation into habitual diets (eg, vegan and vegetarian meat and dairy) (see Box 1 ), may offer an easier option to facilitate this shift.

In recent years, the NPBF landscape has expanded rapidly. Several new types of NPBFs (eg, PB drinks, yogurts, eggs, meats) were introduced to the market, and trends showed increasing sales, volume, and investment growth across many countries. 16–21 In 2023, data suggested a possible slowdown, especially for PB meats, with some consumers criticizing their cost and taste, 22 and some NPBF manufacturers reporting net losses. 23 , 24 However, sales of supermarkets’ own-label PB meat alternatives have seen growth, 23 alongside consistent increases in sales of PB dairy and eggs 25 (see Supplementary file 1, section 1.1, in the Supporting Information online for detailed information on costs).

According to a global survey focusing on individuals following vegan or vegetarian diets most or all of the time, 22.0% of consumers reported adhering to a meat-free diet, and there is growing interest in embracing PB eating, with approximately 42.0% of consumers anticipating that PB foods will replace most meat within a decade. 26 With consumption of NPBFs in the United Kingdom doubling between 2008 and 2019, particularly among women and younger generations, and the fact that in 2022, 60.0% of US households purchased at least 1 type of NPBF, verification of any health and sustainability claims in marketed products is of vital importance. 22 , 27 , 28 Currently, various NPBFs are advertised as potential dietary “game changers,” with claims that they would play an important and positive role in sustainability and health, 29 , 30 and, thus, could play a pivotal role in the so-called consumption corridors. 31 However, because of their novelty, some consumers question these positive claims. 32 Although NPBFs are generally regarded as a low-carbon alternative to ABFs, their nutrient and health profiles remain largely unknown and are often criticized. This is primarily related to concerns regarding micronutrient and protein content, along with higher content of saturated fats and sodium in comparison to ABFs, and level of processing. 33 , 34

Previous reviews have primarily focused on single aspects of NPBFs 17 , 19 , 22 , 25 , 29 , 34–46 or ingredients of NPBFs 39 , 47–50 ; a few recent reviews explored the positive health and environmental outcomes of consuming selected NPBFs. 51–53 However, research quantifying the potential impacts of NPBFs is still in its infancy, and an overview that is both systematic and comprehensive, comprising health, nutrient, and environmental outcomes from peer-reviewed and grey literature of different types of NPBFs, does not yet exist, to our knowledge. This lack makes it difficult for policy makers and consumers to assess the trade-offs between nutrient composition and the environmental and health impacts of NPBFs, and hinders the potential inclusion of NPBFs in sustainable and healthy dietary recommendations.

To synthesize available evidence, highlight challenges, inform public health and environmental strategies, and inform purposeful political decision-making, we aimed, in this study, to systematically search, analyze, and summarize the available grey and peer-reviewed literature on the nutrient composition, environmental footprints, and health effects of NPBFs sold and consumed in high-income countries, and to quantify and summarize their reported results.

The full-study protocol we followed is published elsewhere (see Nájera Espinosa et al 54 and Supplementary file 1, section 2, in the Supporting Information online for more details on the methods). Briefly, a systematic search was performed to identify peer-reviewed journal articles and grey literature that contained data on the nutrient composition, health impacts, and environmental impacts of NPBFs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. 55

Peer-reviewed literature

Five scientific databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, GreenFILE, and the Web of Science Core Collection) on August 29, 2021; we conducted an updated search on June 29, 2022. The search was limited to articles published and accepted after January 2016 until June 29, 2022, because of the substantial growth in supply and demand of NPBFs in the past 7 years. 16–19 In addition to database searching, citation lists from identified systematic literature reviews were handsearched (see Supplementary file 1, section 2.6, in the Supporting Information online for the full search strategy). After the quality criteria were applied (described in Supplementary file 1 , Table S1 in the Supporting Information online ), titles were manually and triple screened. Abstracts were manually double screened after application of a supervised machine-learning algorithm (ie, a support vector machine 56 ) through Scikit Learn 57 that ranked and highlighted likely relevant articles (ie, conducted priority screening). This approach is described elsewhere in detail (see Supplementary file 1, section 2.1, in the Supporting Information online ). 58 Full texts were manually screened by 2 authors and data were also double extracted.

Grey literature

To capture grey literature in a systematic way, a manual search was conducted on Google (see Supplementary file 1, section 2.3 , and Table S3 in the Supporting Information online ). Text from the webpages was then scraped and a state-of-the-art, pretrained language model from Hugging Face 59 was used to create a summary of each web link. Results were exported into a comma-separated value, or CSV, file. Additionally, a manual search in Google of relevant websites from the top NPBF producers in the United Kingdom and United States was conducted. 60–63 And literature from relevant websites that promote NPBFs, such as the Good Food Institute and Green Queen, were searched and screened manually (see Supplementary file 1, section 2.3 , and Tables S4 and S5 in the Supporting Information online ).

Data analysis, categorization, and key definitions: nutrient, health, and environmental outcomes

The PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) criteria are defined in Table 1 (see Supplementary file 1, Table S1 in the Supporting Information online for a detailed list of the inclusion and exclusion criteria). Main study characteristics and nutrient, health, and environmental outcomes were extracted (see Supplementary files 1 and 3 in the Supporting Information online for more details).

PICO criteria for inclusion of studies

PB drinks and milk reported in 100 ml of product.

NPBFs and their ABF counterparts were categorized into food groups on the basis of their primary ingredient ( Table 2 ). See Supplementary file 1, sections 2.4 and 2.5, in the Supporting Information online for more details on the selection of nutrients, data analysis assumptions, and ABF baseline comparators). The following terms for each NPBF type are used in this review:

Food groups for novel plant-based foods and animal-based foods and their respective reported main primary ingredient

For the purposes of this review, peanuts were included in the Nuts and Seeds group because they are typically consumed as such.

Blended or mixed products, if reported, the first ingredient was taken as the primary ingredient. For example, soy & almond PB drinks were labelled as legumes.

If a product did not report any ingredients, they were categorised as unknown.

PB meat products or alternatives: include different types of PB meats (eg, PB chicken, sausages, mincemeat), categories (eg, mycoprotein, legumes), and brands

PB drink products or alternatives: include different PB drink categories (eg, legumes, nuts, seeds) and brands

PB yogurt products or alternatives: include different PB yogurt categories (eg, legumes, coconut) and brands

PB cheese products or alternatives: include different types of PB cheese categories (eg, coconut, nuts, seeds) and brands

PB egg products or alternatives: include different types of PB egg categories and brands

Mention of PB products (without further specification) refers to all the listed product subcategories mentioned, except for PB eggs.

Assessment of robustness and relevance

A modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for randomized controlled trials 64 was adapted to assess robustness and relevance of the studies in the full-text reviewing stage. The modifications involved the exclusion of the randomization, blinding, and cost-effectiveness criteria on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist, and funding source was added as a criterion. Studies were assessed by 4 reviewers (G.H., R.P., S.P., and S.N.E.). Studies were assessed as follows: (1) clear description of the study design, (2) appropriate comparison group, (3) clear description of the methods, (4) rigorous and clearly described analysis, (5) funding source, and (6) precision of measure of effect. Studies with a minimum score of 1 were included, and sensitivity analysis was performed by funding source (see Supplementary file 1, section 2.2, in the Supporting Information online for more details).

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content in novel plant-based foods

In addition to the review component, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted to examine the total fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (percentage estimate) of each type of NPBF sold in the United Kingdom. For this, a time-stamped data set of observations from UK supermarkets generated by FoodDB in October 2021 was used. Details are described elsewhere 65 and in Supplementary file 1, section 2.7, in the Supporting Information online . Detailed data at the global level are not available to date; hence, this part of the analysis is limited to the United Kingdom only.

Sensitivity analysis

A common concern about studies on the health impacts and environmental sustainability of NPBFs is that they can be funded by the industry that produces them; hence, we conducted a sensitivity analysis by funding source. Furthermore, given that relative improvements in health and environmental sustainability depend on the baseline comparator used ( Supplementary file 1, section 2.2, in the Supporting Information online ), the sensitivity analysis based on the main primary ingredient of a given NPBF and its respective ABF comparator was also performed. The Wilcoxon test for sensitivity analysis with a significance level set at P  ≤ 0.05 was used.

Systematic search results

A total of 49 563 peer-reviewed and 891 grey literature records were identified from the initial search. After unique literature sources were screened, 57 peer-reviewed articles and 36 grey literature studies met the inclusion criteria ( Figure 1 ). Supplementary 1, section 2, in the Supporting Information online provides further details on the screening process. The study characteristics that were extracted included basic study details (eg, authors, year, type of study, country, number of participants, follow-up period), relevant macro- and micronutrient content (eg, those related to common deficiencies, such as iron, calcium, vitamin B 12 ), health and health proxy data (eg, obesity, micronutrient status, risk factors related to noncommunicable diseases), and environmental variables (eg, carbon, water, and land-use data).

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart of systematic review process reporting nutrient composition, and environmental and health outcomes of novel plant-based products in high-income countries . Abbreviations : IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Nutrient composition of novel plant-based foods

The nutrient content of NPBFs was the most frequently studied outcome (n = 56 studies). Nutrient data were typically collected through supermarket cross-sectional surveys or manufacturers’ websites. PB meat alternatives (n = 35) and PB drink alternatives (n = 19) were most frequently reported; fewer studies researched PB cheese (n = 5) and yogurt alternatives (n = 4). No studies were found that assessed PB egg alternatives. The nutritional profile of NPBFs varied greatly by manufacturing process, including the main base ingredient (eg, soy, almond); the processing techniques, time, and temperature applied; and the type of product manufactured (ie, PB drinks, PB meats). 39 , 40 , 66 , 67

Energy density, saturated fat, fiber, sugar, sodium, and micronutrient content of plant-based meat alternatives

The 35 publications evaluating PB meat alternatives reported on 508 PB meat products with 66 ABF comparators. Where the median values for meat comparators were reported to be 221.0 kcal/100 g (interquartile range [IQR], 186.6–246.7), 5.7 g/100 g saturated fat (IQR, 3.2–7.1), and very low fiber (<0.1 g/100 g; IQR, 0.0–0.5), most meat-alternative groups were reported to have lower energy density, lower saturated-fat content, and more fiber ( Figure 2 and Supplementary file 2: Table S1 for detailed macronutrient information disaggregated by main ingredient). Mycoprotein-based meat alternatives were reported to be the least energy dense, with a median energy value of 123.0 kcal/100 g (IQR, 94.0–198.5; with ABFs, P value of difference [ P d ] < 0.001), whereas meat alternatives based on cereals and grain had the highest energy density of all PB meats (226.0 kcal/100 g [IQR, 189.8–268.5]; P d < 0.360), with values very similar to those of meat and poultry. Mycoprotein-based meats were also reported to be lowest in saturated fat (0.8 g/100 g [IQR, 0.5–1.3]; P d < 0.001), whereas nut- and seed-based meats had the highest saturated fat content (1.4 g/100 g [IQR, 1.1–1.7]; P d = 0.003) of all PB meats, which still was significantly lower than saturated fat content in meat and poultry. Finally, mycoprotein-based meat was reported to contain the highest fiber content (median, 6.0 g/100 g [IQR, 5.2–7.1]; P d  < 0.001), whereas cereal- and grain-based meats had the lowest fiber content of all PB meats (3.1 g/100 g [IQR, 2.3–3.9]; P d < 0.001), which still was significantly higher than in meat and poultry.

Macronutrient, sodium, and energy content in plant-based meat and drink alternatives in their respective food group based on main primary ingredient   (ie, predominant or core food item on the ingredient list) compared with meat and poultry, and dairy, respectively . Data were limited to raw products only. Abbreviation : M, median of each category.

Meat and poultry contained a median of 0.5 g/100 g total sugar (IQR, 0.0–0.9) and 426.7 mg/100 g sodium content (IQR, 101.0–672.8). All PB meats contained more total sugar but had similar levels of sodium in comparison with meat and poultry. Mycoprotein-based meats had the lowest total sugar content of all PB meats (median, 0.8 g/100 g [IQR: 0.5–1.8]; P d < 0.001], and nut- and seed-based meats contained the highest total sugar amount (median, 4.2 g/100 g [IQR, 2.3–6.6]; P d = 0.002); both showed strong evidence of being higher in total sugar content than meat and poultry. This is equivalent to 0.4 g and 3.4 g of total sugar/80.0 g serving size, or, if these sugars are considered free, 1.6% and 13.4% of the maximum recommended approximately 25.0 g average daily sugar intake. 68 Finally, the median sodium values for all PB meat groups did not show strong evidence of a difference from meat and poultry, except for legume-based meats (median, 520.0 mg/100 g [IQR, 400.0–636.0]; P d = 0.011). This is equivalent to 416.0 mg of sodium (or 1.0 g of salt) per 80.0 g serving size, or 20.8% of the maximum recommended 5.0 g average daily salt intake. Moreover, there were extreme outliers, with some PB meats reported to contain more than 1400.00 mg sodium (equivalent to 2.8 g salt) per 80.0 g; thus, consumption of 1 portion of this PB meat alternatives is more than half the recommended maximum daily intake of salt. 69

Only a few studies (n = 9) evaluated micronutrient data; these reported on 250 PB meat products and 24 ABF comparators. Micronutrient content ranged vastly across all groups: whereas some products would provide substantial contributions to average daily requirements, others were much less nutritious ( Table 3 and Supplementary file 2: Table S2 ). 69–83 For example, the median iron content for cereal- and grain-based PB meats (5.4 mg/100 g [IQR, 4.2–5.4]) was higher than the median of meat and poultry (1.3 mg/100 g [IQR, 1.1–1.6]). On the contrary, vitamin B 12 levels were lower for PB meat alternatives (medians ranged from 0.1 μg/100 g [IQR: 0.0–0.9] to 0.3 μg/100 g [IQR: 0.3–0.3]) as compared with 1.2 μg/100 g (IQR: 0.6–1.6) in meat and poultry. However, certain individual products had a comparable or higher vitamin B 12 content than their ABF comparator.

Summarized micronutrient values for PB meat and drinks and animal-based foods a

Values are compared with global average daily requirements (see Supplementary file 2 in the Supporting Information online for detailed information containing all disaggregated numbers by main ingredient of each novel plant-based food and animal-based foods). The table only reports micronutrients commonly found in meat and dairy. PB products also provided other micronutrients not commonly found in meat and dairy (ie, calcium in PB meats).

Abbreviations : ADR, average daily requirement; max, maximum; min, minimum; IQR, interquartile range; PB, plant-based.

No studies reported nutrient data from organic products. Although protein levels were not the main focus of this study, protein results are reported in Supplementary file 1: Figure S2 and Supplementary file 2: Table S1 , and show that, particularly, legume- and mycoprotein-based PB meats typically match meat and poultry in protein content.

Energy density, saturated fat, fiber, sugar, sodium, and micronutrient content of plant-based drinks

The 19 studies evaluating PB drinks reported on 397 PB drinks (unflavored and unsweetened) and 52 dairy milk products. Where dairy milk comparators were reported to contain median values of 50.1 kcal/100 mL energy density (IQR, 39.3–63.0), 1.1 g/100 mL saturated fat (IQR, 0.9–2.2), and no fiber (0.0 g/100 mL; IQR, 0.0–0.0), most PB drink groups were reported to have lower energy density, lower saturated fat content, and more fiber ( Figure 2 and Supplementary file 2: Table S1 ). Coconut-based drinks were reported to be the least energy dense (median energy value, 20.0 kcal/100 g [IQR: 19.0–33.7]; P d < 0.001), whereas drinks based on cereals and grains had the highest energy density of all PB drinks (median, 59.0 kcal/100 mL [IQR: 43.0–57.0]; P d = 0.566) but not significantly higher than dairy milks. PB drinks made of cereals and grains, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and seeds were reported to be lowest in saturated fat (median, 0.2 g/100 mL; IQRs, 0.1–0.2, 0.2–0.2, and 0.1–0.3, respectively; P d < 0.001), whereas coconut-based drinks had the highest saturated fat content (median, 1.1 g/100 mL; IQR, 0.9–1.7; P d = 0.952) of all PB drinks, but this was not significantly different than dairy milks. All PB drinks contained more fiber than dairy milks; however, only the drinks based on cereals and grains, legumes, and nuts and seeds were significantly higher in fiber when compared with dairy milks (for cereals and grains, and for legumes: median, 0.5 g/100 mL [IQRs, 0.2–0.8 and 0.2–0.6, respectively]; and for nuts and seeds, 0.3 g/100 mL [IQR, 0.3–0.5]; P d < 0.001).

Dairy milks contained a median of 4.7 g/100 mL total sugar (IQR, 4.3–5.0) and 39.1 mg/100 mL sodium (IQR, 33.6–43.3). Most PB drinks contained less total sugar than did dairy milks, but they had similar levels of sodium. However, the total sugar content was only significantly lower for coconut (median, 1.9 g/100 mL; IQR, 1.5–2.5), legumes (median, 1.9 g/100 mL; IQR, 0.5–2.6), and nut- and seed-based drinks (median, 2.4 g/100 mL; IQR, 0.2–3.3) when compared with dairy milks ( P d < 0.001). This is equivalent to 3.8 g and 4.8 g of total sugar/200.0 mL serving size, or, if these sugars are considered free, 15.2% and 19.2% of the maximum recommended 25.0 g average daily sugar intake. 68 The only PB drink group that was statistically different in sodium content compared with dairy milks was the group based on nuts and seeds (median, 47.2 mg/100 mL [IQR, 34.0–60.0]; P d = 0.032). This is equivalent to 94.4 mg of sodium (0.2 g of salt) per 200.0 mL serving size, or 4.0% of the maximum recommended 5.0 g average daily salt intake. 69 However, there were also some extreme outliers, some of which reported containing more than 3 times this amount of sodium per 200.0 mL, the equivalent of approximately 12.0% of the daily World Health Organization recommendation. 69

A few studies (n = 16) evaluated micronutrient data of PB drinks, reporting on 249 PB alternative products and 37 ABF comparators. Iodine was only reported in PB drinks, not in other types of PB products. Like PB meat alternatives, micronutrient content ranged vastly across all groups: some products contributed to the average daily requirement, whereas others were much less nutritious ( Table 3 and Supplementary file 2: Table S2 ). For example, the median calcium content for all PB drink categories was 120.0 mg/100 mL (IQRs as follows: cereals and grains, 120.0–120.0; coconut, 120.0–120.0; fruits and vegetables, 120.0–120.0; legumes, 120.0–120.0; nuts and seeds, 114.5–120.0) as compared with 116.7 mg/100 mL (IQR, 109.3–124.0) for dairy milks. However, none of the PB products (median, 0.0 μg/100 mL; IQR, 0.0–1.4) matched the iodine content of dairy milks (median, 24.9 μg/100 mL; IQR, 20.0–36.5).

Only 4 studies (evaluating 29 PB drinks and 11 dairy milk products) reported nutrient data from organic PB products. All evaluated different nutrients, hence no further pooling of results was possible for organic products as a subgroup. Protein results are reported in Supplementary file 1: Figure S2 and Supplementary file 2: Table S1 in the Supporting Information online, which show that, particularly, legume-based PB drinks typically match dairy milk in protein content.

Energy density, saturated fat, fiber, sugar, sodium and micronutrient content of plant-based yogurt alternatives

The 4 studies on PB yogurt alternatives evaluated 191 PB yogurt products with 90 dairy-based comparator products (unflavored and unsweetened). The overall nutritional composition of PB yogurts appears to show some variation by main primary ingredient (see Supplementary file 2 in the Supporting Information online ); however, formal disaggregated assessment of PB yogurts by primary ingredient was not possible, because that information was often not reported by authors. At an aggregate level, PB yogurts typically contained less saturated fat and sodium but had a higher energy density and higher total sugar and fiber content.

Only 2 studies evaluated micronutrient data of PB yogurts (excluding sodium) and, therefore, no further pooling of results was possible. No studies reported nutrient data from organic PB yogurts. Protein results are reported in Supplementary file 2: Table S1 in the Supporting Information online . Only the sample of a legume-based PB yogurts came close to matching dairy yogurt in protein content.

Energy density, saturated fat, fiber, sugar, sodium and micronutrient content of plant-based cheese alternatives

The 5 studies evaluating PB cheese alternatives reported on 163 PB cheese products with 143 dairy-based comparator products. PB cheese alternatives were the least nutritionally diverse foods. Where the primary ingredient of PB cheeses was known, this was mostly coconut oil ( Supplementary file 2 in the Supporting Information online ); however, like PB yogurts, the main ingredient was often not reported by authors.

The cheese comparators were reported to contain median values of 284.0 kcal/100 g energy density (IQR, 108.0–330.1), 14.0 g/100 g saturated fat (IQR, 11.0–17.3), and no fiber (0.0 g/100 g; IQR, 0.0–0.0). Most PB cheese subgroups were reported to have higher energy densities and higher saturated fat and fiber content. PB cheese based on nuts and seeds had the highest energy density (328.0 kcal/100 g [IQR, 306.0–328.0]; P d = 0.334]), whereas coconut oil-based cheese had the highest saturated fat content (21.0 g/100 g [IQR, 19.7–22.0]; P d < 0.001]), a significant difference, with 50.0% more than dairy cheese. Unlike PB drinks, PB meat, and PB yogurt alternatives, not all PB cheese contained fiber. Nut- and seed-based cheese had the highest fiber content (median, 2.5 g/100 g [IQR, 2.4–2.7]; P d < 0.001). Although the median fiber content of PB cheese made from coconut oil was 0.0 g/100 g (IQR, 0.0–1.7; P d = 0.011), some products did contain up to 5.9 g/100 g and, therefore, strong evidence was found that both PB cheese based on nuts and seeds and on coconut oil had significantly higher fiber content than did dairy cheese.

Most PB cheese contained less sugar and sodium than did dairy cheese, which had a median of 2.0 g/100 g (IQR, 0.5–5.0) and 720.0 mg/100 g (IQR, 560.0–1000.0), respectively, across the identified studies. In general, PB cheese alternatives had either no or minimal total sugar content. Finally, coconut oil–based cheese had the highest sodium content across all PB cheese (median, 714.0 mg/100 g [IQR, 600.0–880.0]; P d = 0.897), but this was similar to dairy cheese. PB cheese made of nuts and seeds had the lowest median sodium content (240.0 mg/100 g [IQR, 200.0–240.0]; P d = 0.001), which would equal 48.0 mg of sodium (0.1 g of salt) per 20.0 g serving size, or 2.0% of the recommended maximum daily salt intake 69 ; hence, this type of PB cheese had a large reduction in sodium compared with dairy cheese.

The micronutrient content of PB cheese was evaluated by only 2 studies. Only 1 product made of nuts and seeds was fortified with calcium, whereas coconut-based PB cheese was typically fortified with vitamin B 12 (median, 2.5 μg/100 g; IQR, 2.5–2.5). For dairy cheeses, these medians were 815.0 mg/100 g (IQR, 463.0–930.0) for calcium and 2.5 μg/100 g (IQR, 1.8–2.5) for vitamin B 12 .

No studies reported nutrient data from organic products. Protein results are reported in Supplementary file 2: Table S1 in the Supporting Information online. Nut- and seed-based cheese typically had the highest protein content, though it did not match the protein content of dairy cheese.

Health impacts and risk factors of novel plant-based foods

Eleven peer-reviewed studies were included in this review, 9 of which evaluated PB meat alternatives and 3 evaluated PB drinks ( Table 4 ) 84–94 (see Supplementary file 1, section 3.3, in the Supporting Information online for further details on the health outcomes). No health studies were found that evaluated consumption of PB cheese, yogurt, or egg alternatives; links between NPBFs and mental health outcomes; nor any grey literature evaluating any health outcomes.

Summary of the evidence on the health impacts and risks of novel plant-based foods

Health impacts and risk factors of plant-based meat alternatives

Studies of PB meats (n = 9) showed positive health outcomes when individuals switched from consuming ABFs. Three studies on mycoprotein consumption by both healthy and overweight adults found a positive association with lower glycemic markers, 84 reduced energy intake, 84 , 85 and insulin release. 85 Moreover, mycoprotein consumption was hypothesized to have a beneficial impact on the plasma lipidome. 86

Four studies with healthy adults evaluated PB meat alternatives consumption (other than mycoprotein). When considering the same caloric intake, consumption of PB meats was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than was consumption of ABFs, mostly by reducing fasting serum levels of trimethylamine- N -oxide, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, compared with ABF consumption. 87 Furthermore, consumption of PB meats was associated with a reduction in body weight as compared with meat consumers. 87 , 88 Lysine-enriched PB meat as a substitute for ABFs was reported to increase muscle protein synthesis rates, which is a biological process of building new protein cells via amino acids. 89 Last, the replacement of 4 meat-containing meals per week with PB meat alternatives elicited positive changes in the gut microbiome, with changes in the presence of butyrate-producing pathways and increased taxa. 90

Health impacts and risk factors of plant-based drinks

Studies assessing PB drinks (n = 3) only focused on almond and soy drinks. The main focus and health outcomes of these studies varied. Sun et al 91 researched the reduction in glycemic response in young adults consuming soy drink or bovine milk together with white bread. These authors found that both products had a similar glycemic response through different biological pathways. Dineva et al 92 assessed micronutrient content in PB drinks and found significantly lower iodine intake and urinary iodine concentration in people consuming only PB drinks, 93 highlighting the need for appropriate fortification as more people transition to eat more NPBFs. Finally, Shen et al 93 evaluated the impact of PB drinks on dental health and found that a soy drink with added sugar caused enamel demineralization, compared with dairy milk, which promoted remineralization.

Environmental impacts of novel plant-based foods

A total of 53 studies evaluated at least 1 environmental outcome, using the life cycle assessment method, evaluating 209 PB products and 91 ABFs as comparators. Most studies used life cycle assessment inventories, and some relied on data providers (n = 32) to calculate environmental footprints. System boundaries varied across studies, with the majority evaluating category impacts from cradle-to-retail (see Supplementary file 3 in the Supporting Information online ). Studies mainly assessed the effect of substituting ABFs with NPBFs on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) (n = 50), followed by blue-water footprint (WF) (n = 39) and land use (LU) (n = 17) ( Figure 3 and Supplementary file 1: Table S11 in the Supporting Information online ). Although methods, assumptions, and inventory data varied from 1 study to another, most studies consistently reported percentage reductions in GHGE and LU for the production of NPBFs as compared with ABFs. Wider differences were observed in blue WF.

Reduction of environmental impacts by respective funding source . Calculated as a percentage difference between each novel plant-based (PB) product (by product type and food group based on main primary ingredient [ie, predominant or core food item on the ingredient list]) in comparison with their respective reported baseline (eg, dairy milk and cheese, meat and poultry). See Supplementary file 3 in the Supporting Information online for detailed information on the baseline used for each reference. Data were limited to raw products only. Studies reporting data on cooked PB products also found reductions in environmental impacts.

Environmental footprints of plant-based meat alternatives replacing meat and poultry

The 34 publications evaluating PB meat alternatives reported on 135 PB meat products with 53 ABF comparators. The percentage difference showed reductions of more than 70% in GHGE, LU, and WF for most products when shifting from ABFs to PB meat alternatives. GHGE reductions across PB meat groups, based on primary ingredients, were similar, with the largest reduction in GHGE seen for nut- and seed-based meats, with a median value of –94.2% (IQR, –94.4 to –93.4), whereas PB meats based on legumes had the smallest reduction (–86.1%; IQR, –88.6 to –77.5). Only 2 of 134 PB products had higher levels of GHGE than their ABF comparator. For LU, mycoprotein (median, 89.0%; IQR, –92.3 to –76.5) and nut- and seed-based meats (median, 89.5%; IQR, –90.0 to –89.0) had the largest reduction. Alternatively, legume-based meats had the smallest LU reductions (median, –71.2%; IQR, –84.7 to –47.6). Only 3 of 55 products had higher LU than their ABF comparator. Finally, the largest reduction of WF was observed in PB meats made of cereals and grains (median, –92.6%; IQR, –94.1 to –92.0), and the smallest was observed with products made of mycoprotein (median, –73.7%; IQR, –84.4 to –55.2). Nine of 51 products had a higher WF than their respective ABF counterparts. Specifically, when certain individual legume- and mycoprotein-based meats were compared with chicken, PB meat alternatives reported requiring between 2.7% and 339.0% more water, with the largest difference observed in a Swedish chicken comparator to mycoprotein-based meats. This variation was attributed to differences between feed types, rearing systems, and farm efficiency across countries. 74 Comparisons were also made between the upper limit footprint of mycoprotein-based items and the average or lower limit footprint of the ABF. Moreover, there were extreme outliers, with some PB meats reporting a water percentage difference of 8006.9%. The authors attributed this to soybeans’ substantial water demand during processing and lower yield per soybean. 74

Environmental footprints of plant-based drinks alternatives replacing dairy milk

The 21 publications evaluating PB drinks reported on 51 PB drink products with 13 ABF comparators. PB drinks also were associated with reductions in GHGE and LU when shifting from dairy milk to PB drinks. Fruit- and vegetable-based drinks had the largest reduction of GHGE (median, –90.2%; IQR, –90.8 to –90.2]), whereas PB drinks based on cereals and grains had the smallest reduction (median, –76.9%; IQR, –88.8 to –56.0). Only 2 products of 36 had an increase of GHGE when comparing soy- (40.0%) and almond-based (18.9%) drinks with dairy milk (equivalent to 0.3, 0.4, and 0.3 kg CO 2 eq/100 g, respectively). 95 Wider differences were observed on the LU percentage difference; however, reductions were found for all products (n = 13 PB drinks).

Cereal- and grain-based drinks had the largest reduction (median, –86.4%; IQR, –92.7 to –76.0), whereas legume-based drinks had the smallest LU reductions (median, –56.6%; IQR, –75.5 to –38.8). The magnitude of change in the percentage difference for WF varied considerably, although, these data were less frequently reported by authors (n = 11 PB drinks). Cereal- and grain-based drinks had the largest reduction (median, –85.0%; IQR, –88.7 to –71.0), whereas legume-based drinks had the smallest WF reductions (median, –67.6%; IQR, –73.9 to –42.2). Nut- and seed-based drinks presented contradictory evidence. For example, Grant and Hicks 95 observed that almond drinks (9241.9%) required considerably more water than soy (–35.6%) and dairy milks (equivalent to 109.3, 0.8, and 1.2 L/100 g, respectively); whereas Ritchie 96 found that an almond drink required half the amount of water (–40.87%) than dairy milk (equivalent to 37.2 and 62.8 L/100 g, respectively). Data were limited to these 2 products; hence, no further pooling of results was possible.

Environmental footprints of plant-based yogurt alternatives replacing dairy yogurt

The 2 publications evaluating 2 PB yogurt alternatives compared to 2 dairy yogurts. They reported GHGE reductions ranging between –64.7% and –52.9%. Analysis of LU and WF was not possible due to lack of a baseline, differences in methods, and system boundaries.

Environmental footprints of plant-based cheese alternatives replacing dairy cheese

The 2 publications evaluating PB cheese alternatives reported on 21 PB cheese products with 23 ABF comparators. Data on the environmental impacts were particularly from coconut oil–based cheese alternatives (n = 20). All coconut oil–based cheese alternatives had a large reduction in amounts of GHGE and LU (GHGE: median, –75.4% [IQR, –77.4 to –59.3]; LU: median, –83.1% [IQR, –83.8 to –80.6]). A smaller reduction was observed in WF (median, –45.1%; IQR, –52.0 to 38.5), with a higher WF being reported than for the ABF comparator for only 3 products.

Health effects and environmental impacts of novel plant-based foods

Studies that simultaneously assessed both health and environmental outcomes and/or nutrient profiles of NPBFs were pooled ( Figure 4 ). Only 1 study reported environmental outcomes together with diet-related health effects of PB meat alternatives, and this study found that free access to NPBFs was associated with greater weight loss and reduced dietary carbon and LU, as compared with a control arm. 88 From 93 references, 20 studies assessed the environmental outcome and nutrient content of NPBFs; only 6 studies evaluated the health effects and nutrient content of NPBFs (see Supplementary file 1: Table S9 in the Supporting Information online ).

Reduction of environmental outcomes and their associated nutrient outcomes of novel plant-based foods (NPBFs) compared with baseline (eg, dairy milk and cheese, meat and poultry), expressed in percentage difference . The y -axis shows the increase or decrease of the nutrient content (energy, fiber, sodium, and saturated fat) in comparison with baseline; and the x -axis shows the reduction (or increase) of the environmental categories. Three environmental categories are reported: greenhouse gas emissions (circles), land use (triangles), and blue-water use (squares). Three NPBFs are reported: plant-based (PB) cheese alternatives (brown), PB meat alternatives (purple), and PB drinks (orange). PB yogurts were not included due to the limited amount of data. See Supplementary file 2 in the Supporting Information online for detailed information on the baseline used for each reference. Data were limited to raw products only.

When compared with ABF counterparts, data suggest NPBFs are overwhelmingly associated with smaller environmental footprints. Data on nutritional profiles of NPBF were mixed: nutritional profiles for some NPBF groups were better aligned with healthy diets, but not for others. Clear co-benefits were observed for fiber intake from NPBFs. However, for the other nutrients, the picture was much more mixed due to the variability in content arising from differences in the main primary ingredients and the type of NPBFs.

Fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content of novel plant-based foods

The percentage of fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content in each NPBF in the United Kingdom was estimated as a case study ( Figure 5 ). Most NPBFs had at least 1 fruit, vegetable, legume, or nut, ranging from 0.0% to 100.0% of their weight. Overall, median content was low, with a few exceptions. PB meat alternatives had the highest content of vegetables and legumes, and PB cheese alternatives had the lowest content ( Supplementary file 1: Figure S5 and Supplementary file 2: Table S5 in the Supporting Information online ).

Estimated fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content (%) in each novel plant-based foods product from time-stamped data from UK supermarkets . Panels show (a) plant-based (PB) drink alternatives; (b) PB meat alternatives; (c) PB cheese alternatives; and (d) PB yogurt alternatives.

Assessment of robustness and relevance of the included studies

For results on the assessment of robustness and relevance of the included studies see Supplementary file 1 : Table S12 in the Supporting Information online in section 3.6 .

Sensitivity analysis of funding sources of nutrient composition studies

Almost half of the nutrition studies included (n = 26; 46.4%) were funded by academic funders; 44.6% (n = 25) were fully funded or partially funded by industry; and 10.0% (n = 5) did not state their funding source. NPBF manufacturers were the support for the majority of industry-funded studies (n = 21; 37.5%), followed by the livestock industry (n = 3; 5.4%), and both (n = 1; 1.8%). The sensitivity analysis of the percentage difference for all the nutrients associated with the burden of disease, except total sugar, revealed that studies funded by industry were more likely to find differences than those funded by academia, with the former typically reporting more positive results on lower energy and saturated fat ( Table 5 and see Supplementary file 1: Table S13 in the Supporting Information online for sensitivity analysis on studies partially funded by the industry). However, the direction across all studies was the same: reductions in energy and saturated fat content, and increases in fiber, total sugar, and sodium content.

Sensitivity analysis, based on funding source, of the percentage difference between novel plant-based foods vs animal-based foods in nutrient content and environmental impacts a

The funding source of 6 articles were unknown, so they were excluded from this analysis. The superscript b and c indicate the direction and dimension of the association.

Industry-funded studies show a more positive impact on health and environmental outcomes of their PB products (vs animal sourced foods) as compared with academically funded studies.

Industry-funded studies show a less positive impact on health and environmental outcomes of their PB products (vs animal-sourced foods) as compared with academically funded studies.

Abbreviations : ABF, animal-based food; IQR, interquartile range; NPBF, novel plant-based food.

Sensitivity analysis of funding sources of health studies

Only 2 health studies were funded by academia; the rest of the studies were either partially or wholly funded by industry (n = 9). Most industry-funded studies were from NPBF manufacturers (n = 8); 1 study was partially funded by Dairy Australia.

Sensitivity analysis of funding sources of environmental studies

Compared with nutritional studies, a greater percentage of environmental studies were by industry researchers, particularly from NPBF manufacturers (67.9%). Approximately 71.7% of studies (n = 38) were fully funded or partially funded by industry; 26.4% (n = 14) were supported by academic funders; and 1.9% (n = 1) did not state their funding source. Of the industry-funded studies, only 2 (3.8%) were funded by the livestock industry. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the percentage differences were significantly larger between academic and industry funders in terms of GHGE and LU. Studies funded by industry typically reported more positive results on LU than did studies funded by academic funders, and the opposite was observed for GHGE. Like nutrient studies, the direction (decreases in GHGE, LU, and WF) was the same regardless of the funding source ( Table 5 , and see Supplementary file 1: Table S13 in the Supporting Information online for the sensitivity analysis of studies partially funded by the industry).

Research findings

We reviewed evidence from high-income countries that was published in peer-reviewed and grey literature within the past 7 years on nutrient content, and environmental and health outcomes of consuming NPBFs. Most NPBFs typically have much lower environmental impacts compared with ABFs, particularly with respect to GHGE and, to a lesser extent, to LU and WF. The nutrient content of NPBFs is highly variable in comparison to the nutrient profiles of ABFs. Although several individual NPBFs had positive health and environmental outcomes, co-benefits identified were not universal across all NPBFs and several trade-offs were identified. The main primary ingredient, type of product, processing techniques, and brand were all important determinants of health, and nutritional and environmental outcomes, findings that show the need for further subcategorization of NPBFs to better educate consumers and enable them to take informed decisions regarding the healthiness and sustainability of their diets and (potential) dietary changes.

Research in context

If carefully selected, certain NPBFs (particularly certain PB drinks and meat alternatives) could be an effective part of interventions to achieve net-zero and health targets in high-income countries. By applying a combination of strategies, enhanced uptake of these foods could improve the nutritional quality of diets, improve health, and contribute to tackling climate change impacts.

At the macronutrient level, NPBFs are generally the healthier option, given their higher fiber content and typically lower saturated fat and calorie contents, which could be advantageous in high-income (often obesogenic) settings. Certain types of NPBFs, particularly mycoprotein and legume-based meats, often also contain a substantial amount of fruit, vegetables, legumes, and/or nuts, which are food groups that are typically underconsumed in high-income settings. Composition of legume and fruit and vegetable-based drinks, were also typically consistent with healthier diets in high-income food secure settings, including low energy density, low total sugar, high fiber and low saturated fat content. Caution is recommended in the selection of these products if they were to be part of dietary recommendations, or standard institutional procurement for example, as certain NPBFs can also have higher levels of total sugar, sodium, and saturated fats in comparison to their respective ABF. This is particularly true for certain cereal and grain-based drinks, and coconut-based cheese and yogurts. Although the specific type of oil used in each NPBF product was not analyzed, coconut oil, which is high in saturated fatty acids, is often the ingredient that increases saturated fat levels in NPBFs to levels similar to its ABF counterparts. 51 , 75 Indeed, coconut oil-based cheese had approximately 50% more saturated fat than dairy cheese, and typically contained the least amount of fruit, vegetables, legumes or nuts, with the majority being absent.

In line with other evidence, 39 , 97 , 98 fortified NPBFs, in some cases, can be nutritionally comparable to their respective ABFs. Some individual NPBFs contained even higher concentrations of iron, vitamin B 12 , and calcium, whereas others did not. However, micronutrient assessment was difficult because not all included studies reported micronutrients. This could be because either NPBFs were unfortified or the information simply was not reported. Especially when nutrient information is gathered from supermarket websites for individual studies, micronutrient data are generally not reported.

The highly varying nutrient content across and within all PB products and categories may cause consumer confusion when individuals are looking for healthy and environmentally friendly alternatives to ABFs. Clearer front-of-package labelling of certain nutrients and information campaigns could reduce such confusion and better enable the consumer to make informed decisions about food purchases. 99 Potential development of rules and regulations on the food standards of NPBFs could also be a step forward in having a larger range of “healthy” NPBFs, because such regulations could potentially encourage reformulation of NPBFs, including the reduction of sodium, total sugar, and saturated fat content, and increased micronutrients. From a technological perspective, this is certainly possible. For example, new biotechnological techniques have been developed that enable companies to reduce sugar content and improve palatability, nutrient profile, and digestibility of PB drinks. 67 , 100–103 Some processing techniques can also decrease levels of anti-nutrients and polyphenols, which commonly are associated with low mineral and vitamin bioavailability, 35 , 98 , 101 , 104–107 and increase protein yield. 101 Given that specific raw materials, isolated proteins, processing levels, and fortification methods, often used in NPBFs, as compared with ABF nutrient profiles, are still debated in the scientific community, further research on the nutrient content and health risks related to bioavailability, bioaccessibility, and byproduct formation during industrial processes will reveal whether there are differences in terms of health impacts of “natural” vs more “isolated” nutrients. 30 , 108 , 109 More research into the metabolic profiles of NPBFs is imperative, particularly in light of a recent study identifying differences in the abundance of profiled metabolites between beef and PB burgers, despite their labelled nutritional similarities. 110 Instead of continuing the debate between the superiority of ABFs vs NPBFs, or vice versa, acknowledging and embracing their complementary differences can contribute to a less polarized dietary transition. This is especially relevant because emerging evidence has suggested that people who consume NPBFs also tend to purchase ABFs. 111

From the limited evidence on health, the inclusion of NPBFs into diets appears to typically have beneficial health effects, particularly the consumption of PB meat alternatives. The positive health effects mostly relate to better weight management and associated reduced risk of noncommunicable diseases in high-income (and often obesogenic) countries. This is aligned with a recently published meta-analysis that found positive outcomes on total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides when consuming PB meat alternatives as replacements for meat. 51 Furthermore, a few older studies also found positive health outcomes when assessing consumption of mycoprotein-based foods (eg, drinks, cookies, milkshakes, crisps) 112–115 and soy protein with isoflavones, 50 compared with consumption of dairy milk and/or meat products.

Previous evidence revealed that NPBFs are often regarded as healthier alternatives to ABFs 116 ; hence, it could be hypothesized that people may consume NPBFs in larger quantities than they would otherwise have done when eating ABFs. This may have negative health implications, especially if consumed regularly. Establishing a clear division in PB foods classifications, including ultraprocessed and less processed PB alternative foods, could enable better assessment of short- and long-term health impacts of NPBFs if they were to be consumed at an even larger scale. 116

Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with many diet-related diseases because these foods are generally energy dense and hyperpalatable. 117 , 118 Almost all NPBFs fall, technically, within this category; however, in this review, we found that the nutritional composition of some NPBFs aligns well with healthy dietary recommendations, such as having a high fiber content, low energy density, and low saturated fat content. Additionally, 1 of the included studies 90 also found positive associations with the gut microbiome when substituting meat in certain meals with PB meat alternatives. To get a better overview of the overall effect of NPBFs on health, more information and detailed analyses are needed regarding level of processing and gastrointestinal fate.

Consistent evidence was found regarding environmental outcomes, similar to previous research. 52 , 53 , 108 , 119–121 Most NPBFs had smaller environmental footprints than their ABF counterparts, with median reductions reported of up to 94.3%, 89.5%, and 92.6% for GHGE, LU, and WF, respectively. Nevertheless, some PB products had greater environmental impacts than their ABF counterparts, with some extreme outliers particularly in terms of WF. Although evidence was rather consistent, and the direction of effect appears to be clear, care should be taken not to overinterpret the exact numerical results: environmental impact calculations are notoriously context dependent and sensitive to methodological and data choices. This makes it impossible to come up with a summary figure that is representative for all products, produced in all countries; generally, however, there is a broad body of evidence demonstrating a reduction in GHGE, LU, and WF for a wide range of PB products in a wide variety of contexts compared with their ABF equivalents.

To improve the strategic use of NPBFs to achieve more sustainable food systems, life cycle assessments of these products should incorporate the full range of environmental impact categories, as well as sociocultural, economic, and health impacts with harmonized methods and assumptions across studies.

This study revealed an evidence gap for health impacts of NPBFs, including mental and dental health, and other risks associated with micronutrient deficiencies. There is also a lack of health studies on PB yogurts, PB cheese, and PB egg alternatives. Research on the health effects of PB drinks has been conducted with only certain products, “generally soy and almond drinks,” but there is a gap in knowledge about other PB drinks, such as those made from oat, potato, and hazelnut, among others. Furthermore, some concerns have been raised about the carbohydrate content in some PB drinks. A study by Jeske et al 122 revealed that the presence of β-glucan in many oat-based drinks causes a moderate glycemic index, despite the high carbohydrate content. In fact, Dhankhar 104 associated the consumption of oat drinks with high β-glucan levels with a reduction in cholesterol levels in study participants. However, this evidence needs to be updated to reflect the potential benefits of different types of PB drinks and current market brands. Although dairy products contain naturally occurring sugars from lactose, it is difficult to determine the breakdown of “natural” vs added sugars in NPBFs from the available literature. More research is also required on dental health to assess the potential risks of increased dental cavities due to lower calcium bioavailability, and the effects of free sugar content, pH levels, and buffering capacity in NPBFs.

Additional research is needed to provide more nutrient environmental and health evidence for PB yogurts, cheese, and egg alternatives. Last, although this review assessment focused on 3 environmental outcomes, evidence on other environmental impacts, including biodiversity loss and socioeconomic implications, is scarce. Across the 3 themes assessed in this review, better standardization and clear reporting of results in NPBF studies in the future would facilitate updates of this review.

Relevance for policy and practice

Minimally processed PB foods are still considered the gold standard for healthier and more sustainable diets. However, shifts from ABFs to PB whole foods remain problematic because, despite all the scientific knowledge about healthy eating, dietary change toward minimally processed PB foods has not been achieved. This review revealed that NPBFs can be healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives to ABF consumption, if carefully selected. Although behavioral aspects are embedded in this transition, NPBFs could offer a convenient, novel, and potentially more realistic option to facilitate dietary transitions at large scale, diversifying diets, and increasing consumption of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts without the need for significant individual dietary habits.

For potential promotion of the inclusion of NPBFs as part of public procurement or embedding them into food-based dietary guidelines, some of the consideration regarding varying healthiness of specific types of NPBFs and the need for further subclassifications needs to be carefully addressed. Furthermore, affordability is a concern because NPBFs often are more expensive than their ABF counterparts. Although comprehensively synthesizing price data was outside of the scope of this study, in the United Kingdom, the Food Foundation found that PB drinks are, on average, 50.0% more expensive than dairy milk. 71

Active promotion of NPBFs would require more detailed analysis of consumer behavior: current consumption of NPBFs is generally higher among younger generations, women, White populations, and those with higher education and incomes. 28 Better understanding of main drivers and barriers of consumption of NPBFs would allow targeted promotion to widen this consumer group. 71 NPBFs could play an additional role in reducing the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies, especially given their reformulation and fortification potential. For example, in Finland, a mass fortification strategy of vitamin D across dairy and nondairy products has shown positive health outcomes over the past decade. 123 Finally, formalization, standardization, and accountability of environmental labelling could help consumers making informed decisions and avoid misinformation.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review assessing the published peer-reviewed and grey literature evidence from studies that evaluated nutrient, and health and environmental impacts or benefits of NPBFs. A strict and comprehensive search string was developed to assess the full breadth of studies and reports, and machine-learning models were used to filter the large number of studies and systematically present all the available evidence on various NPBFs.

This study only covered the past 7 years to assess the current evidence, and an exhaustive cross-check of references was not performed, which possibly introduces reporting bias for missed relevant studies from previous years. However, it was assumed that only a small amount of additional findings had been missed, given the recent emergence of the variety and types of these novel products. Second, only 3 environmental impact categories were examined: carbon footprint, LU, and blue-water consumption. However, the heterogeneity of study designs, from system boundaries to geographical location, agricultural inputs, and methods used to calculate environmental footprints, made the review process too time consuming to expand on other environmental impacts in this particular study. Reliable reporting of environmental impacts of novel ingredients used in NPBFs, including added minerals and vitamins for fortification purposes, are generally missing in many studies. All the data reported by authors were collected and each study was compared individually against its own baseline (ie, the ABF comparator provided by author). Given the large spectrum of methods to determine environmental footprints, this could have introduced some bias; however, the alternative (using a standardized comparator) would equally have its limitations (eg, this would not be representative for all farming systems and products). Third, products and nutrients were assessed individually. Although the nutrient content gives some guidance on probable health risks, in reality, people consume diets in which individual compounds interact, influencing unknown biological pathways. Fourth, several studies that did not specifically report on the proportion and type of NPBF in (self-)reported PB diets had to be excluded. For those studies, it was impossible, therefore, to assess the effect on health and environment of NBPFs alone vs all PB foods together (ie, whole foods, NPBFs, other PB foods such as tofu and tempeh) and complicated any efforts to calculate dietary shifts. Finally, most studies did not report the precision of measures of effect (n = 68), making it difficult to pool and synthesize results across the 3 themes assessed in this review.

Food systems and diets need to change to meet environmental and health targets. This comprehensive systematic review presents a holistic approach to summarize the evidence on the nutrient, health, and environmental impacts of NPBF consumption. Although PB whole foods remain the preferred option on health grounds, some NPBFs have potential for being a useful steppingstone in the process of food system and dietary transformation, functioning as a healthy and environmentally friendly alternative to ABFs, if carefully selected. Reformulation and fortification could further enhance NPBFs as a viable and effective food group that could accelerate the dietary transition toward sustainable and healthy diets. However, given the great variability in nutritional composition of individual NPBFs, widespread promotion of such products should be introduced and addressed with caution. Given that NPBFs are already important in the food system and consumption is expected to continue to increase, a few steps are urgently required to guide consumers and enable them to make informed decisions regarding their diets. These include a further subdivision or categorization of NPBFs, which currently fall mainly in the ultraprocessed (hence, “unhealthy”) food category. Furthermore, standardized and verifiable environmental assessments of NPBFs are needed to compare foods with regard to their environmental footprints. Finally, more research on the short- and longer-term health effects of NPBFs is urgently required to facilitate informed decision-making on the inclusion of NPBFs as part of a wider net-zero and health strategy.

Gratitude is extended to the authors who responded to inquiries and generously shared their individual data. Additionally, sincere appreciation is expressed to the FoodDB team for sharing their time-stamped data set of observations from UK supermarkets to estimate the total fruit, vegetable, legume, and nut content of foods.

Author contributions. S.N.E. contributed to conceptualization of the study, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, coding and analysis of machine learning, and writing the original draft of the article. G.H. contributed to the formal analysis (screening process), data validation, and review and editing of the manuscript. A.J.S. led the coding and analysis of machine learning, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. C.A.-C. and G.T. contributed to the literature screening process, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. R.G. reviewed and edited the manuscript. S.P. and R.P. contributed to data validation, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. P.S. contributed to conceptualization of the study, methodology, reviewed and edited the manuscript, supervised the work, acquired funding, and contributed to project administration.

Funding. This work was supported by a research grant from the National Institute for Health Research, Health Protection Research Unit PhD Studentship in Environmental Change and Health (grant NIHR200909) and the af Jochnick Foundation.

The funders had no role in the conception, design, performance, and approval of this work.

Declaration of interest. The authors have no relevant interests to declare.

Data availability. Source code for this work is available online (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7116157).

The following supporting information is available through the online version of this article at the publisher’s website:

Supplementary file 1 .

Supplementary file 2 .

Supplementary file 3 .

Box 1 Key Definitions

Novel plant-based foods (NPBFs): Acknowledging differences in terminology for NPBFs, for the purpose of this review, the term novel plant-based foods is used to describe plant-based (PB) drinks and PB meat, cheese, eggs, and yogurt alternatives that are of plant or fungal origin and designed to directly replace or mimic animal-based foods. This definition includes fungi-based foods (ie, mycoprotein) that biologically do not belong to the plant kingdom but are typically “designed” similarly to NPBFs as a direct replacement for animal-based foods. Here, the term excludes tofu, tempeh, and seitan because although these might be novel to some high-income settings, they have been part of traditional Asian diets for centuries and, hence, are not subject to the same challenges and evidence gap as NPBFs.

Ultraprocessed: Foods that have undergone a series of industrial techniques and processes

Minimally processed plant-based foods: Plant-based whole foods such as nuts, seeds, cereals, and legumes

Food and Agriculture Organization , UNICEF, World Food Program, World Health Organization . The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. 2021 . Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/cb4474en/online/cb4474en.html . Accessed February 2024.

Willett W , Rockstrom J , Jonell M , et al.    Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems . Lancet . 2019 ; 393 : 447 – 492 . doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736%2818%2931788-4 .

Google Scholar

Food and Agriculture Organization , UNICEF, World Food Program, World Health Organization . The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2023. 2023 . Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/CC3017EN/online/CC3017EN.html . Accessed February 2024.

Alae-Carew C , Nicoleau S , Bird FA , et al.    The impact of environmental changes on the yield and nutritional quality of fruits, nuts and seeds: a systematic review . Environ Res Lett . 2020 ; 15 : 023002 . doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab5cc0 .

Parajuli R , Thoma G , Matlock MD.   Environmental sustainability of fruit and vegetable production supply chains in the face of climate change: a review . Sci Total Environ . 2019 ; 650 : 2863 – 2879 . doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.019 .

Wang J , Vanga S , Saxena R , et al.    Effect of climate change on the yield of cereal crops: a review . Climate . 2018 ; 6 : 41 . doi: 10.3390/cli6020041 .

Bisbis MB , Gruda N , Blanke M.   Potential impacts of climate change on vegetable production and product quality—a review . J Clean Prod . 2018 ; 170 : 1602 – 1620 . doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.224 .

Scheelbeek P , Bird FA , Tuomisto HL , et al.    Effect of environmental changes on vegetable and legume yields and nutritional quality . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 2018 ; 115 : 6804 – 6809 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800442115 .

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) . Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC sixth assessment report. 2022 . Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ . Accessed February 2024.

United Nations . Sustainable development goals. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/sustainable-development-goals . Accessed June 2022.

Mendenhall E , Singer M.   The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change . Lancet . 2019 ; 393 : 741 . doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30310-1 .

Aggarwal A , Rehm CD , Monsivais P , et al.    Importance of taste, nutrition, cost and convenience in relation to diet quality: evidence of nutrition resilience among US adults using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2010 . Prev Med . 2016 ; 90 : 184 – 192 . doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.06.030 .

Davis R , Campbell R , Hildon Z , et al.    Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review . Health Psychol Rev . 2015 ; 9 : 323 – 344 . doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.941722 .

Markowski KL , Roxburgh S.   "If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me”: anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets . Appetite . 2019 ; 135 : 1 – 9 . doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040 .

Lea EJ , Crawford D , Worsley A.   Consumers' readiness to eat a plant-based diet . Eur J Clin Nutr . 2006 ; 60 : 342 – 351 . doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602320 .

Good Food Institute . U.S. retail market data for the plant-based industry. Available at: https://gfi.org/marketresearch/#comparison-to-animal-based-foods . Accessed June 2022.

Spalding N. The APAC Alternative Protein Industry Report 2021. 2021 . Available at: https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/apac-alt-protein-report-2021/ . Accessed February 2024.

Gaan K. Plant-based meat, eggs and dairy. 2020 The State of the Industry Report. 2020 . Available at: https://gfi.org/resource/plant-based-meat-eggs-and-dairy-state-of-the-industry-report/ . Accessed February 2024.

Smart Protein Project . Plant-based foods in Europe: how big is the market ? Smart Protein Plant-Based Food Sector Report. 2021 . Available at: https://smartproteinproject.eu/plant-based-food-sector-report . Accessed February 2024.

Devlin E. This raises £15m in series B funding round to fuel ongoing rapid growth. Available at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fundraising/this-raises-15m-in-series-b-funding-round-to-fuel-ongoing-rapid-growth/676873.article . Accessed April 2023.

Ettinger J. Heura saw a 260% increase in international vegan meat sales in 2022. Green Queen. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/heura-2022-international-vegan-meat-sales/ . Accessed March 2023.

Datassential Research . 2023 Food trends. FOODBYTES: trend report. 2022 . Available at: https://offers.datassential.com/2023-trends . Accessed February 2024.

Foster-Collins L. The death of vegan brands and the unlikely saviour of plant-based diets. Available at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/plant-based/the-death-of-vegan-brands-and-saviour-of-plant-based-diets/680057.article?utm_source=Weekly%20Shop%20(The%20Grocer)&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2023-06-12&c=&cid=DM1080641&bid=132435027 . Accessed June 2023.

Tatum M. Is Beyond Meat beyond hope? And what its slump says about the other plant-based players. The Grocer . July 9, 2022. Available at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/plant-based/is-beyond-meat-beyond-hope-and-what-its-slump-says-about-the-other-plant-based-players/669272.article . Accessed March 2023.

Good Food Institute . 2022 State of the Industry Report: plant-based meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy. 2022 . Available at: https://gfi.org/resource/plant-based-meat-eggs-and-dairy-state-of-the-industry-report/ . Accessed February 2024.

EAT, GlobeScan . Grains of Truth 2: a consumer report on healthy and sustainable food system. 2022 . Available at: https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2022/11/EAT-Forum-Report.pdf . Accessed February 2024.

Good Food Institute . U.S. retail market insights for the plant-based industry. Available at: https://gfi.org/marketresearch/#purchase-dynamics . Accessed October 2023.

Alae-Carew C , Green R , Stewart C , et al.    The role of plant-based alternative foods in sustainable and healthy food systems: consumption trends in the UK . Sci Total Environ . 2021 ; 807 : 151041 . doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151041 .

Frontier F , Lichtenstein T. Plant-based meat: a healthier choice? 2020 . A comprehensive health and nutrition analysis of plant-based meat products in the Australian and New Zealand markets. Available at: https://www.foodfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Plant-Based_Meat_A_Healthier_Choice-1.pdf . Accessed February 2024.

World Economic Forum . Meat: The Future series. Alternative Proteins. 2019 . Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Alternative_Proteins.pdf . Accessed February 2024.

Sahakian M , Fuchs D , Lorek S , et al.    Advancing the concept of consumption corridors and exploring its implications . Sustainability . 2021 ; 17 : 305 – 315 . doi: 10.1080/15487733.2021.1919437 .

Noguerol AT , Pagan MJ , Garcia-Segovia P , et al.    Green or clean? Perception of clean label plant-based products by omnivorous, vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian consumers . Food Res Int . 2021 ; 149 : 110652 . doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110652 .

Mertens E , Biesbroek S , Dofkova M , et al.    Potential impact of meat replacers on nutrient quality and greenhouse gas emissions of diets in four European countries . Sustainability . 2020 ; 12 : 6838 .

Edge MS , Garrett JL.   The nutrition limitations of mimicking meat . Cereal Foods World . 2020 ; 65 : 3 . doi: 10.1094/CFW-65-4-0045 .

Paul AA , Kumar S , Kumar V , et al.    Milk analog: plant based alternatives to conventional milk, production, potential and health concerns . Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr . 2020 ; 60 : 3005 – 3023 .

Verduci E , D'Elios S , Cerrato L , et al.    Cow's milk substitutes for children: nutritional aspects of milk from different mammalian species, special formula and plant-based beverages . Nutrients   2019 ; 11 : 1739 .

Chalupa-Krebzdak S , Long CJ , Bohrer BM.   Nutrient density and nutritional value of milk and plant-based milk alternatives . Int Dairy J . 2018 ; 87 : 84 – 92 .

Kazir M , Livney YD.   Plant-based seafood analogs . Molecules . 2021 ; 26 : 1559 .

Silva ARA , Silva MMN , Ribeiro BD.   Health issues and technological aspects of plant-based alternative milk . Food Res Int . 2020 ; 131 : 108972 .

McClements DJ , Newman E , McClements IF.   Plant-based milks: a review of the science underpinning their design, fabrication, and performance . Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf . 2019 ; 18 : 2047 – 2067 .

Hadi J , Brightwell G.   Safety of alternative proteins: technological, environmental and regulatory aspects of cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein and single-cell protein . Foods . 2021 ; 10 : 1226 .

Liu S , Sha L.   Nutrition and safety assessment of plant protein-based meat alternative products . Food Ferment Industr . 2021 ; 47 : 297 – 303 .

Kołodziejczak K , Onopiuk A , Szpicer A , et al.    Meat analogues in the perspective of recent scientific research: a review . Foods . 2021 ; 11 : 105 . doi: 10.3390/foods11010105 .

Lonkila A , Kaljonen M.   Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research themes . Agric Hum Values . 2021 ; 38 : 625 – 639 .

Boukid F.   Plant-based meat analogues: from niche to mainstream . Eur Food Res Technol . 2020 ; 247 : 297 – 308 .

Good Food Institute . Plant-Based Meat for a Growing World. 2019 . Available at: https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/GFI-Plant-Based-Meat-Fact-Sheet_Environmental-Comparison.pdf . Accessed February 2023.

Nawaz MA , Tan MV , Oiseth S , et al.    An emerging segment of functional legume-based beverages: a review . Food Rev Int . 2020 ; 38 : 1064 – 1102 .

Boukid F , Rosell CM , Rosene S , et al.    Non-animal proteins as cutting-edge ingredients to reformulate animal-free foodstuffs: present status and future perspectives . Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr . 2022 ; 62 : 6390 – 6420 .

Vatansever S , Tulbek MC , Riaz MN.   Low- and high-moisture extrusion of pulse proteins as plant-based meat ingredients: a review . Cereal Foods World . 2020 ; 65 : 12 – 14 .

Chalvon-Demersay T , Azzout-Marniche D , Arfsten J , et al.    A systematic review of the effects of plant compared with animal protein sources on features of metabolic syndrome . J Nutr . 2017 2017; 147 : 281 – 292 .

Gibbs J , Leung G-K.   The effect of plant-based and mycoprotein-based meat substitute consumption on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention trials . Dietetics . 2023 ; 2 : 104 – 122 . doi: 10.3390/dietetics2010009 .

Silva BQ , Smetana S.   Review on milk substitutes from an environmental and nutritional point of view . Appl Food Res . 2022 ; 2 : 100105 . doi: 10.1016/j.afres.2022.100105 .

Bryant CJ.   Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products . Future Foods . 2022 ; 6 : 100174 . doi: 10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174 .

Nájera Espinosa S , Pastorino S , Scheelbeek P. Mapping the evidence of plant-based alternative foods: a systematic literature review protocol on nutritional, health, and environmental impacts. 2022 . Available at: https://datacompass.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3015/1/Lit_Review_Protocol.pdf . Accessed December 2024.

Page MJ , Moher D , Bossuyt PM , et al.    PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ . 2021 ; 372 : n160 . doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160 .

Chang C-C , Lin C-J.   LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines . ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol . 2011 ; 2 : 1 – 27 . doi: 10.1145/1961189.1961199 .

Pedregosa F , Varoquaux G , Gramfort A , et al.    Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python . J Mach Learn Res . 2011 ; 12 : 2825 – 2830 .

Berrang-Ford L , Sietsma AJ , Callaghan M , et al.    Systematic mapping of global research on climate and health: a machine learning review . Lancet Planet Health . 2021 ; 5 : e514 – 25 . doi: 10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00179-0 .

Renotte N. nicknochnack/Longform-Summarization-with-Hugging-Face. Available at: https://github.com/nicknochnack/Longform-Summarization-with-Hugging-Face/blob/main/LongSummarization.ipynb . Accessed September 2022.

Pistilli M. Plant-based food stocks: 10 biggest companies in 2023. Available at: https://investingnews.com/daily/life-science-investing/top-plant-based-food-stocks/ . Accessed May 2023.

Team V . The big list of vegan food companies. Available at: https://www.veganrecipeclub.org.uk/articles/big-list-vegan-food-companies/ . Accessed May 2023.

Meticulous Research . Top 10 companies in plant based food market. Available at: https://meticulousblog.org/top-10-companies-in-plant-based-food-market/ . Accessed May 2023.

Enerva K. Top plant-based food companies in the UK. Available at: https://viable.earth/plant-based-food/top-plant-based-food-companies-in-the-uk/ . Accessed May 2023.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme . CASP checklist: CASP randomised controlled trial checklist. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ . Accessed March 2023.

Harrington RA , Adhikari V , Rayner M , et al.    Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: FoodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure . BMJ Open . 2019 ; 9 : e026652 . doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026652 .

Reyes-Jurado F , Soto-Reyes N , Davila-Rodriguez M , et al.    Plant-based milk alternatives: types, processes, benefits, and characteristics . Food Rev Int . 2021 ; 39 : 2320 – 2351 .

Tangyu M , Muller J , Bolten CJ , et al.    Fermentation of plant-based milk alternatives for improved flavour and nutritional value . Appl Microbiol Biotechnol . 2019 ; 103 : 9263 – 9275 .

World Health Organization . Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children. World Health Organization;   2015 . Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549028 . Accessed February 2024.

World Health Organization . Salt intake. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/3082 . Accessed October 2022.

Sumner O , Burbridge L.   Plant-based milks: the dental perspective . Br Dent J . 2020 ; 8 : 16 – 23 .

Goudie S , Hughes I. The Broken Plate Report 2022. 2022 . Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/publication/broken-plate-2022 . Accessed February 2024.

Collard KM , McCormick DP.   A nutritional comparison of cow's milk and alternative milk products . Acad Pediatr . 2020 ; 21 : 1067 – 1069 .

Marques M , Correig E , Capdevila E , et al.    Essential and non-essential trace elements in milks and plant-based drinks . Biol Trace Elem Res . 2021 ; 200 : 4524 – 4533 . doi: 10.1007/s12011-021-03021-5 .

Kazer J , Orfanos G , Gallop C. Quorn Footprint Comparison Report. Carbon Trust; 2022 . Available at: https://www.quorn.co.uk/assets/files/content/Carbon-Trust-Comparison-Report-2022.pdf .

De Marchi M , Costa A , Pozza M , et al.    Detailed characterization of plant-based burgers . Sci Rep . 2021 ; 11 : 2049 .

Zhang YY , Hughes J , Grafenauer S.   Got Mylk? The emerging role of Australian plant-based milk alternatives as a cow's milk substitute . Nutrients . 2020 ; 12 : 1254 .

Isidro V.   The nutritional limitations of plant-based beverages in infancy and childhood . Nutr Hosp . 2017 ; 34 : 1205 – 1214 .

Farsi DN , Uthumange D , Munoz Munoz J , et al.    The nutritional impact of replacing dietary meat with meat alternatives in the UK: a modelling analysis using nationally representative data . Br J Nutr . 2021 ; 127 : 1 – 31 .

Bryngelsson S , Moshtaghian H , Bianchi M , et al.    Nutritional assessment of plant-based meat analogues on the Swedish market . Int J Food Sci Nutr . 2022 ; 73 : 889 – 901 . doi: 10.1080/09637486.2022.2078286 .

Seves SM , Verkaik-Kloosterman J , Biesbroek S , et al.    Are more environmentally sustainable diets with less meat and dairy nutritionally adequate?   Public Health Nutr . 2017 ; 20 : 2050 – 2062 .

Goldstein B , Moses R , Sammons N , et al.    Potential to curb the environmental burdens of American beef consumption using a novel plant-based beef substitute . PLoS One . 2017 ; 12 : E 0189029 .

Kazer J , Orfanos G , Gallop C. Quorn Footprint Comparison Report. Carbon Trust; 2021 . Available at: https://www.quorn.co.uk/assets/files/content/Carbon-Trust-Comparison-Report-2021.pdf .

Allen LH , Carriquiry AL , Murphy SP.   Perspective: proposed harmonized nutrient reference values for populations . Adv Nutr . 2020 ; 11 : 469 – 483 . doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz096 .

Cherta-Murillo A , Frost GS.   The association of mycoprotein-based food consumption with diet quality, energy intake and non-communicable diseases' risk in the UK adult population using the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) years 2008/2009-2016/2017: a cross-sectional study . Br J Nutr . 2021 ; 127 : 1685 – 1694 .

Bottin JH , Swann JR , Cropp E , et al.    Mycoprotein reduces energy intake and postprandial insulin release without altering glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide tyrosine-tyrosine concentrations in healthy overweight and obese adults: a randomised-controlled trial . Br J Nutr . 2016 ; 116 : 360 – 374 .

Coelho MOC , Monteyne AJ , Dirks ML , et al.    Daily mycoprotein consumption for 1 week does not affect insulin sensitivity or glycaemic control but modulates the plasma lipidome in healthy adults: a randomised controlled trial . Br J Nutr . 2021 ; 125 : 147 – 160 .

Crimarco A , Springfield S , Petlura C , et al.    A randomized crossover trial on the effect of plant-based compared with animal-based meat on trimethylamine- N -oxide and cardiovascular disease risk factors in generally healthy adults: Study With Appetizing Plantfood-Meat Eating Alternative Trial (SWAP-MEAT) . Am J Clin Nutr . 2020 ; 112 : 1188 – 1199 .

Bianchi F , Stewart C , Astbury NM , et al.    Replacing meat with alternative plant-based products (RE-MAP): a randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption . Am J Clin Nutr . 2021 ; 115 : 1357 – 1366 . doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab414 .

Kouw IWK , Pinckaers PJM , Le Bourgot C , et al.    Ingestion of an ample amount of meat substitute based on a lysine-enriched, plant-based protein blend stimulates postprandial muscle protein synthesis to a similar extent as an isonitrogenous amount of chicken in healthy, young men . Br J Nutr . 2021 ; 128 : 1 – 1965 . doi: 10.1017/S0007114521004906 .

Toribio-Mateas MA , Bester A , Klimenko N.   Impact of plant-based meat alternatives on the gut microbiota of consumers: a real-world study . Foods . 2021 ; 10 : 2040 . doi: 10.3390/foods10092040 .

Sun LJ , Tan KWJ , Siow PC , et al.    Soya milk exerts different effects on plasma amino acid responses and incretin hormone secretion compared with cows' milk in healthy, young men . Br J Nutr . 2016 ; 116 : 1216 – 1221 .

Dineva M , Rayman MP , Bath SC.   Iodine status of consumers of milk-alternative drinks v. cows' milk: data from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey . Br J Nutr . 2021 ; 126 : 28 – 36 .

Shen P , Walker GD , Yuan Y , et al.    Effects of soy and bovine milk beverages on enamel mineral content in a randomized, double-blind in situ clinical study . J Dent . 2019 ; 88 : 103160 . doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.06.007 .

Farsi DN , Gallegos JL , Koutsidis G , et al.    Substituting meat for mycoprotein reduces genotoxicity and increases the abundance of beneficial microbes in the gut: Mycomeat, a randomised crossover control trial . Eur J Nutr . 2023 ; 62 : 1479 – 1492 . doi: 10.1007/s00394-023-03088-x .

Grant CA , Hicks AL.   Comparative life cycle assessment of milk and plant-based alternatives . Environ Eng Sci . 2018 ; 35 : 1235 – 1247 .

Ritchie H. Dairy vs. plant-based milk: what are the environmental impacts? Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks . Accessed May 2022.

Saget S , Costa M , Santos CS , et al.    Substitution of beef with pea protein reduces the environmental footprint of meat balls whilst supporting health and climate stabilisation goals . J Clean Prod . 2021 ; 297 : 126447 .

Rubio NR , Xiang N , Kaplan DL.   Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production . Nat Commun . 2020 ; 11 : 6276 .

Julia C , Fialon M , Galan P , et al.    Are foods ‘healthy’ or ‘healthier’? Front-of-pack labelling and the concept of healthiness applied to foods . Br J Nutr . 2022 ; 127 : 948 – 952 . doi: 10.1017/S0007114521001458 .

Boeck T , Zannini E , Sahin AW , et al.    Nutritional and rheological features of lentil protein isolate for yoghurt-like application . Foods . 2021 ; 10 : 1692 .

Han H , Choi JK , Park J , et al.    Recent innovations in processing technologies for improvement of nutritional quality of soymilk . CyTA-J Food . 2021 ; 19 : 287 – 303 .

Kumari M , Kokkiligadda A , Dasriya V , et al.    Functional relevance and health benefits of soymilk fermented by lactic acid bacteria . J Appl Microbiol . 2021 ; 133 : 104 – 119 . doi: 10.1111/jam.15342 .

Jeske S , Zannini E , Lynch KM , et al.    Polyol-producing lactic acid bacteria isolated from sourdough and their application to reduce sugar in a quinoa-based milk substitute . Int J Food Microbiol . 2018 ; 286 : 31 – 36 .

Dhankhar J.   Perspective on the pros and cons, manufacturing aspects, and recent advances in non-dairy milk alternatives . J Microb Biotech Food Sci . 2023 ; 12 : e9543 . doi: 10.55251/jmbfs.9543 .

Boeck T , Sahin AW , Zannini E , et al.    Nutritional properties and health aspects of pulses and their use in plant-based yogurt alternatives . Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf . 2021 ; 20 : 3858 – 3880 .

Aydar EF , Tutuncu S , Ozcelik B.   Plant-based milk substitutes: bioactive compounds, conventional and novel processes, bioavailability studies, and health effects . J Funct Foods . 2020 ; 70 : 103975 .

Dahdouh S , Grande F , Espinosa SN , et al.    Development of the FAO/INFOODS/IZINCG global food composition database for phytate . J Food Compost Anal . 2019 ; 78 : 42 – 48 . doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2019.01.023 .

van Vliet S , Kronberg SL , Provenza FD.   Plant-based meats, human health, and climate change . Front Sustain Food Syst . 2020 ; 4 : 128 .

WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases . Plant-based diets and their impact on health, sustainability and the environment: a review of the evidence. WHO Regional Office for Europe ; 2021 . Available at: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591 . Accessed February 2024.

van Vliet S , Bain JR , Muehlbauer MJ , et al.    A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels . Sci Rep . 2021 ; 11 : 13828 .

Neuhofer ZT , Lusk JL.   Most plant-based meat alternative buyers also buy meat: an analysis of household demographics, habit formation, and buying behavior among meat alternative buyers . Sci Rep . 2022 ; 12 : 13062 . doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16996-5 .

Coelho MOC , Monteyne AJ , Dunlop M , et al.    Mycoprotein as a possible alternative source of dietary protein to support muscle and metabolic health . Nutr Rev . 2020 ; 78 : 486 – 497 .

Derbyshire E , Ayoob KT.   Mycoprotein: nutritional and health properties . Nutr Today . 2019 ; 54 : 7 – 15 .

Souza Filho PF , Andersson D , Ferreira JA , et al.    Mycoprotein: environmental impact and health aspects . World J Microbiol Biotechnol . 2019 ; 35 : 147 .

Dunlop MV , Kilroe SP , Bowtell JL , et al.    Mycoprotein represents a bioavailable and insulinotropic non-animal-derived dietary protein source: a dose-response study . Br J Nutr . 2017 ; 118 : 673 – 685 .

Otis BO , Hu FB , McCarthy G.   Can plant-based meat alternatives be part of a healthy and sustainable diet?   J Am Med Assoc . 2019 ; 322 : 1547 – 1548 .

Monteiro CA , Cannon G , Levy RB , et al.    Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them . Public Health Nutr . 2019 ; 22 : 936 – 941 . doi: 10.1017/S1368980018003762 .

Pagliai G , Dinu M , Madarena MP , et al.    Consumption of ultra-processed foods and health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Br J Nutr . 2021 ; 125 : 308 – 318 . doi: 10.1017/S0007114520002688 .

Carlsson Kanyama A , Hedin B , Katzeff C.   Differences in environmental impact between plant-based alternatives to dairy and dairy products: a systematic literature review . Sustainability . 2021 ; 13 : 12599 . doi: 10.3390/su132212599 .

Li Y.   Feeding the future: plant-based meat for global food security and environmental sustainability . Cereal Foods World . 2020 ; 65 : 8 – 11 .

Santo RE , Kim BF , Goldman SE , et al.    Considering plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats: a public health and food systems perspective . Front Sustain Food Syst . 2020 ; 4 : 134 .

Jeske S , Zannini E , Arendt EK.   Evaluation of physicochemical and glycaemic properties of commercial plant-based milk substitutes . Plant Foods Hum Nutr . 2017 ; 72 : 26 – 33 .

Jaaskelainen T , Itkonen ST , Lundqvist A , et al.    The positive impact of general vitamin D food fortification policy on vitamin D status in a representative adult Finnish population: evidence from an 11-y follow-up based on standardized 25-hydroxyvitamin D data . Am J Clin Nutr . 2017 ; 105 : 1512 – 1520 . doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.151415 .

• alcoholic beverages
• micronutrients
• meat substitutes

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1753-4887
• Print ISSN 0029-6643
• Copyright © 2024 International Life Sciences Institute
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.