how to write literature review paper for high impact factor journals

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

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

• < Previous

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

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

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

• Permissions Icon Permissions

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

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

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

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

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

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

IP based access

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

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

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

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

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

Society Members

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

Sign in through society site

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

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

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

Sign in using a personal account

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

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

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

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

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

Signed in but can't access content

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

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

Short-term Access

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

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

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

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Literature Reviews

• Searching for Literature
• Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Writing and Editing the Paper
• Help and Resources

Book an Appointment

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review surveys and synthesizes the scholarly research literature related to a particular topic. Literature reviews both explain research findings and analyze the quality of the research in order to arrive at new insights.

Literature reviews may describe not only the key research related to a topic of inquiry but also seminal sources, influential scholars, key theories or hypotheses, common methodologies used, typical questions asked, or common patterns of inquiry.

There are different types of literature reviews.  A narrative literature review summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous research articles, but the purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely. The term "literature review" is most commonly used to refer to narrative literature reviews, and these are the types of works that are described in this guide. 

Some types of literature reviews that use prescribed methods for identifying and evaluating evidence-based literature related to specific questions are known as systematic reviews or meta-analyses . Systematic reviews or meta-analyses are typically conducted by at least two scholars working in collaboration as prescribed by certain guidelines, but narrative literature reviews may be conducted by authors working alone.

Purpose of a Literature Review

Literature reviews serve an important function in developing the scholarly record. Because of the vast amount of scholarly literature that exists, it can be difficult for readers to keep up with the latest developments related to a topic, or to discern which ideas, themes, authors, or methods are worthy of more attention. Literature reviews help readers to understand and make sense of a large body of scholarship.

Literature reviews also play an important function in assessing the quality of the evidence base in relation to a particular topic. Literature reviews contain assessments of the evidence in support of particular interventions, policies, programs, or treatments.

The literature that is reviewed may include a variety of types of research, including empirical research, theoretical works, and reports of practical application. The scholarly works that are considered for inclusion in a literature review may appear in a variety of publication types, including scholarly journals, books, conference proceedings, reports, and others. 

Steps in the Process

Follow these steps to conduct your literature review:

• Select a topic and prepare for searching.  Formulate a research question and establish inclusion and exclusion criteria for your search.
• Search for and organize the research. Use tools like the library website, library-subscription databases, Google Scholar, and others to locate research on your topic.
• Organize your research, read and evaluate it, and take notes. Use organizational and note-taking strategies to read sources and prepare for writing. 
• Write and edit the paper. Synthesize information from sources to arrive at new insights.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

View the video below for an overview of the process of writing literature review papers.

Video:  Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  by  libncsu

• Next: Searching for Literature >>

• Research Guides
• Vanderbilt University Libraries

Peabody Library

Literature reviews.

• Publishing in Academic Journals
• Steps to Success: The Literature Review Process
• Literature Reviews Webinar Recording
• Literature Review Table
• Writing Like an Academic
• Managing Citations This link opens in a new window

Calls for Papers

• H-Net CFPs in the social sciences and humanities.
• CFPS from AERA Compiled by the American Educational Research Association.

Why Publish?

As a grad/professional student, you will write (or already have written!) a LOT of papers. Rather than tossing that paper aside after you've received your grade, consider turning it into a manuscript submission. There are many benefits for publishing as a grad student:

• You've already done a lot of the work! You may just need to update your research a bit, and re-format your paper for the journal you're submitting to (more on that below).
• It's a great CV booster. Whether you're looking for a job, applying to another graduate program, or just looking for an internship, having a published or accepted publication on your resume looks great.
• Publishing is also a great way to grow your professional network. While the peer review process means you most likely won't know the identify of your reviewers, journal editors are often available to discuss why your article might be a good fit for their journal. Not only are they providing valuable feedback on your writing, you now have a new professional contact!

Things To Think About

• Where Should You Publish?
• What is Impact Factor?
• Crafting Your Submission
• Copyright for Authors

Things to consider:

• Reputation - The reputation of the publisher, journal, editor and editorial board can give an indication of the quality of the journal.
• Scope and focus of the journal - It is important that your article reaches the readers who can most benefit from it and who can most benefit you. The scope and aim of the journal will give an indication of who the journal’s readers are, e.g. national or international, limited to a select area of research or with a multidisciplinary focus.
• Turnaround time - What is the length of the review process? Average length of time from submission to acceptance or rejection; from acceptance to publication? Frequency of publication?
• Included in prominent indexes - Are articles from the journal indexed in journal databases relevant to your field, or in citation databases such as Scopus or Web of Science?
• Editorial standards / Journal information - The competence of a journal’s editorial office can hugely influence the success or failure of an article. Make sure that the “Instructions to Authors” are easily accessible and that they set out clearly what is expected from authors. Does the journal come out on time or is it often two or three years behind? Is the journal carefully produced with a professional appearance, or does it have many typing errors, poor paper quality and other signs of neglect? Does the journal accept electronic submissions? This simplifies the submission process, allows swift management of manuscripts and makes it possible for authors to track the position of their manuscripts in the review process.
• Acceptance rate - The acceptance rate gives an indication of how competitive a journal is. Journals with a low acceptance rate are considered to be amongst the most prestigious in their field, the assumption being that only the very best articles are selected.
• Cost - Be aware that some journals charge either a submission fee, an acceptance fee, page fees or fees for use of colour images or other special media formats.
• Rights for authors - Check the journal website or their copyright form for information on author rights. Are you allowed to re-use the article after publication or to submit the post-print to the University’s research repository?
• Type of publication - Some journals only accept certain types of articles for publication.

More resources:

ISSN, publisher, language, subject, abstracting & indexing coverage, full-text database coverage, tables of contents, and reviews written by librarians on periodicals of all types: academic and scholarly journals, e-journals, peer-reviewed titles, popular magazines, newspapers, newsletters, etc.  

Comprehensive coverage of all open access scientific and scholarly journals that use a quality control system to guarantee the content.

• Cabell's directory of publishing opportunities in educational psychology and administration Call Number: Peabody Reference Z286 .E3 C323
• Vanderbilt University Institutional Repository Vanderbilt's Institutional Repository. This is a great way to gain a wider audience for your work.

A  journal's  Impact Factor  ind icates the average number of times articles from the publication have been cited over a two-year period.  The higher the journal's impact factor, the more prominent the journal is in the canon of literature.

• Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports The official entity providing a journal's impact factor.
• CiteFactor A repository of open access journals, including publication information about journals, such as impact factor.
• Altmetrics Altmetrics considers how scholarship-based activities such as blog posts, tweets, downloads, shares, and views may provide important information about the significance of a research article or other research "product." Find more information on this research guide.

Author guidelines of most journals can be found on the journal website, which can be found via Google or by using Ulrich's.

Make sure to follow the guidelines closely and prepare your submission in accordance with these guidelines. Things like word count, format of the manuscript (text, illustrations, etc), and citation style are all very important.

Make sure to also check if the journal accepts submissions on a rolling basis, or if you need to inquire with the editor first.

• Journal of scholarly publishing Provides practical advice for authors, editors and publishers for a wide range of topics.
• Tips from Editors on Getting Published

• More information on Copyright Videos include: What are Copyright and Using Others' Work
• Authors' Rights Find out more about your rights as an artist, author, or creator of any sort
• Open Access Publishing Guide from Vanderbilt Library
• << Previous: Writing Like an Academic
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Jul 12, 2024 12:55 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/litreviews

From the Editors: How to write a high-quality review

• Published: 09 July 2013
• Volume 44 , pages 547–553, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Paula Caligiuri 1 &
• David C Thomas  

15k Accesses

17 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The peer review process is widely used by academic journals, including the Journal of International Business Studies ( JIBS ), to evaluate the quality of manuscript submissions relative to the journals’ scholarly goals. Our overview suggests that the best reviews also facilitate the introduction of new and important ideas to the field. Content analysis of 156 past JIBS reviews found that the best reviews (highly rated reviews written by reviewers who won the JIBS best reviewer award in 2011 and 2012) shared many key features, including a focus on the overall contribution (potential impact) of the manuscript, a positive tone and specific suggestions for improvement. We also surveyed current JIBS action editors and found that, despite the importance of high-quality reviews for the advancement of the field, few recalled being formally trained or mentored on how to write them. To better understand the features of a good review, the editors rated the various features of the peer reviews on helpfulness, and they also rated how often these features are present in the reviews they receive. Based on the survey of action editors and the content analysis of previous reviews, this editorial offers detailed guidance for current and future reviewers on how to write helpful, developmental and possibly even award-winning peer reviews.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

The peer review process is a cornerstone for maintaining the standards of leading scholarly journals such as the Journal of International Business Studies ( JIBS ). We acknowledge the many criticisms of the process (e.g., Bedeian, 2004 ; Suls & Martin, 2009 ; Tsang & Frey, 2007 ) but agree with Miller (2006 : 425), who noted that “although this system of peer review is well accepted, it is far from perfect. Many would characterize it just as Winston Churchill characterized democracy – ‘it is the worst possible system except for all others.’ ” While perhaps not ideal, peer review is a good system and one that can be improved through the quality of the reviews written. It is in this spirit that we investigated the characteristics of the best JIBS reviews in order to offer specific guidance on how to write high-quality reviews.

JIBS is similar to other scholarly journals in its reliance on reviewer anonymity, in our case through a double-blind peer review process. The procedure at JIBS is to place into the review process the submitted manuscripts that meet the “minimum JIBS norms for fit, quality, and contribution to IB” ( JIBS Statement of Editorial Policy) ( http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/jibs_statement.html ). Specifically, all manuscripts are read by the Reviewing Editor (RE), who forwards each paper to either the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or Deputy Editor (DE), depending on the topic area. This central editorial team (RE, EIC and DE) evaluates whether or not a manuscript is well developed enough to be sent out for review, and in particular whether it lies within the scope of the journal, which covers the domain of the international business field as set out in our Statement of Editorial Policy, as well as assessing a checklist against minimum standards. Based on this initial evaluation, the EIC or DE either desk rejects the manuscript or assigns it to one of the Area Editors (or in some cases a Consulting Editor) as the action editor. Note that JIBS has a policy of desk reject and resubmit that allows authors to resubmit previously desk rejected manuscripts if they have been substantially revised according to the editor's recommendations. The initial review process is concerned not just with the screening of manuscripts for their fit and suitability for the journal, but more importantly it has the objective of assessing what might be the likely impact of a paper on the field as a whole, from the perspective of international business scholarship in general. A key aim we have for the journal review process is that it should combine constructive suggestions for revision to take account of subject and topic-specific concerns on a particular study from the viewpoint of specialists in the relevant research area, along with the objective of developing articles that have the capacity to attract interest and attention among international business scholars more widely.

Action editors review the manuscript and can either desk reject the manuscript or send it out for review. Thus, before a manuscript is seen by reviewers it has already been reviewed by three JIBS editors as to whether or not it meets the minimum standards at the journal, and for an overview of where its potential contribution to the field might lie, with the goal that the nature of this contribution will emerge more clearly through the review process. The number of reviewers that are typical in the contributing disciplines to JIBS varies. At JIBS , two or three reviewers are selected by the action editor based on the reviewers’ expertise on the submitted manuscript's topic and method and are then sent the manuscript (which has been removed of author identifying information). JIBS asks reviewers to rate the manuscript as to its overall contribution, theory development, literature review, methods (if applicable), integration and style of presentation, and to suggest to the action editor if the manuscript should be accepted, rejected or invited to revise and resubmit. We also ask that reviewers provide detailed comments to authors, and we give reviewers the opportunity to make confidential comments to the action editor, which are not shared with authors. When the reviews are received, the action editors use this information as guidance and advice in reaching their editorial decision. When the action editors receive reviews, they also rate them as to quality on a 1–5 scale according to the following:

5 – Outstanding review (exceptionally high quality): This is reserved for cases where the review is of such high quality that the individual should be a candidate for JIBS Best Reviewer Award.

4 – Very good review: This review is insightful and truly developmental.

3 – Good review (average review): This review is critical but fair, constructive and reasonably comprehensive.

2 – Acceptable (but below average) review: This review is sketchy and below average.

1 – Poor review: This review reserved for cases where the review is of such low quality that the individual should no longer be used as a JIBS reviewer.

These scores, in part, comprise the data for determining the annual JIBS best reviewer awards. For this study, we used these scores to create a database of the best-rated and not so highly rated reviews over the past 2 years. An analysis of these reviews along with a survey of JIBS Editors provided the data for this editorial. With it we hope to provide guidance for current and future reviewers on how to write helpful, developmental and possibly even award-winning peer reviews.

THE FEATURES OF THE MOST HELPFUL REVIEWS: A SURVEY OF EDITORS

To better understand the features of the most helpful reviews, we surveyed the current JIBS action editors (EIC, DE, Consulting Editors, RE, Special Issue Editors and Area Editors), asking them to provide ratings on the helpfulness of 20 features of peer reviews. These features, listed in Appendix A , were adapted from the JIBS guidelines for peer reviews ( http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/reviewer_guidelines.html ). Seventeen action editors responded.

The action editors surveyed were asked to rate each feature's helpfulness or usefulness to them as an editor. The scale ranged from 1=useless/very unimportant to 5=critical/extremely important. With the exception of one feature (The review corrects grammatical and typographical mistakes) all of the features of peer reviews were considered “helpful,” receiving scores around 4. The most helpful features – those with an average score over 4 – include:

The reviewer discloses any potential conflict of interest (usefulness mean=4.53).

The review makes plausible suggestions for improving the manuscript (usefulness mean=4.47).

The review offers advice on how problems in the manuscript could be addressed (usefulness mean=4.41).

The reviewer declines if he or she is feels unqualified to judge (usefulness mean=4.35).

The review indicates strengths (as well as weaknesses) of the manuscript (usefulness mean=4.35).

The review provides comments on the manuscript's overall contribution to the field (usefulness mean=4.24).

The review suggests alternate ways to analyze the data (usefulness mean=4.00).

Next, the action editors were asked to rate the frequency with which they observed each feature in the peer reviews they have received as editors. This scale ranged from 1=very rarely see this in reviews to 5=always see this in reviews. Across the key features, the editors report that these features “occasionally” appear in the reviews, scoring them around 3. The mean frequency scores for these most helpful features are as follows:

The review indicates strengths (as well as weaknesses) of the manuscript (frequency mean=3.44).

The review makes plausible suggestions for improving the manuscript (frequency mean=3.38).

The review provides comments on the manuscript's overall contribution to the field (frequency mean=3.37).

The review offers advice on how problems in the manuscript could be addressed (frequency mean=3.37).

The reviewer declines if he or she is feels unqualified to judge (frequency mean=3.08).

The reviewer discloses any potential conflict of interest (frequency mean=2.44).

The review suggests alternate ways to analyze the data (frequency mean=2.94).

The most helpful features were echoed in the final, open-ended question asking the action editors, “What is the most important thing a review should contain in order to be helpful to you in making an editorial decision?” Some editors listed more than one feature for a total of 30 comments. Many of the comments (11 out of 30) focused on describing the potential contribution or added value of the paper. Sample responses around this theme included:

An assessment of the contribution to the field and theory … how important are the ideas?Assess the significance of the manuscript to the literatureAn assessment of the potential contribution to the field

This indicates to us that editors are at least as concerned with introducing innovative concepts to the field as they are with quality control.

Consistent with the importance of evaluating the potential impact of the article, a number of comments (6 out of 30) focused on offering constructive and specific suggestions for improvement on theory and analyses. Sample responses around this theme included:

Information about directions for improving the manuscriptA sense of what can be done to improve the paper and what cannot be doneMake constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript

Offering ways of improving the manuscript was also reflected by the editors whose comments (7 out of 30) mentioned that it was helpful for the reviewers to point out the strengths/appropriateness and weaknesses/inappropriateness of particular analytic strategies or theoretical arguments. Sample responses around this theme included:

Identify and articulate the main strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript, both in the conceptual part and empirical partIdentification of the key shortcomingsIdentify fatal errors in research design/methods

In summary, the open-ended comments echoed the results of the survey, which focused on the importance of peer reviews identifying and helping to bring to the surface the most important contribution of the manuscript as opposed to simply erecting barriers that authors must overcome in order to see their work published. That is, while quality control is important, it is not the overriding factor that editors are looking for in a review.

THE FEATURES OF THE BEST PEER REVIEWS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS

As a complementary means of assessing the characteristics of high-quality reviews, we content analyzed the comments to authors sections of reviews received from July 2010 through June 2012 that met two criteria: (1) had quality ratings of either 4 or 5 and (2) were written by 1 of the 17 individuals who won the JIBS best reviewer award in 2011 and 2012 (10 awarded each year, 3 people won both years). Based on these criteria the JIBS Managing Editor removed identifying information and extracted the 78 reviews in this category, which comprised the best reviews received during this period. From the same 2-year time period, a random sample of 78 reviews was extracted that had quality ratings of either 1 or 2. Identifying information was removed and these reviews were included in the content analysis.

The two sets of reviews were analyzed with the aid of content analysis software (NVivo). Key terms used in coding were derived from the review of features in the Appendix , in particular a gap analysis of the delivered vs provided responses of editors, and from an exploratory word frequency analysis of the reviews. Once themes were established, segments of text ranging from a few words to several sentences were categorized as fitting the theme. The basic differences in the two sets of reviews and the main themes that emerged are the following:

The best reviews were longer. Best reviews were 1403 words on average, compared with 438 words in the less effective reviews. It is not length per se that is the important aspect here, but that longer reviewers were indicative of more complete and in-depth coverage of issues. Shorter reviews often covered as many points but in a fairly cryptic manner with little explanation. The longer reviews also tended to include full citations for the authors to consider referencing rather than offering a passing suggestion about other references (without specifics).

The best reviews did not make an obvious recommendation in the comments to authors (e.g., paper should be rejected). None of the best reviews did this, compared with 6.5% of the less effective reviews. Reviewers are provided an opportunity to make a recommendation as to the disposition of the manuscript in the evaluation form and in their confidential comments to the action editor. More often than not, reviewers do not agree on the appropriate outcome of the editorial process, and making this opinion known in comments to authors is not helpful.

The best reviews gave complete references to sources cited 17.9% of the time. The less effective reviews did this 6.5% of the time. This is just good form and indicates the kind of collegial and conversational style that is prevalent in the best reviews as discussed ahead.

The best reviews focused on the contribution or potential contribution 85% of the time. The less effective reviews did this 49% of the time. Again, this aspect of the review is most important to review quality. The best examples of this were very clear and concise statements of how the manuscript could potentially influence the field and what the reviewer found interesting or unique about the potential contribution. It is important to note that this focus was evident even in reviews where the reviewer was recommending that the manuscript be rejected.

The best reviews used a numbered or indexed format 89% of the time. The less effective reviews did this 38% of the time. Obviously, editors like this, because it makes it easier to refer to specific comments in the reviews. And it allows authors to be systematic in responses to reviewer comments.

The best reviews used a more positive tone 55% of the time and a more neutral tone 43% of the time. They used a negative tone only 2% of the time. The less effective reviews used a more positive tone 45% of the time and a more neutral tone 31% of the time. They used a negative tone 24% of the time. Some of the less effective reviews were inconsistent in tone at times (e.g., positive at outset and overly negative comments at the end). Perhaps the best way to describe the tone of the best reviews is collegial. That is, they read like a discussion between colleagues who respect each other as opposed to a restaurant review where the critic did not like the meal.

From the perspective of decisions, the opinions of the better reviews tended to align more closely with the editors’ opinions. The editors agreed with the best reviews 89% of the time and 49% with the less effective reviews. This alignment is possibly the result of the fact that the better reviewers had taken the time to become more familiar with JIBS Statement of Editorial Policy. Certainly every reviewer should be very familiar with the journal's policies before conducting a review. It does not appear that the quality of the reviews affected rejection rates, which were comparable in both sets of reviews.

The gap analysis of desired vs provided features of peer reviews indicated that the key areas on which editors focused were comments on the overall contribution to the field, advice on how problems in the manuscript could be addressed, plausible suggestions for improving the manuscript and suggestions for alternate ways to analyze the data. Content analysis of reviews based on these themes, as well as themes derived from word frequency, indicated that the best reviewers were much more focused on providing information that would be useful in surfacing the unique contribution of the manuscript as opposed to simply identifying deficiencies. And of course this is consistent with the goal of JIBS to publish research that is insightful, innovative and impactful.

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING AN EXCELLENT REVIEW

The following advice is derived from the qualitative assessment of top reviews and the survey responses of action editors on specific elements of excellent reviews. The top five are offered in the following:

Focus the review on the potential contribution : The primary issue for peer reviewers should be the extent to which the manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field of interest. In the case of JIBS , based on your knowledge of the field, identify for the editor (and author) where the potential contribution lies and what must be done to realize that potential. That is, how does or might the paper advance our collective understanding in international business from the lens of your field (e.g., marketing, finance, management)?

Offer details about the strengths and the weakness of the paper : As guardians of the knowledge creation in our respective fields, we are trained to have critical and questioning eyes. Thus, identifying weaknesses is the easiest part of the reviewer's job. However, it is the strengths of the manuscript that provide the platform for development, so it is helpful to identify the strengths of the manuscript along with the weaknesses.

Offer specific and constructive feedback for ways to address problems : The ability to critique, find fatal flaws, suggest alternative explanations and identify problems with methodology and theory are, collectively, half of the skill of great reviewers. The other, and often more difficult, half is to offer constructive suggestions on realistic ways to address a given concern ( Kohli, 2011 ).

Evaluate your objectivity and ability to review before agreeing : For obvious reasons, it is important for potential reviewers to disclose any conflict of interest that might impair their objective judgment, such as familiarity with the manuscript or a personal relationship with the authors. It is often difficult for editors to know about professional relationships between, say, former advisors and advisees, or among co-authors and colleagues. And being overly familiar with a manuscript or its authors has the potential to impair objectivity. To preserve this objectivity, reviewers are encouraged not to try to identify authors by conducting an electronic search of their posted working papers, curriculum vitae and conference presentations ( Hillman & Rynes, 2007 ). At the same time, it is also acceptable to decline to review because you do not feel as though you have the expertise to make a fair judgment on the contribution.

Improve the mechanics your review : Your review should follow a logical order. Often, although not always, the points are written in the same order of the manuscripts’ sections. It is helpful for authors (and the editors) if points are numbered, allowing responses to flow more logically. If you are suggesting additional references, add the complete reference to the review. And, please, do not indicate an editorial decision in the comments to authors.

Of course these suggestions alone are insufficient, as writing an excellent review is as much art as it is science and requires striking a balance between being positive and constructive yet critical and challenging. And it also involves offering ways of resolving research problems while respecting the objective and goals of the author. Footnote 1

IMPLICATIONS FOR GRADUATE SCHOOL TRAINING

Writing high-quality peer reviews, while critical for JIBS and other scholarly journals, is a skill rarely trained, coached or developed. Senior scholars are encouraged to mentor future potential referees “to develop and reinforce peer review skills and capabilities” ( Carpenter, 2009 : 191). Curious to learn how senior scholars learned to write reviews, we asked the action editors the open ended question, “How did you learn to write peer reviews?”

If this group of action editors is representative of the larger body of reviewers, it seems that most learn of us learn from experience, one review at a time. Most of the editors wrote that they learned how to write reviews “by doing them”; some further refined this “learning by doing,” describing that they reviewed for conferences to gain experience. Others refined “learning by doing” by reflecting on how their reviews compared with the editor's letter and other reviewers’ comments on the papers they reviewed. Many reviewers learn how to conduct reviews by mimicking the style of the most helpful reviews they have received. About two-thirds of the editors learned how to review by reading the reviews of their own papers. Some of the action editors (5 of the 17) credited their graduate school training or their advisors in preparing them for how to write a review. They recalled having sessions on how to write reviews in their PhD seminars, having to write mock reviews and receiving feedback on their early efforts.

While experience as reviewers might increase over time, it seems that we rarely receive constructive feedback on our reviews (outside of graduate school or when we request such feedback). Feedback is limited to “best reviewer” awards at one extreme and not being asked to review by the same journal twice at the other. In both cases, we might get the message, but without ever understanding what made our reviews great (or not so great). To prepare the next generation of scholars to be able to write high-quality peer reviews, we recommend the following for doctoral programs:

Offer formal training on how to write a peer review.

Offer feedback on first reviews, perhaps comparing actual reviews with practice reviews.

Encourage graduate students to review for conferences – and offer feedback their comments.

Teach an approach for continually developing reviewer skills (how to evaluate the reviews received on one's own work, how to compare one's review with other reviews for the same manuscript, how to compare one's review with the editors comments on the review conducted).

Mentor young scholars on the mechanics of how journals are managed from an editorial perspective (e.g., getting on editorial boards, the importance of conducting ad hoc reviews, the way in which reviews are rated).

Excellent reviewers are a “scarce and valuable resource” ( Marchionini, 2008 ). Northcraft (2001) found that more senior scholars with the greatest levels of expertise are less likely to agree to ad hoc reviewing. However, Rynes (2006) found a negative relationship between reviewers’ professional age and review quality and suggested that the mix of more professionally junior and senior reviewers would balance innovation with established wisdom. Whether the reviewers are senior or junior, encouraging excellence in reviews is of critical importance to continuing to advance our field with breakthrough ideas along with attention to theoretical and methodological rigor. A list of 20 review features is offered in Appendix A . These could provide a guide for the training of junior scholars to build skills as effective reviewers.

In writing this editorial we drew on the expertise of the current set of JIBS editors as well as an analysis of some of the best (and not so good) reviews by JIBS reviewers over the past 2 years. Reviewing papers for JIBS is a voluntary activity but an activity that goes to the heart of maintaining and enhancing the field of international business. It was a privilege to read some of the best reviews conducted by JIBS reviewers over the past few years and to contrast them with their more run-of-the-mill cousins. We hope our synthesis and report of this activity will be helpful as we all try to perfect our skills in this important endeavor.

We thank the JIBS EIC for reminding us of this.

Bedeian, A. G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3 (2): 198–216.

Article   Google Scholar  

Carpenter, M. A. 2009. Editor's comments: Mentoring colleagues in the craft and spirit of peer review. Academy of Management Review, 34 (2): 191–195.

Hillman, A. J., & Rynes, S. L. 2007. The future of double-blind review in management. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (4): 622–627.

Kohli, A. K. 2011. From the editor: Reflections on the review process. Journal of Marketing, 75: 1–4.

Marchionini, G. 2008. Editorial: Reviewer merits and review control in an age of electronic manuscript management systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 26 (4): 1–6.

Google Scholar  

Miller, C. C. 2006. Peer review in the organizational and management sciences: Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (3): 425–431.

Northcraft, G. B. 2001. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6): 1079–1080.

Rynes, S. L. 2006. “Getting on board” with AMJ: Balancing quality and innovation in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (6): 1097–1102.

Suls, J., & Martin, R. 2009. The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (1): 40–50.

Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (1): 128–136.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

D'Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

Paula Caligiuri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Caligiuri .

Additional information

1 Area Editors

Features of peer reviews

The review is completed in the time allotted.

The review uses the correct perspective and does not offer an editorial opinion (accept, reject, revise) in comments to the author.

The review provides suggestions for missing citations.

The review is separated into major and minor points.

The points in the review numbered or indexed in some way.

The review provides comments on the manuscript's overall contribution to the field.

The review comments on the suitability of the manuscript for JIBS .

The review indicates strengths (as well as weaknesses) of the manuscript.

The review offers advice on how problems in the manuscript could be addressed.

The review makes plausible suggestions for improving the manuscript.

The review corrects grammatical and typographical mistakes.

The review suggests alternate ways to analyze the data.

The review provides an explanation of why a particular comment was made.

The review is honest in the “comments to the author” (i.e., does not provide a different opinion to you from what is written to the authors).

The review is written in a way that is sensitive to manuscript submissions from authors whose native language is not English.

The review is written in language that is polite and respectful.

The comments are directed to the manuscript (as opposed to the author).

The review is free of personal or professional (discipline) biases.

The reviewer discloses any potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer declines if he or she is feels unqualified to judge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Caligiuri, P., Thomas, D. From the Editors: How to write a high-quality review. J Int Bus Stud 44 , 547–553 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.24

Download citation

Published : 09 July 2013

Issue Date : 01 August 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.24

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

• peer reviews
• blind reviews
• editorial process

Advertisement

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

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

5 tips for publishing in a high impact journal

April 27, 2020 | 10 min read

By Sneha Mittal Sachdeva

There are plenty of ways to get your research out into the world, from broad-scope open access journals to preprint platforms. In some instances, you may be keen to see your work published in a journal that scores highly in citation-based metrics. After all, in an age of information abundance, these metrics have become a shorthand for where to focus your limited time.

However, many researchers aren’t aware of the assessment processes at high impact journals. Here are some techniqeus and strategies you can use to ensure your work has the best chance of finding an appropriate home.

1. Ask these questions before you prepare your manuscript.

Manuscript preparation is an important cornerstone of research. There are multiple steps and goals in the manuscript preparation and its publication. However, even before you start creating the manuscript for your paper, think about the underlying messages you want to communicate and  why  you want to publish your work.

Ask yourself these questions before you begin:

Have you done something new?

Is there anything challenging in your work?

Will your results influence other researchers?

Have you provided solutions to some difficult problems?

If you can answer is “yes” to some or all of the above questions, then it’s a good time to share your research and start the preparation for your manuscript.

2. Make your manuscript publication worthy.

What makes one manuscript more effective than the other? What are the components of a good manuscript? High impact journals seek high quality manuscripts that not only contribute to the knowledge of the reader but also clearly communicate the results and impact of the research. Here are some important characteristics of a good manuscript:

Clear scientific message: The manuscript contains a scientific message that is clear, useful and exciting. A good manuscript conveys the authors’ thoughts in a logical manner so the reader arrives at the same conclusions as the author.

Manuscript format: The manuscript is constructed in the format that best showcases the authors’ material and is written in a style that transmits the message clearly.

Title and abstract: The title and abstract are very important. The title should be succinct, free of obscure abbreviations and to the point, and it should describe key content in an effective way. The abstract should be clear, interesting, understandable, accurate, specific and to the point. Ensure that your title and abstract do not misrepresent your research or mislead the reader.

What’s the story? Find a simple and concise way to tell your story through your manuscript. Ensure logical layout of arguments and flow of experiments (the chronology of the experiments is not important), and don’t forget to make use of summary statements.

3. Write a good cover letter.

When you submit to a premium journal, make sure you write a good cover letter. This is your chance to convince the editor why your research is interesting and worth a review. While a strong cover letter does not guarantee publication, a badly written letter may make the editor wonder about the quality and thoroughness of your research paper. Here are some tips to write a good cover letter:

Start your cover letter by stating why you think the paper is a good fit for this journal.

Include additional background information that is relevant but does not fit in your abstract.

Focus on answering why you think the question you set out to address is important and/or why what you found is so exciting.

Inform us if there is a controversy or competition we must know about.

Do not include the abstract, a list of past accomplishments from your lab, the details of meetings where you’ve presented this work, and feedback you might have received for your research

4. Write an effective results section.

The results section of your manuscript represents the core findings for your research. Here are some tips:

An effective results section is clear and easy to understand, features unexpected findings and provides statistical analysis of the research.

Use paragraph headings to describe concrete findings, and use the similar headings for the figure legend titles to ensure the data is easy to understand.

Tie together your results with the discussion, and make the discussion correspond to the results

5. Mind your references.

The references and acknowledgement section is very important. Ensure you give credit to all papers you referenced and to people who have been helpful in the success of your research. Here are some quick tips for this section:

Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based.

Do not use too many references.

Ensure you fully understand the material you are referencing and that it supports your work in the way you think it does.

Keep self-citations to a minimum.

Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region.

Acknowledge your advisors, financial supporters, funding bodies, suppliers who donated materials and any other people who helped you in your research process.

Webinar: How to publish in high-impact journals

Watch this  free webinar with Dr. Philip Earis opens in new tab/window , Editor-in-Chief of  Joule opens in new tab/window ,  to learn more about developing your paper for publication in premium journals.

Then you can add questions to the  Researcher Academy Mendeley group opens in new tab/window  that were not answered in the webinar. We will try to find expert answers for you.

Contributor

Sneha mittal sachdeva.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Top 10 High Impact Factor Journals

In the highly competitive arena of academic publishing, where researchers are expected to ‘ publish or perish ,’ choosing the right journal for publication is crucial. Selecting the right journal not only affects the visibility that a manuscript receives but also goes a long way in shaping careers, helping foster global collaborations, and even influencing potential funding opportunities.    

Table of Contents

How to identify the best journal to publish in?  

An important metric for assessing a journal’s credibility and standing is its Impact Factor. Researchers can calculate a journal’s impact factor by dividing the number of citations received by articles published in the journal within a specific timeframe—say two years—by the total number of cited articles published by the journal in that same period.    

Let’s delve into the practicality of calculating the Impact Factor. For instance, if we consider A as the count of citations generated by articles published in 2021 and 2022, as recorded by indexed journals during 2023, and B as the total number of articles published (citable) in 2021 and 2022, we can easily calculate the Impact Factor for 2023 using the formula: A/B. This method empowers researchers to evaluate the reputation, reliability, and reach of a journal within a specific field of study.    

Why is the Impact Factor so important?  

Journals with a high Impact Factor are recognized for their ability to attract attention from fellow researchers, institutions, policymakers, industry professionals and even the broader public. The Impact Factor is a stamp of approval that indicates that a research study is noteworthy and can enhance or add to the credibility of a researcher. It signals to peers, employers, and funding agencies that your academic contributions are of high quality and worthy of attention. (3)(4)   

However, journals with a high Impact Factor are not easy to publish in. They usually have stringent criteria for evaluating manuscripts. Submissions to journals with a high Impact Factor undergo a rigorous peer-review process that is often daunting and difficult. Despite these challenges, the benefits of publishing in high-impact-factor journals cannot be overstated.  

What is a good Impact Factor?  

Therefore, when assessing the highest Impact Factor journals, it is a good idea for researchers to consider various other elements, too. In fields or subfields with journals with high Impact Factors, the benchmark for what is regarded as a good Impact Factor naturally tends to be higher. On the other hand, in fields with lower Impact Factor journals, the standard for a good Impact Factor may be lower. So, it is essential to interpret Impact Factor statistics in relative terms. Ultimately, what constitutes a good Impact Factor is subjective and can depend on individual or institutional perspectives.(7)   

  Choosing the Right Journal

Since picking the appropriate journal impacts how your work is perceived. Also, for the credibility of your research work, it is essential to match your study with the journal’s focus and audience. This increases the likelihood of your research being accepted. Another thing that matters is the status and reputation of the journal among your peers and the field of your study. Just evaluating the journal impact fact is not enough. Researchers must also examine where the journal is indexed, how long it has been available, whether it is peer-reviewed, its open-access policies, and ethical standards. Together, these factors indicate the journal’s credibility and reach among the scientific and academic community. (1)(2)     

Top 10 highest Impact Factor journals

For most researchers, searching for and identifying the highest impact factor journals can be overwhelming. To make it easier, here is a curated list of the top 10 highest-Impact Factor journals in different subjects:  

While this list can be helpful, researchers need to adopt a nuanced approach when choosing journals with a high impact factor. They must also take into consideration the various other factors mentioned above to ensure that the selected platform maximizes the impact and integrity of their research and work.(8)   

References:  

• Considerations when choosing a journal – University of Cambridge  
• Assessing Journal Credibility – Emory University  
• Journal Impact – Research Impact – Stanford Medicine  
• Should you care about Journal Impact Factor? – Scientific Writing  
• Journal Impact Factor (IF) – University of Illinois at Chicago  
• What is a good impact factor? – Paperpile  
• What is a Good Impact Factor for a Journal? – American Journal Experts  
• Top 8 Highest Impact Factor Journals: Top High Impact Journals Now – Academia Insider  

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Top 7 Tried and Tested Paraphrasing Techniques

How to Make a Graphical Abstract for Your Research Paper (with Examples)

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

How to choose the right journal

Oxford Academic

Learn more about the world of academic publishing—from open access to peer review, accessibility to getting published—with our Publishing 101 series on the OUPblog.

• By Megan Taphouse and Laura Richards
• July 17 th 2024

With approximately 30,000 academic journals worldwide , how do you determine which one is the best fit for your research? There are likely to be many suitable journals in your field, but targeting the right journal is an important decision, as where you choose to publish can influence the impact and visibility of your work.

As a first step, consider: what is your publishing goal?

Defining your goal helps you identify which journals are best suited to achieve your aims. Authors publish for various personal and professional reasons, so consider what’s important for your career, professional development, or research program. Some potential goals could include:

• Advancing knowledge in your specialist field, and contributing to the development of research or debate, so that others can build upon your ideas or results
• Disseminating your findings to a wide or interdisciplinary audience, or having an impact beyond academia
• Adhering to your funder or institutional requirements
• Supporting a learned society or organisation in your subject area
• Using a particular article type or media format to convey your findings

Secondly, what is important to you in the publishing process?

As with goals, this is often personal. This could be:

• Publishing quickly
• A particular type of peer review process
• An easy or straightforward submissions process
• The option to transfer rejected papers to related journals
• Assistance with editing

Next, make a shortlist of journals to compare

Look for journals that publish on your topic. It can be helpful to ask colleagues and mentors for their recommendations, and you can also consider which journals you regularly read or cite yourself. Once you have your shortlist, you can start to check which meet your criteria and more easily rank your options.

T hings to compare and consider

Manuscript suitability – scope and topic.

Does the journal publish your article type and research topic? Seth Schwartz recommends browsing a recent issue of the journal to determine whether any of the articles are similar in scope or type to the paper you are planning to write. Checking the editorial board can also help you to assess the subjects and topics the journal focuses on, and the journal’s aims and scope information or current call for papers will indicate the breadth and depth of the topics covered and whether your article would be a good fit.

Considering the impact and reach

There are a variety of metrics available, including Journal Impact Factor and Altmetrics. Some apply at the journal level and some at the article level . It’s important to pay attention to the metrics that best reflect your publishing goal. For example, if you want your research to be widely read, Altmetrics can help you track the impact on specific areas like policy documents or conversations on social media.

When weighing up journal reputation and metrics, Schartz suggests selecting a journal that matches the significance of your research findings or theory. We can think in terms of “three general levels of contribution—major, moderate, and incremental. Matching the contribution of your work with the prestige level of your target journals may maximize your chances of receiving an invitation to revise and resubmit your paper, and hopefully an eventual acceptance for publication.”

Readership and audience

A 2019 bioRxiv survey found that academics prioritize a journal’s readership when choosing where to publish. You should check journal websites for readership stats and reflect on your own publishing goals: for a specific audience, ask colleagues about their go-to journals; for broader reach, look for journals with a global audience and strong social media presence.

Abstracting and indexing databases also play a significant role in how discoverable your article is, and therefore how many people will find and read it. Well-known databases include Scopus , PubMed , Web of Science , and Google Scholar, but there are also many subject-specific databases.

Ethics and Policies

In recent years there has been an increase in deceptive or “predatory” journals. Niki Wilson describes that while the individual practices can vary, these journals “generally prioritize self-interest and profit over research integrity… and often take fees without performing advertised services”. Before submitting your paper, it is important to take a close look at its website and review its policies, the expertise of the editorial board, and peer review processes—a reputable journal will disclose all this information publicly. It is also a good idea to check if the journal is a member of COPE , or if they ensure that they practice high standards of publication ethics . The free Think.Check.Submit service can help to steer you towards quality and trusted journals.

Peer review

A reputable journal will practice rigorous peer review, and there are various peer review models are available to journals , each with different merits. Peer review helps to guarantee the publication of high-quality research, by assessing the validity, significance, and originality of research. Peer review also benefits you as the author, as it helps to improve the quality of your manuscript and detects errors before publication. In our surveys of OUP authors, the quality of peer review is consistently among the top three factors authors prioritise when choosing a journal.

A good journal will explain its peer review process, and details will normally be available on the ‘instruction to authors’ page. At OUP, we refer all editors to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers, which encourages journals to publish their review procedures.

Author experience

Your experience as an author will vary widely by journal, publisher, and subject area. Many journals are improving processes to make publishing smoother and faster, with format-free submissions, efficient submission systems, quick decisions, strong editorial support, and awards. Consider which options align with your priorities and seek feedback on recent experiences from your network.

Publication models and complying with funder policies

There are multiple publication models to choose from, including fully open access (often known as gold OA), hybrid publishing, and self-archiving (often known as green OA). A growing number of funding agencies and institutions stipulate the publishing license that their academics must use, so familiarise yourself with any limitations or restrictions you need to adhere to and check the journals on your shortlist comply. Ensure you understand (and are able to meet) the publication charges , or see if your institution has a Read and Publish agreement .

Check your shortlist of journals against your criteria and the points above. If you are unsure and need additional information about a journal, consider contacting the journal editors or editorial office for clarification. Remember, do not submit your article to more than one journal at a time. If discovered, this will normally result in the automatic rejection of your manuscript.

If you are ready to publish your findings, take a look at our extensive list of high-quality academic journals or delve into our journal author information page for more insight into our publishing process.

Featured image by Anne Nygård via Unsplash .

Megan Taphouse is a Marketing Executive in the author marketing team.

Laura Richards is a Senior Marketing Manager in the author marketing team.

• Editor's Picks
• Online products
• Publishing 101
• Series & Columns

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

There are currently no comments.

Leave a Comment

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

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