example of a research paper with a literature review

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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 March 20, 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, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

15 Literature Review Examples

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write an essay introduction (with examples)..., similarity checks: the author’s guide to plagiarism and..., what is a master’s thesis: a guide for..., authorship in academia: ghost, guest, and gift authorship, should you use ai tools like chatgpt for..., what are the benefits of generative ai for..., how to avoid plagiarism tips and advice for..., plagiarism checkers vs. ai content detection: navigating the..., what are the different types of research papers, how to make translating academic papers less challenging.

Literature Review Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Literature Review Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction . We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template . This includes:

• The literature review opening/ introduction section
• The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory)
• The empirical research
• The research gap
• The closing section

We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master’s-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can access the free resources mentioned in this video below.

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Literature review example: frequently asked questions, is the sample literature review real.

Yes. The literature review example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. It has not been edited in any way.

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every literature review will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a literature review here .

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

The best place to find more examples of literature review chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance. 

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point. 

How do I get the literature review template?

You can access our free literature review chapter template here .

Is the template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish. 

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

What will it take for you to guide me in my Ph.D research work?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 20 March 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

‘Woah, this is affecting me’: why I’m fighting racial inequality in prostate-cancer research

Career Q&A 20 MAR 24

So … you’ve been hacked

Technology Feature 19 MAR 24

Four years on: the career costs for scientists battling long COVID

Career Feature 18 MAR 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Is the Mars rover’s rock collection worth $11 billion?

News 19 MAR 24

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

Career Column 15 MAR 24

Peer-replication model aims to address science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Postdoctoral Associate

Our laboratory at the Washington University in St. Louis is seeking a postdoctoral experimental biologist to study urogenital diseases and cancer.

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University School of Medicine Department of Medicine

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Postdoctoral Fellow-Proteomics/Mass Spectrometry

Location: Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA Department: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Tulane University School of Med...

New Orleans, Louisiana

Tulane University School of Medicine (SOM)

Open Faculty Position in Mathematical and Information Security

We are now seeking outstanding candidates in all areas of mathematics and information security.

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

GREAT BAY INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY： Institute of Mathematical and Information Security

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

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

The university is situated in the heart of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area, a highly active and vibrant region in the world.

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

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

Quick links

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

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

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

7 Writing a Literature Review

Hundreds of original investigation research articles on health science topics are published each year. It is becoming harder and harder to keep on top of all new findings in a topic area and – more importantly – to work out how they all fit together to determine our current understanding of a topic. This is where literature reviews come in.

In this chapter, we explain what a literature review is and outline the stages involved in writing one. We also provide practical tips on how to communicate the results of a review of current literature on a topic in the format of a literature review.

7.1 What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide a synthesis and evaluation  of the existing literature on a particular topic with the aim of gaining a new, deeper understanding of the topic.

Published literature reviews are typically written by scientists who are experts in that particular area of science. Usually, they will be widely published as authors of their own original work, making them highly qualified to author a literature review.

However, literature reviews are still subject to peer review before being published. Literature reviews provide an important bridge between the expert scientific community and many other communities, such as science journalists, teachers, and medical and allied health professionals. When the most up-to-date knowledge reaches such audiences, it is more likely that this information will find its way to the general public. When this happens, – the ultimate good of science can be realised.

A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method.

In the article Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Marco Pautasso explains the importance of literature reviews:

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. 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. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. 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. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way (Pautasso, 2013, para. 1).

An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1.

Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]

Watch this video created by Steely Library at Northern Kentucky Library called ‘ What is a literature review? Note: Closed captions are available by clicking on the CC button below.

Examples of published literature reviews

• Strength training alone, exercise therapy alone, and exercise therapy with passive manual mobilisation each reduce pain and disability in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
• Traveler’s diarrhea: a clinical review
• Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

7.2 Steps of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a very challenging task. Figure 7.2 summarises the steps of writing a literature review. Depending on why you are writing your literature review, you may be given a topic area, or may choose a topic that particularly interests you or is related to a research project that you wish to undertake.

Chapter 6 provides instructions on finding scientific literature that would form the basis for your literature review.

Once you have your topic and have accessed the literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Next, we look at these important cognitive skills student scientists will need to develop and employ to successfully write a literature review, and provide some guidance for navigating these stages.

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are three essential skills required by scientists  and you will need to develop these skills if you are to write a good literature review ( Figure 7.3 ). These important cognitive skills are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The first step in writing a literature review is to analyse the original investigation research papers that you have gathered related to your topic.

Analysis requires examining the papers methodically and in detail, so you can understand and interpret aspects of the study described in each research article.

An analysis grid is a simple tool you can use to help with the careful examination and breakdown of each paper. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of  an analysis grid. When filling in the grid, the aim is to draw out key aspects of each research paper. Use a different row for each paper, and a different column for each aspect of the paper ( Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show how completed analysis grid may look).

Before completing your own grid, look at these examples and note the types of information that have been included, as well as the level of detail. Completing an analysis grid with a sufficient level of detail will help you to complete the synthesis and evaluation stages effectively. This grid will allow you to more easily observe similarities and differences across the findings of the research papers and to identify possible explanations (e.g., differences in methodologies employed) for observed differences between the findings of different research papers.

Table 7.1: Example of an analysis grid

Table 7.3: Sample filled-in analysis grid for research article by Ping and colleagues

Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.

Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.

You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.

A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.

Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).

Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).

During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.

When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.

When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.

7.3 Writing your literature review

Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).

The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.

Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.

The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.

In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:

This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.

Introduction

The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review

Body of literature review

The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.

It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.

It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.

Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.

Copyright note:

• The quotation from Pautasso, M 2013, ‘Ten simple rules for writing a literature review’, PLoS Computational Biology is use under a CC-BY licence. 
• Content from the annotated article and tables are based on Schubert, MM, Astorino, TA & Azevedo, JJL 2013, ‘The effects of caffeinated ‘energy shots’ on time trial performance’, Nutrients, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2062–2075 (used under a CC-BY 3.0 licence ) and P ing, WC, Keong , CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41 (used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence ). 

Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.

How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 9:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Search strategies and Databases
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to organise the review
• Library summary
• Emerald Infographic

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Sample Literature Review on Critical Thinking (Gwendolyn Reece, American University Library)
• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Standalone Literature Reviews

• Attitudes towards the Disability in Ireland
• Martin, A., O'Connor-Fenelon, M. and Lyons, R. (2010). Non-verbal communication between nurses and people with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Diabilities, 14(4), 303-314.

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: Search strategies and Databases
• Next: Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 4:07 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3
• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: FAMU Writing Center >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

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.

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

Article Review

Article reviews are an essential part of academic article writing , providing an opportunity to evaluate and analyze published research. A well-written review can help readers understand the simple subject matter and determine the value of the article. In this article, we’ll cover what is an article review, provide step-by-step guidance on how to write one, and answer some common questions.

1. Journal Article Review Form

Size: 84 KB

2. Article Review & Critique

Size: 420 KB

3. Formal Article Review

Size: 188 KB

4. Article Review Guideline

Size: 157 KB

5. Book and Article Reviews

Size: 284 KB

6. Format for Review Article

Size: 71 KB

7. Scientific Article Review

Size: 258 KB

8. Critical Reviews of Journal Articles

Size: 50 KB

9. Research Experience Article Review

Size: 31 KB

10. Review for Article Psychological Bulletin

11. Article Format Guide Review

Size: 449 KB

12. Value Of Review Article

Size: 51 KB

13. Articles for Peer-Review Publications

Size: 181 KB

14. Law Review Article Selection Process

15. Creative Article Review

Size: 46 KB

16. Club Article Review

Size: 77 KB

17. Review of Research Articles

Size: 152 KB

What is an Article Review

An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article’s main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject, and suggestions for improvement.

How to Write an Article Review

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it’s an essential skill for students and researchers alike. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you write an effective article review:

Choose the article to review

Select an article that is relevant to your subject and interests you. Make sure the article is recent, reputable, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Read the article carefully

Read the article thoroughly and take notes as you go. Pay attention to the author’s thesis statement, research question, methodology, and findings.

Identify the main points and key arguments

Determine the main points and arguments of the article. Look for evidence that supports the author’s thesis statement.

Evaluate the article’s methodology and research design

Evaluate the methodology and research design used in the article. Determine if the research methods were appropriate and effective in answering the research question.

Assess the article’s strengths and weaknesses

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Evaluate the quality of the evidence presented and the logic of the arguments made.

Write a summary of the article

Summarize the article in your own words. Include the main points, key arguments, and findings of the article.

Write the main body of the review

In the main body of the review, analyze and evaluate the article. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article and provide evidence to support your claims.

Conclude with a final evaluation and recommendations for improvement

Conclude your review with a final evaluation conclusion of the article. Highlight its strengths and weaknesses and provide recommendations for improvement.

Proofread and edit the review

After completing your review, proofread and edit it carefully. Check for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Make sure your review is clear, concise, and well-organized.

What is the difference between an article review and a literature review?

A literature review is a comprehensive analysis of published research on a particular subject, while an article review focuses specifically on one article.

Can I use first-person sentences in an article review?

It depends on the guidelines given by your instructor or the publication you are submitting the review to. Generally, using the third person is more appropriate for academic writing sentences .

Should I include the abstract of the article in my review?

Yes, including a brief summary of the article’s abstract is usually a good idea.

How long should an article review be?

The length of an article review varies depending on the subject and the publication requirements. Generally, a review should be between 500 and 1000 words.

Writing an effective article review requires careful analysis, evaluation, and critique of the article. By following our step-by-step guide, you can develop the skills to write a comprehensive and insightful review that provides valuable information to readers. Whether you’re reviewing an academic article, book or manuscript , or any other subject, the tips and techniques outlined here will help you write an effective article review.

AI Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, equity in park green spaces: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review from 2014-2023.

• 1 Ecological Technique and Engineering College, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai, China
• 2 Pan Tianshou College of Architecture, Art and Design, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

With the global increase in population and the accelerated process of urbanization, the equitable access to park green spaces by diverse communities has become a growing concern. In order to provide an overview of the developmental trends, research focal points, and influencing factors in the study of equity in park green spaces, this paper employs bibliometric analysis and the visualization software CiteSpace to systematically analyze relevant literature in the Web of Science core database from 2014 to December 2023. The findings reveal an increasing emphasis on the research of equity in park green spaces, delineated into two distinct phases: a period of gradual exploration (2014–2018) followed by rapid development (2018 to present). Key nations contributing to research in this domain include China, the United States, and Germany. Currently, the research focus in this field primarily centers on the analysis of park green space equity based on primary social fairness, analysis of park green space equity based on vulnerable groups, and the relationship between park green spaces and health. The influencing factors of park green space equity mainly involve regional economic factors and government planning, as well as residents’ economic capabilities and racial discrimination. Future research directions could include studying park green space equity among different demographic groups, emerging assessment methods and data, park green space equity based on perceived accessibility, and the relationship between park green space equity and surface temperature.

1 Introduction

In accordance with the latest United Nations report, over 56% of the global population currently resides in urban areas, with an anticipated projection that urban populations will constitute 70% of the world’s total population by 2050 ( UN-Habitat, 2022 ). Throughout the process of urbanization, extensive land development has inflicted severe damage upon the ecological environment, resulting in a reduction of biodiversity and a decline in air quality. Research indicates that urban parks and green spaces have yield diverse benefits by providing a secure habitat and favorable living conditions for various species, preserving the ecological balance of urban areas, improving air quality ( Kroeger et al., 2014 ), and mitigating the urban heat island effect ( Donovan and Butry, 2009 ).

As integral components of urban ecosystems and pivotal platforms for recreational activities, park green spaces play a crucial role in ensuring the sustainable development of cities. However, the widening gap between socioeconomic classes has led to conspicuous inequalities in the distribution and utilization of these spaces among different societal groups. The equity of park green spaces has gradually become a significant indicator for measuring social sustainability, attracting widespread attention from academia, government bodies, and even the planning sector. For instance, the European Environment Agency recommends that urban residents should have access to green spaces within a 15-min walk, equivalent to approximately 900–1,000 m ( Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995 ). Some scholars propose the 3–30-300 rule, suggesting that everyone should be able to see at least 3 mature trees from their home; there should be a tree canopy cover of at least 30% nearby; and individuals should reside within a 300-m radius of high-quality public green spaces (covering at least 0.5 ha) ( Browning et al., 2024 ). In the United Kingdom, urban residents are suggested to have 2 ha of urban green supply within a 300-m radius of their residences ( Handley et al., 2003 ). Nevertheless, some of these recommendations for park green spaces provision may be impractical, and assessing equity standards may entail diverse needs within different cultural backgrounds and regional environments, rendering the evaluation of equity in park green spaces complex and multifaceted.

Scientific knowledge mapping is a visual representation of the development process and structural relationships within a specific field of knowledge. CiteSpace is an information visualization software designed to analyze scientific knowledge maps of literature related to a particular research topic. It generates visual maps by selecting specific information such as authors, institutions, keywords, or co-citations, allowing for the analysis of the current status, hotspots, and forefront directions of research in the field ( Chen, 2017 ). Although scholars have conducted analyses of citation and co-occurrence relationships among relevant literature using CiteSpace, these analyses have been limited to a simple interpretation and factual presentation of scientific knowledge graphs and bibliometric results, with constraints on the detailed content analysis of specific articles. With the increasing emphasis on research regarding park green spaces and their equity, a growing body of research outcomes is emerging. An analysis of the current status, hotspots, influencing factors, and dynamic frontiers of equity in park green spaces is beneficial for understanding the theoretical underpinnings and trends of this field, contributing significantly to the advancement of global sustainable development.

Therefore, this paper utilizes bibliometric analysis and content analysis, employing CiteSpace for literature measurement and visualization, to quantitatively analyze the current state of equity in park green spaces research. It seeks to summarize and categorize research hotspots, influencing factors, and frontiers. The objectives of this study include: 1) providing a comprehensive review and extension of the concept and content of equity in park green spaces; 2) quantifying and elucidating the publication timeline, contributing countries, research hotspots, and themes in equity of park green space research; 3) delving into the influencing factors of equity in park green space; 4) highlighting key research areas within the three aforementioned directions; 5) acknowledging the limitations, future prospects, and challenges of this study. The results aim to offer valuable insights for the future global planning and management of park green spaces, providing theoretical guidance for advancing equity in park green space research.

2 Conceptual

2.1 the concept of equity in park green spaces, 2.1.1 park green spaces.

This paper, following the definition of Park Green Spaces outlined in China’s ‘Classification Standard for Urban Green Spaces’ (CJJT85-2017) ( Standard for Classification of Urban Green Space, 2017 ), defines Park green spaces as areas open to the public primarily for recreational purposes, while also serving ecological, landscape, cultural, educational, and emergency evacuation functions, with certain recreational and service facilities.

2.1.2 Equity in park green spaces

In the 1970s, significant inequities emerged in western countries, with growing disparities based on gender, class, and ethnicity. William Lucy’s ( Lucy, 1981 ) “Five Subconcepts” and Bruce E. Wicks’ ( Wicks and Crompton, 1986 ) “Three Criteria” were representative theoretical frameworks in the study of fairness during that period. They argued that the allocation of public resources should consider both quantity and location, ensuring equal opportunities for everyone based on meeting minimum needs standards. Towards the end of the 20th century, in response to the social phenomenon of class stratification, scholars such as Chun Man Cho (2003) ( Cho, 2004 ) proposed that Park green spaces should be distributed equitably among different spatial units, income levels, racial and political groups, with due consideration to the specific needs of marginalized populations. From these scholars’ arguments, we can observe a shift in the concept of fairness from mere equality towards justice. This signifies a deepening understanding of fairness and reflects the current societal development, which involves the differentiation of social group needs.

2.2 Content and development of equity in park green spaces

The public nature of park green spaces determines their recognition as a form of public service. Therefore, this article draws on the research on equity in public services to clarify the content of equity in park green spaces. The following Table 1 is a compilation of research findings from scholars:

TABLE 1 . Scholars’ perception of the equity of park green spaces.

Based on the historical stages of modern societal development, this article categorizes the content of equity in park green spaces into three phases, as illustrated in Figure 1 :

1. Before the 1970s, international mainstream research focused on territorial equality, specifically the comparison of per capita park green space indicators across different regions.

2. From the 1970s to the 1990s, attention shifted to distribution balance, specifically the issue of spatial distribution balance of urban park green spaces in different geographical areas.

3. After the end of the 20th century, research on social equity differentiated into two directions: primary social equity, focusing on the differences in the ability and opportunities of different groups to access park green space services, and advanced social equity, advocating for providing park green spaces precisely based on the needs of different groups.

FIGURE 1 . The main phase of the equity in park green space study.

The article highlights that identifying the components of equity also requires corresponding to the historical stages of socio-economic development. Exploring the historical reasons behind the formation of the concept of equity is beneficial for cities in different countries and regions to recognize the current issues regarding equity based on their respective developmental stages. This understanding can assist in formulating practical and actionable strategies for future development. Therefore, it becomes essential to analyze the social context associated with these studies: before the 1970s, western societies were in a period of post-war reconstruction with government-led elite decision-making. The focus was on increasing the quantity and layout of park green spaces. However, since the 1970s, western societies have transitioned towards postmodernity, challenging elite decision-making and giving more importance to the actual needs of the public. Nevertheless, this stage also had its limitations: the understanding of public needs was relatively simplistic, and studies on the accessibility of park green spaces and the formulation of public policies often relied on a basic assumption that easy transportation would meet the public’s needs. Since the end of the 20th century, sociological research has become more complex, with social stratification and cultural diversification leading to diversified demands, and the differentiation of needs among different social groups. Identifying the needs of different groups and providing more precise services for them has become the focus of research. Besides historical reasons, the equity phased development is also associated with advancements in science and technology. In the 1990s and 2000s, continuous enhancements and optimizations of GIS technology and analytical models, along with the refinement of big data and Internet maps, made spatial fairness analysis feasible across diverse demographics. Scholars began exploring from the standpoint of various demographic needs. With the expansion of Chinese cities and an aging population, the Chinese government has proposed a strategy for common prosperity through the equalization of basic public services, incorporating green equity into residential living circle planning. The research on equity has also rapidly progressed from the first and second stages towards the third stage.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 search methodology.

This study draws upon the Web of Science (WOS) core collection database as the primary data source. In pursuit of a comprehensive compilation of relevant literature on equity in park green space, a refined search strategy was formulated by incorporating synonymous terms associated with parks, green spaces, and equity. After several adjustments, the ultimate search string adopted was TS= (“park green space*" OR “urban green space*" OR “urban park*" OR “green space*") AND (“equity*" OR “justice*" OR “accessibility*"). The selected document types were restricted to “Article” and “Review Article”. The temporal scope spans from 2014 to December 2023, with the search conducted on 10 December 2023, 1,168 articles were retrieved through the search.

3.2 Article inclusion criteria

To ensure the quality and relevance of the retrieved articles, each of the three authors conducted a detailed examination of the titles and abstracts of every potential article. Articles meeting the following inclusion criteria were then downloaded:

1. The study focused on park green space, encompassing various types such as comprehensive parks, community parks, and recreational gardens (According to China’s ‘Classification Standard for Urban Green Spaces’ CJJT85-2017 (2017), a comprehensive park refers to an area with an area ≥5 h m 2 , suitable for various outdoor activities, and equipped with comprehensive recreational and supporting management service facilities.);

2. The content addressed issues related to fairness, accessibility, spatial justice, or other relevant aspects of park green space;

3. The article was published in English and had full-text availability.

Articles not meeting these criteria were excluded from the analysis. The data collection, screening, and analysis adhered to the outlined evaluation criteria, and any disputed articles were thoroughly discussed among all co-authors until a consensus was reached. Finally, 333 articles met the inclusion criteria ( Figure 2A ), comprising 319 articles and 14 reviews ( Figure 2B ).

FIGURE 2 . Bibliometric analysis. (A) Flowchart for screening retrieved articles. (B) Number and type of articles.

3.3 Bibliometric analysis combined with content analysis

This article will utilize CiteSpace 6.2.4 and employ both bibliometric analysis and content analysis methods to comprehensively illustrate the current research status and development trends of park green space equity from multiple perspectives. The specific structure of this paper is outlined as follows (see Figure 3 ). Firstly, in Section Four, a bibliometric analysis utilizing CiteSpace is employed to examine publication timelines, contributing countries, and high-frequency keywords, accompanied by brief explanations. Subsequently, Sections Five and Six adopt content analysis to systematically review selected literature in terms of research hotspots and influencing factors. Finally, Section Seven analyzes the limitations, prospects, and challenges of the study.

FIGURE 3 . Flowchart of research methodology.

3.4 CiteSpace parameters

The bibliometric analysis of the dataset was conducted using CiteSpace 6.2.4. The “Full Record and Cited References” option was selected. Subsequently, the source data from the Web of Science (WOS) database was exported in “Plain text file” format and imported into CiteSpace. The parameter settings were configured as follows: ‘Time Slicing = From 2014, JAN To 2023, DEC' (The time range of the literature.), “Node Types = Country OR Keyword” (Selecting to conduct either country of publication analysis or keyword analysis.), “Pruning = Pathfinder AND Pruning sliced networks AND Pruning the merged network” (Trimming each slice and merging networks to highlight important network structures). All other parameters were kept at their default values.

4 Bibliometric review of equity in park green spaces

4.1 bibliometric analysis, 4.1.1 annual publication trend.

From 2014 to the present, based on the analysis of publication timelines (see Figure 4 ), the research can be categorized into the following two major phases:

• Exploratory Phase (2014–2018): This period, also referred to as the foundational research phase, witnessed a gradual fluctuation and growth in the annual publication volume of articles related to equity in park green space. Following a substantial period of applied research and foundational consolidation, the fundamental concepts and measurement methodologies of equity in park green space have essentially crystallized.

• Rapid Development Phase (2019-Present): The period from 2019 to 2023 (264 articles) represents nearly four times the number of articles from 2014 to 2018 (69 articles), there has been an exponential surge in publication volume, owing to the availability of refined network data from sources such as big data and internet mapping. Scholars have commenced endeavors to analyze the equity of parks and green spaces from the perspective of resident demand. Grounded in GIS analysis, this phase has evolved to encompass four major categories: container models, coverage models, gravity models, and two-step mobility search models (refer to Table 2 ). The significance of equity in park green space has progressively gained prominence.

FIGURE 4 . Annual publications from 2014 to 2023.

TABLE 2 . The summary of accessibility evaluation models.

4.1.2 Study countries

The node types were set to “country” (Node Types = country), and a temporal chart of publishing countries, delineated by the top 10 contributors, was generated (see Figure 5 ). In this network, N = 57 and E = 73, indicating scholarly contributions from 57 countries and regions globally with the formation of 73 collaborative relationships. In the publication country time zone graph, each country’s vertical alignment with the years represents the year of their first publication. The size of a country’s node corresponds to the total number of publications. Figure 5 reveals that several countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, initiated research in this field by publishing articles in 2014, followed by Chinese scholars in 2015. Notably, since 2017, Chinese scholars have exhibited a remarkable surge in publications (168), surpassing the United States and experiencing a substantial growth (see Figure 6 ). China’s total publication count is nearly three times that of the second-ranking United States (56) and more than five times that of the third-ranking Germany (30). However, as indicated by Table 3 , China demonstrates lower centrality, signifying a deficit in international collaboration. Spain exhibits the highest centrality, maintaining close academic exchanges with nations worldwide, followed by Australia and the United States (The closer the collaboration between one country and others, the higher its centrality).

FIGURE 5 . Time-zone view of contributing countries.

FIGURE 6 . Number of publications annually of the top five countries.

TABLE 3 . Top 10 countries in the field of equity in park green spaces from 2014 to 2023.

4.2 Analysis of research hotspots

4.2.1 keyword co-occurrence analysis.

The node types were designated as ‘keyword’ (Node Types = keyword), and a co-occurrence chart of high-frequency keywords (with a frequency of 15 or more) was generated (see Figure 7 ). The co-occurrence analysis graph primarily exists in the form of nodes and connecting lines. When keywords appear in the same papers, there is a connection between the two nodes. The size of a node indicates the frequency of occurrence of that keyword. The varying sizes of different-colored rings representing a specific keyword correspond to the volume of publications for different years, with the pink ring indicating high centrality of the keyword. The analysis of keyword co-occurrence serves to unveil research hotspots and frontiers within this domain. In addition to thematic terms, high-frequency keywords predominantly encompass the following categories:

• Health and Physical Activity: “health (89 occurrences),” “public health (27 occurrences),” “mental health (17 occurrences),” “healthcare (19 occurrences),” “physical activity (95 occurrences).”

• Ecological Environment: “ecosystem services (65 occurrences),” “environment (24 occurrences),” “exposure (15 occurrences).”

• Human Element: “people (16 occurrences).”

FIGURE 7 . Keyword co-occurrence analysis.

These findings indicate that, as research delves deeper, amidst the intensification of urbanization and environmental degradation, future studies are likely to witness an increase in research focused on the relationship between the ecological services of parks and green spaces and public health. Emphasis will particularly be placed on understanding the needs of different demographic groups.

4.2.2 Keyword clustering timeline analysis

Building upon the keyword co-occurrence analysis ( Figure 8 ), Selecting ‘K' AND ‘LLR,’ we conducted clustering of literature keywords, using the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) algorithm to identify top-ranking terms as cluster labels. The keyword cluster timeline provides an analytical summary of the primary research directions in the development of equity in park green space over time (see Figure 8 ). In this representation, 15 lines correspond to 15 clusters, and the position of each circle denotes the year of the first appearance of the respective keyword. Arc-shaped connecting lines indicate instances where two keywords co-occurred in the same article. The weighted mean silhouette (S = 0.8794) and modularity (Q = 0.7237) obtained from the cluster analysis signify a significant clustering structure (If S value is greater than 0.5, then the clustering result is considered reasonable; Q value between 0.3 and 1 indicates that the group structure divided by the clustering analysis is significant, with higher values being better.), indicating rational results ( Chaomei, 2005 ). As shown in Figure 8 , the 15 axes represent 15 clusters, with the position of each circle indicating the year of the first appearance of the respective keyword. Arc-shaped connecting lines represent instances where these two keywords appeared in the same paper.

FIGURE 8 . Keyword clustering timeline map.

From Figure 8 , it is evident that clusters such as #2 environmental equity, #3 environmental justice, #5 walking distance, and #13 green spaces have consistently been the research hotspots in the field of equity in park green space from 2014 to the present. Additionally, clusters like #0 mobile phone data, #1 geographically weighted regression, #4 variable catchment size, and #12 environmental gentrification, although starting later, have sustained ongoing research, indicating scholars’ enduring interest in exploring equity in park green space using various data and models, including the associated phenomenon of gentrification. The cluster #15 land surface temperature appeared later, has the shortest duration, and is still in the early stages of development, not yet forming symbiotic relationships with other clusters.

5 Research hotspots

Based on the focal points identified in the keyword co-occurrence analysis and keyword clustering timeline analysis summarized in Section 4.2 , the research highlights in the field of park green space equity can be categorized into three main areas: analysis of park green space equity based on primary social fairness, analysis of park green space equity focusing on vulnerable groups, and the relationship between park green spaces and health.

5.1 Analysis of park green space equity based on primary social fairness

Based on the content analysis and extension in Section 2.2 , it is evident that the analysis of park green space equity based on primary social fairness primarily focuses on the disparities in the ability and opportunity of different groups to access park green space services. The analytical approach is based on the multidimensional characteristics of park green spaces, such as quantity, quality, and type, as well as the demographic attributes of social groups within spatial units, to assess the ease of access to park green spaces for different social groups (whether different social groups can fairly enjoy access to park green spaces), thus determining equity.

The conclusions can be broadly categorized into two main types (see Table 4 ). The most common finding is the inequity of park green spaces, manifested in lower accessibility for the elderly, children, immigrants, and ethnic minority groups. Areas with higher housing prices tend to have higher accessibility to park green spaces, and park green space accessibility is higher in city centers compared to suburbs. However, very few studies fail to confirm the existence of park green space inequity. Some scholars attribute this to the different spatial scales used in research. Common research scales include streets, neighborhoods, and residential areas. Different spatial scales within the same city may yield different results, especially when the area of aggregation units far exceeds residents’ walking distances, which may lead to erroneous conclusions. Therefore, accessibility analysis should be conducted at finer scales whenever possible.

TABLE 4 . Analysis of park green space equity based on primary social fairness.

5.2 Analysis of park green space equity focusing on vulnerable groups

The focus of research on park green space equity has gradually shifted towards socially vulnerable groups such as low-income individuals, migrant workers, as well as physiologically vulnerable groups including children, the elderly, and women. Studies suggest that residents with lower socioeconomic status (SES) spend more time using parks and green spaces ( Shen et al., 2017 ). Moreover, Black residents have access to more parks than White residents, but the per capita park area is lower for Black residents. This phenomenon is attributed to parks in predominantly Black communities being more crowded, especially in metropolitan areas ( Julia et al., 2021 ). Faced with this inequality, if the government constructs a large number of parks and green spaces in areas lacking greenery, it can make surrounding residences more attractive, leading to an increase in housing prices, escalating living costs, and even displacement of original residents, ultimately resulting in gentrification ( Boone et al., 2009 ). Noteworthy examples include the High Line park in the United States ( Brisman, 2012 ) and the Cheonggyecheon Stream restoration project in South Korea ( Lim et al., 2013 ). To address this issue, scholars propose the “Just green enough” strategy, advocating for the construction of small-scale, dispersed parks and green spaces rather than large expanses ( Curran and Hamilton, 2012 ).

Chinese scholars, however, present two divergent views on this matter. One perspective suggests that vulnerable groups are gradually moving away from parks and green spaces. For instance, research indicates that park accessibility is negatively correlated with building age and positively correlated with housing prices ( Yu et al., 2020 ). Community parks built in earlier years exhibit higher accessibility, but in recent housing development, the elderly are increasingly distancing themselves from parks and green spaces. The other perspective contends that compared to ordinary residents, vulnerable groups such as immigrants, the unemployed, and residents of welfare housing are more likely to live in areas with better park usage rights ( Nesbitt et al., 2019 ). Two main reasons account for this: first, it is related to the urban green space planning strategy of Shanghai, which emphasizes even distribution of public green space; second, vulnerable groups reside in high-rise buildings in the city center, and although they have better park green space accessibility, their living conditions are extremely poor due to poor economic conditions. Concurrently, with the increasingly severe aging population in China, the elderly face a serious shortage of park green space usage. Studies reveal that different modes of transportation and varying park green space sizes can influence the degree of fairness in elderly people’s access to these spaces ( Meng et al., 2020 ). Addressing this issue, some scholars advocate for greater government leadership in planning, giving priority to the interests of vulnerable groups ( Hewko et al., 2002 ).

5.3 The relationship between park green space and health

The research is primarily categorized into two main areas: the relationship between park green space accessibility and health, and the relationship between park green space ecological services and health.

According to Table 5 , research on the relationship between park green space accessibility and health in China mainly focuses on large cities such as Beijing and ice and snow cities such as Harbin, as well as in Western countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Health data is primarily obtained through questionnaire surveys, face-to-face interviews, and publicly available databases. Some scholars have studied the relationship between park green space equity and resident health from the perspectives of accessibility, distance, and coverage. The majority of research findings indicate a positive effect of park green space equity on residents’ psychological and physiological health ( Wolch et al., 2014 ; Dadvand et al., 2016 ; Rigolon, 2016 ). Park green space accessibility is negatively correlated with the incidence of various diseases among residents ( Kaczynski and Henderson, 2007 ), particularly cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases ( Haiya, 2011 ). However, individual studies suggest no correlation between park green space accessibility, proportion, supply-demand ratio, and health.

TABLE 5 . The association between accessibility of PGS and health.

The relationship between park green space ecological services and health has been explored by scholars. Some researchers ( Zhang et al., 2021c ) have conducted a review and summary of international research findings, outlining the promotion benefits of green spaces on health, factors influencing the effectiveness of health impacts, and mechanisms by which green spaces promote health. Others have delved into the physiological, psychological, and social correlations between green spaces and human health, proposing the concept of green medicine and discussing auxiliary approaches to maintaining the physical and mental health of urban residents ( Kaczynski et al., 2008 ).

6 Analysis of factors influencing equity in park green spaces

The factors influencing equity in park green spaces are both significant and complex, primarily involving regional economy and government planning, as well as residents’ economic capacity.

6.1 Regional economy and government planning

The influence of regional economy on the equity of park green spaces is primarily manifested in the level of supply. In China, as a vast country with uneven development, significant disparities exist between urban and rural areas, as well as between eastern and western regions, and between the north and south. In economically developed areas, local governments often possess more financial resources, enabling them to provide more park green space resources, thereby ensuring relatively sufficient supply in these areas ( Li et al., 2018 ). For instance, the central and southeastern coastal regions typically maintain higher levels of park green space coverage. However, in areas with harsh geographical conditions or relatively underdeveloped economies, such as mountainous or desert regions, constraints on park green space construction are considerable, resulting in inadequate supply, and in some cases, levels even below the national average ( Chen and Wang, 2013 ; Zhao et al., 2013 ). Conversely, in Western countries like the United States, park green space construction is typically funded through mechanisms such as property taxes. Nevertheless, due to limited local funds, there is often a need to seek financial support from non-profit organizations, institutions, and federal governments at the national and state levels ( Harnik and Barnhart, 2015 ). This competitive allocation of funds may exacerbate inequalities ( Joassart-Marcelli et al., 2011 ), with affluent areas receiving more support, further aggravating disparities in park green space distribution.

Government planning plays a crucial role in the spatial layout and construction of park green spaces. Unlike Western countries, where park green spaces are typically planned and constructed by the government and open to the public free of charge, in China, traditional planning tends to rely on metrics like per capita park area to gauge the level of supply. Consequently, park green spaces are often densely concentrated in areas with high population density, while areas with lower population density experience shortages ( Liyan et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, some local governments, in pursuit of political achievements and prestige, may excessively prioritize increasing park green space coverage, investing heavily in superficial projects, thereby neglecting the actual needs and usage patterns of park green spaces ( Zhao et al., 2013 ). This detachment between park green space planning and residents’ demands exacerbates the disparities between planning intentions and community needs ( Chen et al., 2017 ).

6.2 The economic capacity of residents

In China, park green spaces are often closely linked to high-quality housing, with high-quality parks typically adjacent to upscale residences, while lower-quality parks are connected to relatively lower-end housing. Higher-income groups usually have the ability to purchase premium housing, thus enjoying access to better-quality park green spaces. Conversely, lower-income groups may only reside in environments with poorer-quality housing, leading to disparities in park green space utilization among residents of different socioeconomic statuses, further exacerbating spatial inequalities in park green space distribution ( Chen et al., 2020 ; Wu and Rowe, 2022 ). Studies in Western countries have also confirmed this observation, showing that in capitalist societies, higher socioeconomic status (SES) groups typically have access to larger and higher-quality park green spaces, while lower SES groups often lack equivalent opportunities ( Zhu and Zhang, 2008 ; Alessandro and Jeremy, 2018 ; 2020 ; Browning et al., 2022 ).

Racial discrimination and segregation are also significant factors contributing to the inequitable distribution of park green spaces ( Wolch et al., 2014 ; Rigolon, 2016 ). Historically, due to the dominant position of white people, public facilities such as parks were predominantly located in affluent areas, while industrial zones and high-density housing were situated in areas inhabited by people of color and low-income individuals, a legacy that continues to have profound effects. Racial discrimination and segregation make it more difficult for communities of color to access park green spaces ( Dai, 2011 ), even when they reside closer to them. Issues such as smaller park areas, poor quality, and environmental pollution discourage residents from utilizing these spaces ( Alessandro and Jeremy, 2018 ), exacerbating the inequities in park green space distribution ( Wolch et al., 2013 ).

7 Prospects and challenges

7.1 opportunities for future research.

(1) Equity of Parks and Green Spaces for Different User Groups: Future research should focus on the fairness of park green space usage among different demographic groups, especially vulnerable populations such as the elderly ( Guo et al., 2019 ), children, and low-income individuals.

(2) Emerging Evaluation Methods and Data: Future studies can further integrate the latest information technologies, such as mobile signaling data ( Xiao et al., 2019 ; Heikinheimo et al., 2020 ), big data, Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) ( Brown et al., 2014 ), and the latest fairness evaluation criteria, such as the 3–30-300 rule ( Browning et al., 2024 ), to accurately simulate the diverse and complex transportation patterns and travel habits of urban residents. This approach will enable precise identification of the needs and behaviors of different population groups.

(3) Park green space equity based on perceived accessibility: Perceived accessibility refers to residents’ subjective perceptions and evaluations of the accessibility of park green spaces, emphasizing their perception and satisfaction with the level of accessibility ( Sugiyama et al., 2008 ; Mass et al., 2009 ). Studies have shown that actual spatial accessibility does not completely match perceived accessibility ( Wang et al., 2015 ; Crouse et al., 2017 ; Xie et al., 2018 ; Huang and Lin, 2023 ), especially in areas with low perceived accessibility within cities ( Crouse et al., 2017 ). This difference is mainly attributed to factors such as residents’ familiarity with the objective environment, the completeness of accessibility measurement methods, and individual differences among residents. Some scholars have studied perceived accessibility by comparing the time or distance required to reach destinations. For example, some studies have compared perceived distances to actual distances for several different destinations and found that destinations closer to home are often overestimated, meaning that the perceived distance is greater than the actual distance ( Wang et al., 2015 ). In the future, it is important to focus on the subjective perceptions of different groups and further refine research on park green space equity.

(4) Equity in park green space and Surface Temperature: In recent years, many regions globally have faced extreme high-temperature weather. Numerous studies have confirmed that parks and green spaces can effectively alleviate the urban heat island effect. Therefore, providing sufficient and equitable access to parks for residents is considered crucial for sustainable urban development. Scholars have already conducted relevant studies, such as in Dongguan, China, to explore whether the spatially equitable distribution of parks and green spaces contributes to mitigating the urban heat island effect and improving the urban thermal environment ( Chao et al., 2022 ). Other researchers have assessed the carbon reduction potential of 65 urban parks based on the cumulative outdoor carbon reduction model of park surface temperature reduction curves, conducting a network analysis of the spatial accessibility of cooling zones in Da Xi Park ( Du et al., 2023 ). Air temperature might be more salient, even if harder to implement. Future research should delve deeper into the specific relationship between parks and green spaces and surface temperature. For instance, investigating the scale of parks required within certain land areas to effectively reduce surface temperature, and exploring the intricate connection between the equitable distribution of parks and green spaces and surface temperature.

7.2 Limitations of the study

• This study has limitations regarding the selection of databases: The literature was derived from the WOS core database. The choice of databases may result in the omission of some relevant literature, posing a risk of literature gaps. Future research could consider expanding the scope of database selection, such as incorporating Scopus, PubMed, and others, to obtain a more comprehensive literature review.

• Due to the large sample size of the literature, specific quantitative analysis of the research results was not feasible. Subsequent studies may consider increasing the criteria for selecting literature to reduce the research sample, thereby making the analysis results more persuasive.

These limitations should be addressed and rectified in subsequent research to enhance the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the study. Additionally, a more detailed content analysis of relevant literature is warranted to gain a deeper understanding of the current status and trends in the field of equity in park green space.

8 Conclusion

To unveil the research focal points, developmental trends, and influencing mechanisms in the domain of equity in park green space, this study employed CiteSpace software to analyze research spanning from 2014 to December 2023. The key findings are summarized as follows:

(1) The investigation into equity in park green space has gained increasing prominence, delineated into two major phases: a gradual exploration phase (2014–2018) and a rapid development phase (2018 to the present). The primary nations engaged in this research arena include China, the United States, and Germany. Notably, China’s cumulative publication output is nearly three times that of the second-ranked United States (56) and over five times that of the third-ranked Germany (30). However, collaborative efforts with other nations remain limited.

(2) The current research in this field mainly focuses on three key areas: analysis of park green space equity based on primary social fairness, analysis of park green space equity focusing on vulnerable groups, and the relationship between park green spaces and health.

(3) The influencing factors of park green space equity mainly involve two major aspects: regional economy and government planning, and residents’ economic capability and racial discrimination.

(4) In the future, research can be directed towards several areas including park green space equity among different groups, emerging evaluation methods and data, park green space equity based on perceived accessibility, and the relationship between park green space equity and surface temperature.

In conclusion, this study presents novel insights and recommendations for advancing research on equity in park green space. The outcomes offer valuable references for global park green space planning and management, contributing theoretical support for the further development of equity-focused research in this domain.

Author contributions

LY: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing–review and editing, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing–review and editing. XJ: Data curation, Software, Writing–original draft, Data curation, Software, Writing–original draft. JZ: Writing–review and editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education, grant number Y202146282.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Adhikari, B., Delgado-Ron, J. A., Van Den Bosch, M., Dummer, T., Hong, A., Sandhu, J., et al. (2021). Community design and hypertension: walkability and park access relationships with cardiovascular health. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 237, 113820. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113820

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alessandro, R., and Jeremy, N. (2018). What shapes uneven access to urban amenities? Thick injustice and the legacy of racial discrimination in denver’s parks. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 41 (3), 0739456X1878925. doi:10.1177/0739456X18789251

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alessandro, R., and Jeremy, N. (2020). Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Stud. 57 (2), 402–420. doi:10.1177/0042098019849380

Ayala-Azcárraga, C., Diaz, D., and Zambrano, L. (2019). Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landsc. Urban Plan. 189, 27–35. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.005

Bao, Z., Bai, Y., and Geng, T. (2023). Examining spatial inequalities in public green space accessibility: a focus on disadvantaged groups in england .

Google Scholar

Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., and Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: an environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 99 (4), 767–787. doi:10.1080/00045600903102949

Brisman, A. (2012). An elevated challenge to ‘broken windows’: the High Line (New York). Crime, Media, Cult. Int. J. 8 (3), 381. doi:10.1177/1741659012443235

Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., and Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 121, 34–44. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006

Browning, M. H. E. M., Locke, D. H., Konijnendijk, C., Labib, S. M., Rigolon, A., Yeager, R., et al. (2024). Measuring the 3-30-300 rule to help cities meet nature access thresholds. Sci. Total Environ. 907, 167739. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167739

Browning, M. H. E. M., Rigolon, A., Ogletree, S., Wang, R., Klompmaker, J. O., Bailey, C., et al. (2022). The PAD-US-AR dataset: measuring accessible and recreational parks in the contiguous United States. Sci. Data 9 (1), 773. doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01857-7

Chang, Z., Chen, J., Li, W., and Li, X. (2019). Public transportation and the spatial inequality of urban park accessibility: new evidence from Hong Kong. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 76, 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.012

Chao, X., Guangdong, C., Qianyuan, H., Meirong, S., Qiangqiang, R., Wencong, Y., et al. (2022). Can improving the spatial equity of urban green space mitigate the effect of urban heat islands? An empirical study. Sci. total Environ. 841, 156687. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156687

Chaomei, C. (2005). CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57 (3), 359–377. doi:10.1002/asi.20317

Chen, B., Nie, Z., Chen, Z., and Xu, B. (2017). Quantitative estimation of 21st-century urban greenspace changes in Chinese populous cities. Sci. Total Environ. 609, 956–965. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.238

Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2, 1–40. doi:10.1515/jdis-2017-0006

Chen, W. Y., and Wang, D. T. (2013). Urban forest development in China: natural endowment or socioeconomic product? Cities 35, 62–68. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.06.011

Chen, Y., Yue, W., and La Rosa, D. (2020). Which communities have better accessibility to green space? An investigation into environmental inequality using big data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 204, 103919. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103919

Cho, C. M. (2004). Study on effects of resident-perceived neighborhood boundaries on public services accessibility & its relation to utilization: using Geographic Information System, focusing on the case of public parks in Austin, Texas .

Coppel, G., and Wüstemann, H. (2017). The impact of urban green space on health in Berlin, Germany: empirical findings and implications for urban planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 167, 410–418. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.015

Crouse, D. L., Pinault, L., Balram, A., Hystad, P., Peters, P. A., Chen, H., et al. (2017). Urban greenness and mortality in Canada's largest cities: a national cohort study. Lancet Planet. Health 1 (7), e289–e297. doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30118-3

Curran, W., and Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environ. 17 (9), 1027–1042. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.729569

Dadvand, P., Bartoll, X., Basagaña, X., Dalmau-Bueno, A., Martinez, D., Ambros, A., et al. (2016). Green spaces and General Health: roles of mental health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 91, 161–167. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.029

Dai, D. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to intervene? Landsc. Urban Plan. 102 (4), 234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002

Donovan, G. H., and Butry, D. T. (2009). The value of shade: estimating the effect of urban trees on summertime electricity use. Energy Build. 41 (6), 662–668. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.01.002

Du, C., Jia, W., and Wang, K. (2023). Valuing carbon saving potential of urban parks in thermal mitigation: linking accumulative and accessibility perspectives. Urban Clim. 51, 101645. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101645

Fang, L., Zhang, D., Liu, T., Yao, S., Fan, Z., Xie, Y., et al. (2021). A multi-level investigation of environmental justice on cultural ecosystem services at a national scale based on social media data: a case of accessibility to Five-A ecological attractions in China. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 124923. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124923

Fian, L., White, M. P., Thaler, T., Arnberger, A., Elliott, L. R., and Friesenecker, M. (2023). Inequalities in residential nature and nature-based recreation are not universal: a country-level analysis in Austria. Urban For. Urban Green. 85, 127977. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127977

Guo, S., Song, C., Pei, T., Liu, Y., Ma, T., Du, Y., et al. (2019). Accessibility to urban parks for elderly residents: perspectives from mobile phone data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 191, 103642. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103642

Haiya, J. (2011). Advance in the equity of spatial distribution of urban public service in western countries .

Handley, J., Slinn, P., Barber, A., Baker, M., Jones, C., and Lindley, S. (2003). Accessible natural green space standards in towns and cities: a review and toolkit for their implementation .

Harnik, P., and Barnhart, K. (2015). Parks as community development: when it comes to gritty cities, conserving pristine land is not the only way to create places . Editor D. T. T Washington.

Heikinheimo, V., Tenkanen, H., Bergroth, C., Järv, O., Hiippala, T., and Toivonen, T. (2020). Understanding the use of urban green spaces from user-generated geographic information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 201, 103845. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103845

Hewko, J., Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., and Hodgson, M. J. (2002). Measuring neighbourhood spatial accessibility to urban amenities: does aggregation error matter? Environ. Plan. A 34 (7), 1185–1206. doi:10.1068/a34171

Hou, Y., Chen, X., Liu, Y., and Xu, D. (2023). Association between UGS patterns and residents' health status: a report on residents' health in China's old industrial areas. Environ. Res. 239, 117199. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.117199

Houlden, V., Weich, S., and Jarvis, S. (2017). A cross-sectional analysis of green space prevalence and mental wellbeing in England. BMC Public Health 17 (1), 460. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4401-x

Huang, W., and Lin, G. (2023). The relationship between urban green space and social health of individuals: a scoping review. Urban For. Urban Green. 85, 127969. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127969

Iraegui, E., Augusto, G., and Cabral, P. (2020). Assessing equity in the accessibility to urban green spaces according to different functional levels .

Joassart-Marcelli, P., Wolch, J., and Salim, Z. (2011). Building the healthy city: the role of nonprofits in creating active urban parks. Urban Geogr. 32 (5), 682–711. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.32.5.682

Julia, R., Christiane, B., Julia, W., and André, C. (2021). Socioeconomic differences in walking time of children and adolescents to public green spaces in urban areas—results of the German environmental survey (2014–2017). Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 18 (5), 2326. doi:10.3390/ijerph18052326

Kabisch, N., and Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122, 129–139. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016

Kaczynski, A. T., and Henderson, K. A. (2007). Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leis. Sci. 29 (4), 315–354. doi:10.1080/01490400701394865

Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., and Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am. J. public health 98 (8), 1451–1456. doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.129064

Kim, Y., Corley, E. A., Won, Y., and Kim, J. (2023). Green space access and visitation disparities in the phoenix metropolitan area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 237, 104805. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104805

Kroeger, T., Escobedo, F. J., Hernandez, J. L., Varela, S., Delphin, S., Fisher, J. R. B., et al. (2014). Reforestation as a novel abatement and compliance measure for ground-level ozone. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (40), E4204–E4213. doi:10.1073/pnas.1409785111

Leng, H., Li, S., Yan, S., and An, X. (2020). Exploring the relationship between green space in a neighbourhood and cardiovascular health in the winter city of China: a study using a health survey for Harbin .

Li, F., Wang, X., Liu, H., Li, X., Zhang, X., Sun, Y., et al. (2018). Does economic development improve urban greening? Evidence from 289 cities in China using spatial regression models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (9), 541. doi:10.1007/s10661-018-6871-4

Li, H., Ta, N., Yu, B., and Wu, J. (2023). Are the accessibility and facility environment of parks associated with mental health? A comparative analysis based on residential areas and workplaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 237, 104807. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104807

Lim, H., Kim, J., Potter, C., and Bae, W. (2013). Urban regeneration and gentrification: land use impacts of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul's central business district. Habitat Int. 39, 192–200. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.12.004

Lin, D., Sun, Y., Yang, Y., Han, Y., and Xu, C. (2023). Urban park use and self-reported physical, mental, and social health during the COVID-19 pandemic: an on-site survey in Beijing, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 79, 127804. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127804

Liotta, C., Kervinio, Y., Levrel, H., and Tardieu, L. (2020). Planning for environmental justice - reducing well-being inequalities through urban greening. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 47–60. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.017

Liu, D., Kwan, M.-P., and Kan, Z. (2021). Analysis of urban green space accessibility and distribution inequity in the City of Chicago. Urban For. Urban Green. 59, 127029. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127029

Liyan, X., Yin, H., and Fang, J. (2023). Evaluating the supply-demand relationship for urban green parks in Beijing from an ecosystem service flow perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 85, 127974. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127974

Lucy, W. (1981). Equity and planning for local services. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 47 (4), 447–457. doi:10.1080/01944368108976526

Maas, H., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., and Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. community health 63 (12), 967–973. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.079038

Meng, G., Bingxi, L., Yu, T., and Dawei, X. (2020). Equity to urban parks for elderly residents: perspectives of balance between supply and demand. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 17 (22), 8506. doi:10.3390/ijerph17228506

Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., Sheppard, S. R. J., and Lu, Y. (2019). Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 181, 51–79. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007

Noordzij, J. M., Marielle, A. B., Joost Oude, G., and Frank, J. V. L. (2020). Effect of changes in green spaces on mental health in older adults: a fixed effects analysis. J. Epidemiol. community health 74 (1), 48–56. doi:10.1136/jech-2019-212704

Pope, D., Tisdall, R., Middleton, J., Verma, A., Van Ameijden, E., Birt, C., et al. (2018). Quality of and access to green space in relation to psychological distress: results from a population-based cross-sectional study as part of the EURO-URHIS 2 project. Eur. J. Public Health 28 (1), 39–38. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckx217

Rahimi, A., Davatgar Khorsand, E., Breuste, J., and Karimzadeh, H. (2023). Gender justice in green space use in relation to different socio-economic conditions in Tabriz, Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 99, 104973. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2023.104973

Rao, Y., Zhong, Y., He, Q., and Dai, J. (2022). Assessing the equity of accessibility to urban green space: a study of 254 cities in China .

Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 153, 160–169. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017

Shen, Y., Sun, F., and Che, Y. (2017). Public green spaces and human wellbeing: mapping the spatial inequity and mismatching status of public green space in the Central City of Shanghai. Urban For. Urban Green. 27, 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.018

Standard for Classification of Urban Green Space (2017). Standard for classification of urban green space . Beijing, China: China Architecture & Building Press .

Stanners, D. A., and Bourdeau, P. F. (1995). Europe's environment: the Dobrís assessment .

Sugiyama, A., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., and Owen, N. (2008). Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. community health 62 (5), e9. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.064287

Tamosiunas, A., Grazuleviciene, R., Luksiene, D., Dedele, A., Reklaitiene, R., Baceviciene, M., et al. (2014). Accessibility and use of urban green spaces, and cardiovascular health: findings from a Kaunas cohort study. Environ. Health 13 (1), 20. doi:10.1186/1476-069x-13-20

Tian, M., Yuan, L., Guo, R., Wu, Y., and Liu, X. (2021). Sustainable development: investigating the correlations between park equality and mortality by multilevel model in Shenzhen, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 75, 103385. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.103385

Un-Habitat (2022). World cities report 2022: envisaging the future of cities seeks .

Wang, D., Brown, G., Zhong, G., Liu, Y., and Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015). Factors influencing perceived access to urban parks: a comparative study of Brisbane (Australia) and Zhongshan (China). Habitat Int. 50, 335–346. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.032

Wicks, B. E., and Crompton, J. L. (1986). Citizen and administrator perspectives of equity in the delivery of park services. Leis. Sci. 8 (4), 341–365. doi:10.1080/01490408609513080

Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., and Fehrenbach, J. (2013). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geogr. 26 (1), 4–35. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.26.1.4

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., and Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125, 234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

Wu, L., and Kim, S. K. (2021). Health outcomes of urban green space in China: evidence from Beijing. Sustain. Cities Soc. 65, 102604. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102604

Wu, L., and Rowe, P. G. (2022). Green space progress or paradox: identifying green space associated gentrification in Beijing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 219, 104321. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104321

Xiao, Y., Wang, D., and Fang, J. (2019). Exploring the disparities in park access through mobile phone data: evidence from Shanghai, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 181, 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.013

Xie, B., An, Z., Zheng, Y., and Li, Z. (2018). Healthy aging with parks: association between park accessibility and the health status of older adults in urban China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 43, 476–486. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.010

Yang, H., Chen, T., Zeng, Z., and Mi, F. (2022). Does urban green space justly improve public health and well-being? A case study of Tianjin, a megacity in China. J. Clean. Prod. 380, 134920. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134920

Yang, H., Wen, J., Lu, Y., and Peng, Q. (2023). A quasi-experimental study on the impact of park accessibility on the mental health of undergraduate students. Urban For. Urban Green. 86, 127979. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127979

Yu, S., Zhu, X., and He, Q. (2020). An assessment of urban park access using house-level data in urban China: through the lens of social equity. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 17 (7), 2349. doi:10.3390/ijerph17072349

Zhan, D., Zhang, Q., Kwan, M.-P., Liu, J., Zhan, B., and Zhang, W. (2022). Impact of urban green space on self-rated health: evidence from Beijing. Front. Public Health 10, 999970. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.999970

Zhang, J. (2023). Inequalities in the quality and proximity of green space exposure are more pronounced than in quantity aspect: evidence from a rapidly urbanizing Chinese city. Urban For. Urban Green. 79, 127811. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127811

Zhang, J., Cheng, Y., and Zhao, B. (2021a). Assessing the inequities in access to peri-urban parks at the regional level: a case study in Chinas largest urban agglomeration. Urban For. Urban Green. 65, 127334. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127334

Zhang, J., Cheng, Y., and Zhao, B. (2021b). How to accurately identify the underserved areas of peri-urban parks? An integrated accessibility indicator. Ecol. Indic. 122, 107263. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107263

Zhang, J., Feng, X., Shi, W., Cui, J., Peng, J., Lei, L., et al. (2021c). Health promoting green infrastructure associated with green space visitation. Urban For. Urban Green. 64, 127237. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127237

Zhang, J., Yu, Z., Cheng, Y., Chen, C., Wan, Y., Zhao, B., et al. (2020). Evaluating the disparities in urban green space provision in communities with diverse built environments: the case of a rapidly urbanizing Chinese city. Build. Environ. 183, 107170. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107170

Zhang, L., Chen, P., and Hui, F. (2022a). Refining the accessibility evaluation of urban green spaces with multiple sources of mobility data: a case study in Shenzhen, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 70, 127550. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127550

Zhang, S., Yu, P., Chen, Y., Jing, Y., and Zeng, F. (2022b). Accessibility of park green space in wuhan, China: implications for spatial equity in the post-COVID-19 era. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 5440. doi:10.3390/ijerph19095440

Zhang, Y., Van Dijk, T., Tang, J., and Berg, A. E. V. D. (2015). Green space attachment and health: a comparative study in two urban neighborhoods. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health 12 (11), 14342–14363. doi:10.3390/ijerph121114342

Zhao, J., Chen, S., Jiang, B., Ren, Y., Wang, H., Vause, J., et al. (2013). Temporal trend of green space coverage in China and its relationship with urbanization over the last two decades. Sci. Total Environ. 442, 455–465. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.014

Zhu, P., and Zhang, Y. (2008). Demand for urban forests in United States cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 84 (3), 293–300. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.005

Keywords: park green space, equity, citespace, China, review

Citation: Yan L, Jin X and Zhang J (2024) Equity in park green spaces: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review from 2014-2023. Front. Environ. Sci. 12:1374973. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1374973

Received: 23 January 2024; Accepted: 07 March 2024; Published: 19 March 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Yan, Jin and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lijie Yan, [email protected]

Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments Research Paper

Introduction.

The topic of this study is the prevention of suicide attempts leading to the death of patients and medical personnel in emergency department. The main concern of the study is the fact that patient or staff suicide has a high chance of occurring in the emergency department, and effective measures must be taken to prevent such cases. The emergency department must comply with all safety measures, including for people with mental health problems. However, suicide can occur due to a chaotic environment, high workload, confirmation of the diagnosis, and lack of care.

Providing timely intervention and protection for patients and staff exhibiting behavioral despair is a challenge in the emergency department due to a shortage of staff and supplies. The main goal of this study is to develop a system for immediate response and suicide prevention in the emergency department. To develop a system, it is necessary to find ways to recognize early signs of suicidal behavior. The latest statistical data and theoretical literature are used to confirm the significance and relevance of the study.

Theoretical Base Justification

Research needs to focus on a theoretical framework that provides statistical and descriptive data regarding suicide attempts in emergency departments. It is necessary to rely on existing approaches in assessing the suicidality of individual groups of people and the overall indicator. These data are required to develop appropriate scoring models to reduce the level of suicidal risk. The theoretical basis for communication with individuals who are at risk of suicidal behavior is necessary to justify the measures to reduce the number of suicides, providing an understanding of the reasons for such cases.

A separate body of the studied literature concerns the specifics of suicidal behavior among medical personnel in the United States. One concept for further study is post-traumatic stress disorder, described in the theoretical literature. Turning to such a source will allow the research to rely on the possible prerequisites for suicidal behavior in more detail. Literature on the management of suicidal tendencies is needed to develop a future strategy for help and prevention. It is necessary to draw on the literature on suicide and mental illness among physicians, including the emergency department. From such studies, it is possible to trace the main risk factors for an increase in suicides and develop a strategy for leveling them. It is worth emphasizing that the work used both general studies of suicidal behavior and private ones, concerning high risks of suicides in emergency departments.

Significance and Relevance of the Problem

Suicide is one of the most common causes of death in the United States, and therefore is a global problem that requires special attention. A lot of research has been devoted to reducing suicidal risks, but the specificity of suicides in the emergency department has not yet been clearly and precisely defined. The research problem is relevant, since the topic of suicide is extremely important, and the protection of patients and doctors should be a main task. The emergency room should be the safest place possible, and identifying the causes of increased risk and finding ways to resolve them should be a priority. The study will make a significant contribution to the practice of patient care, as it will allow the development of a rapid response system to ensure the safety of clients. The development of a system for identifying and reducing risks will be an additional layer of protection. The study will develop an effective system that promotes the safety of doctors. In this way, public health will become safer for all parties involved.

Literature Review

Basic concepts.

The main concepts of the studied literature include the risks of developing traumatic and suicidal behavior in patients and doctors, the specifics of the dynamics in the emergency department, and the methodology of work and possible solutions to this problem. All researchers recognize the high risks of increased suicidal behavior. For patients, the risks may be associated with stress and adverse news, or a severe course of illness. The risk of suicide in doctors increases due to high workload, high responsibility, stress and reduced motivation. Young and old people are most at risk of forming suicidal behavior. The problem requires immediate intervention and the development of a concept for patients and medical staff protection.

Generalization on the Subject of Suicide

Medical staff and patients in emergency departments have a high rate of suicidal behavior associated with a complex and multifactorial phenomenon. A study by Canner et al. (2018) attempts to recognize the causes of the high number of suicide attempts resulting in the death of patients and staff in emergency departments and to propose preventive solutions. Young people aged 15–19 were the most affected by age demographics, while women were the most affected in terms of gender (Canner et al., 2018). Older people may be at a separate risk group due to a greater number of comorbidities, affecting the moral state.

Emergency Department

Researchers highlight the seriousness of the problem of increased suicidal risk in the emergency department. Individuals presenting to the emergency department show symptoms of intentional self-harm and suicidal behavior. A study by Canner et al. (2018), using samples from the National Emergency Management Services (NEDS), found that between 2006 and 2013, there were 3,567,084 suicide attempts associated with emergency room visits. The results of the study inform of the severity of emergency department-related self-harm among patients who have been attending hospitals over the years (Canner et al., 2018). A further research question should concern causative factors and indicators of suicide among patients who have been in the emergency department.

The main risk group among patients are the elderly and young people. Older people are more receptive to changing situations due to greater somatic receptivity. Costanza et al. (2020) describe why older people visiting emergency departments are a high-risk factor for suicide based on enrollment cohorts. Psychiatric comorbidities are common among the elderly and play a significant role (Costanza et al., 2020). The high cost of emergency hospitalization causes depression and suicidal thoughts in older patients. Costanza et al. (2019) shows that the elderly are at high risk due to comorbidities and existing health complications. Drawing on the literature, the study will propose technical and policy solutions for managing the prevalence of suicide among patients following emergency department visits.

Medical Professionals

Studies have shown that not only patients visiting emergency rooms are at high suicidal risk. Stehman et al. (2019) found that emergency physicians are at the highest risk of suicide among healthcare workers. Burnout is a major cause of other psychological problems that lead to suicide. Intolerance for errors in emergency departments, irregular work hours, and duty expose emergency personnel to high rates of burnout. Although burnout is a psychological syndrome, it is not the only risk factor for suicidal thoughts in emergency room staff.

Determining the factors behind high suicide rates among emergency room workers will highlight the administrative and environmental aspects that lead to high suicide rates. An evidence-based review by Harvey et al. (2019) highlights that physicians’ unregulated work environment, workload, support organizations, and mental well-being have led to an increase in reports of suicide. Harvey et al. (2019) provide an overview of comprehensive aspects of the physician workplace, ethical and mental stability, ranging from training to organizational level interventions. DeLucia et al. (2019) found that suicide rates among healthcare workers are affected by workplace stressors and traumatic events. Emergency medical workers deal with critically injured patients, which can be highly psychologically traumatic experience.

Research Context, Venue and Methodology

The basis of research on the topic of suicidal risks among patients and doctors in the emergency department is statistics. Canner et al. (2018) and Costanza et al. (2020) provide statistics on the prevalence of suicide among patients leaving the emergency department and the underlying causes. The researches highlight possible ways to reduce the existing problem. Using the virtual collaborative suicide assessment and management system is a viable tool to promote technology-assisted care to reduce suicide rates among patients and emergency department staff (Dimeff et al., 2020). Both studies by Dimeff et al. (2020) and DeLucia et al. (2019) concluded that screening for symptoms of suicidal behavior and getting to the emergency room contributes to thoughts of self-harm among patients. All of the studies take place in the emergency department and report the same high suicidal risk. The methodology includes mainly quantitative studies to identify the causes of suicide and increased risk. Likewise, further research will rely on statistical data to identify possible solutions. An effective tool is the satisfaction survey of patients and medical employees.

Design and Methodology

Methodology.

To conduct the research, a clear methodology is needed to defend the general concepts of the proposed study to reduce suicidal risks. Firstly, the study involves the use of a quantitative method. It is proposed to compile and conduct a survey on suicidal risks among patients and medical personnel of the emergency department. This method will identify the real causes and gradually eliminate them. It is necessary to record the number of people in a depressed emotional state and analyze the reasons for such conditions.

Method of Data Collection and Analysis

The method of data collection is a questionnaire survey of patients and professionals of the emergency department. Additional psychological testing, such as the Beck Depression Scale, is suggested to determine whether there are suicidal risks associated with depression. Psychological testing will be preceded in a format of a questionnaire survey. Questionnaires will be different for patients and physicians in an emergency department. The list of questions for doctors is proposed to include:

• Do you experience stress associated with working in the emergency department?
• What motivates you to continue working?
• Have you ever thought about leaving this job?
• What do you think is the main reason for your stress in the workplace?
• Do you feel that you are experiencing professional burnout?

Questions for the patients are proposed to be slightly different:

• Are you satisfied with the level of attention provided in the emergency department?
• Do you experience stress from being in an emergency care unit?
• Do you see an increase in anxiety levels before and after being admitted to the hospital?
• Do you think your stress level will decrease after living the emergency department?
• What specifically might cause you anxiety when you arrive at the hospital?

The analysis of the obtained results is supposed to be interpreted in quantitative terms. The number of positive and negative responses will be obtained to determine if there is a general trend. Interpretation will also be given in the qualitative response: it is expected that patients and doctors will answer questions about what causes stress in the emergency department. In this way, the main factors that can create suicidal risks will be identified. The result of psychological testing will be obtained in quantitative terms, it will be possible to identify the average risk of depression among both patients and doctors.

Method Justification

The main principle of determining the method for the study is to protect the participants of the survey from undesirable consequences. Questionnaires can provoke participants to suicidal thoughts and reflect on their experience in a negative way. That is the reason why the questionnaire does not directly specify whether participants have suicidal thoughts. Therefore, it is proposed to use the Beck Scale, aimed at identifying depression and not directly asking about thoughts that increase suicidal risks. This technique simultaneously helps protect participants and obtain research-relevant data.

Research Design

Conditions, sampling, and defining variables.

The main variable for the study is the satisfaction of emergency department staff and patients. The level of satisfaction is planned to be measured in correlation with the stress experienced, both in the case of patients and staff. The sample will consist of long-term working doctors and patients at risk. The risk group includes young people under 30 years and elderly patients with concomitant diseases that can have a depressing effect on the psychological state. The sample should be at least 10 people for each category, 20 patients and doctors respectively. Tests for physicians and patients should differ significantly while maintaining a common focus. The questionnaires of doctors will include questions about professional duty, the level of pressure, the ability to cope with responsibility. Patients will be asked about their experience of being in an emergency care unit. The subjects are invited to undergo psychological testing aimed at identifying depressive disorders. Such tests will show how the risks differ, whether there are common features between patients and doctors, what are the main causes of this condition.

Obtaining and Forming Informed Consent

For any medical research involving participants, the informed consent of all those involved is required. Informed consent should be obtained immediately prior to any manipulation. The consent procedure will include a description of the goals and objectives of the study, the requirements for participants, and the benefits derived from the experiment. The informed consent form should reflect the items contained in the participant information that are important to investigators. Items on the informed consent form begin with the participant’s name. When asking a participant for permission to use specific data, this item should be reflected in the text of the Informed Consent Form. The text should contain information about signing two copies of the document.

Informed Consent Form

For the participant of the scientific pilot study “Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments”

• I have read and understood the information provided in this document about this medical research study. I had enough time to decision making; the supervisors in this study explained unclear information to me and fully answered all my questions.
• I hereby certify that I have been fully informed of the risks and potential benefits of my participation in the study.
• I voluntarily agree to participate in this study without any pressure.
• I authorize the researcher and/or research team to process my medical data for research purposes, as well as the transfer of this data in an anonymized form.
• I agree to make my medical records available to official authorized persons, subject to the rules of confidentiality of personal data.
• I have been provided with a signed and dated copy of the Participant Information Sheet and Informed Consent Form for participation in the study. I understand that the record of my consent to participate in the study will be kept in medical records.

Reliability

The study will be trustable because it relies on a sufficient ranking of participants. A broad theoretical base allows the research to state that this technique is reliable for obtaining relevant results. Data will be collected directly from people in emergency department conditions. This will clearly identify the reasons why there is an increased risk of suicidal behavior among medical staff and patients. Subsequently, this will help the development of a clear intervention strategy that will be based on data from real people experiencing relevant cases.

Limitations

The study has limitations based on the subjectivity of the questionnaire data obtained. The varying levels of emotional resilience and ability to cope with stress in participants may underestimate the resulting overall level of suicidal risk. Participants may be afraid to openly reflect on such topics, which provokes people involved not to be completely honest. The number of participants may be too small to get a wide range of results.

Ethical Considerations

Every research, for ethical reasons, should aim not only to obtain relevant results, but to ensure the safety of research participants. Therefore, before questioning and psychological testing, it is necessary to fully identify the risks of participating in the study. Participants should be clearly explained that testing may be associated with an increased risk of suicidal behavior. To comply with ethical standards, it is necessary to ensure the complete anonymity of participants. Anonymity will allow participants to feel safe and be more open about personal questions. The results of the research must be used solely for medical purposes and for the benefit of the community.

Suicidal behavior among patients and physicians in emergency department is a serious problem requiring intervention. To address this problem, it is proposed to conduct a study based on a survey of those involved in the functioning of the emergency department. The questionnaire will be aimed at identifying common suicidal risks, as well as the reasons that may cause such thoughts and actions. For more relevant research results, participants in the experiment will take the Beck Depression Scale, which will show a quantitative result. Once the actual level of suicidal risk and possible causes have been identified, a strategy is needed to address this problem.

Canner, J. K., Giuliano, K., Selvarajah, S., Hammond, E. R., & Schneider, E. B. (2018). Emergency department visits for attempted suicide and self-harm in the USA: 2006–2013 . Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences , 27 (1), 94-102. Web.

Costanza, A., Amerio, A., Radomska, M., Ambrosetti, J., Di Marco, S., Prelati, M., Aguglia, A., Serafini, G., Amore, M., Bondolfi G. & Pompili, M. (2020). Suicidality assessment of the elderly with physical illness in the emergency department . Frontiers in psychiatry , 11 , 558974. Web.

DeLucia, J. A., Bitter, C., Fitzgerald, J., Greenberg, M., Dalwari, P., & Buchanan, P. (2019). Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder in emergency physicians in the United States . Western journal of emergency medicine , 20 (5), 740. Web.

Dimeff, L. A., Jobes, D. A., Chalker, S. A., Piehl, B. M., Duvivier, L. L., Lok, B. C., & Koerner, K. (2020). A novel engagement of suicidality in the emergency department: Virtual Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality. General hospital psychiatry , 63 , 119-126.

Harvey, S. B., Epstein, R. M., Glozier, N., Petrie, K., Strudwick, J., Gayed, A., Dean, K. & Henderson, M. (2021). Mental illness and suicide among physicians . The Lancet , 398 (10303), 920-930. Web.

Stehman, C. R., Testo, Z., Gershaw, R. S., & Kellogg, A. R. (2019). Burnout, drop out, suicide: physician loss in emergency medicine, part I . Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , 20 (3), 485. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 23). Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments. https://ivypanda.com/essays/increased-suicide-in-emergency-departments/

"Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments." IvyPanda , 23 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/increased-suicide-in-emergency-departments/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments'. 23 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments." March 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/increased-suicide-in-emergency-departments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments." March 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/increased-suicide-in-emergency-departments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Increased Suicide in Emergency Departments." March 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/increased-suicide-in-emergency-departments/.

• Suicidal Behavior: Triggers and Solutions
• Suicidal Ideation as Ethical Dilemma in Nursing
• Instruments Measuring Suicidal Ideation
• Suicide, Suicidal Ideations and Suicide Attempts
• Suicidal Ideations and Public Health Interventions
• Suicide Education and Prevention
• The Suicide Warning Signs List
• Children and Adolescent Suicide Behavior
• Suicide: Theories, Dynamism, and Assessment
• Suicide and Social Influences on Behavior
• Trauma Treatment Planning for a Youngster
• Psychiatry: Somatic Symptom Disorder
• Unreliability of Biological Evidence for Psychiatry
• Dynamic Group Psychotherapy and Its Benefits for Depression
• Depression Assessment Report and Interpretation of Results