Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Writing a Literature Review
![literature review on peer OWL logo](https://owl.purdue.edu/images/logos/owllogo_black.png)
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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.
Writing the Literature Review: Common Mistakes and Best Practices
- First Online: 21 November 2023
Cite this chapter
- Kelly Heider 3
Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))
636 Accesses
1 Altmetric
The literature review is an essential component of academic research writing, providing a comprehensive overview of existing research and informing the development of new studies. However, writing an effective literature review can be a challenging task for many authors, particularly those new to academic writing. This chapter aims to guide authors through the process of writing a literature review by highlighting common mistakes and best practices. The chapter begins with three short narratives that describe difficulties both novice and prolific authors encounter when writing the literature review. A chapter activity follows with steps that guide authors through the process of developing a research question to frame the literature review. Authors are then prompted to complete a self-assessment activity which includes a series of questions designed to build their skills as academic research writers. The body of the chapter recommends strategies and techniques to help authors locate and evaluate sources that will serve as the building blocks for a literature review that is thorough, current, and well-written. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the threats and benefits of artificial intelligence-based text production in relationship to academic research writing. Overall, this chapter provides practical guidance for authors looking to improve their literature review writing skills and enhance the quality of their research output.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Similar content being viewed by others
![literature review on peer literature review on peer](https://media.springernature.com/w215h120/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10439-019-02290-5/MediaObjects/10439_2019_2290_Fig1_HTML.png)
Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles
Literature Reviews
The Process of Scientific Writing: Developing a Research Question, Conducting a Literature Review, and Creating an Outline
Anson, C. M. (2022). AI-based text generation and the social construction of “fraudulent authorship”: A revisitation. Composition Studies, 50 (1), 37–46.
Google Scholar
Aylward, K., Sbaffi, L., & Weist, A. (2020). Peer-led information literacy training: A qualitative study of students’ experiences of the NICE evidence search student champion scheme. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 37 (3), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12301
Article Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2013, October 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342 (6154), 60–65. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Bouchrika, I. (2023, March 17). Top 10 qualities of good academic research . Research. https://research.com/research/top-10-qualities-of-good-academic-research
Bowler, M., & Street, K. (2008). Investigating the efficacy of embedment: Experiments in information literacy integration. Reference Services Review, 36 , 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320810920397
De La Torre, M. (2018, August 29). Academic racism: The repression of marginalized voices in academia . The Activist History Review. https://activisthistory.com/2018/08/29/academic-racism-the-repression-of-marginalized-voices-in-academia/
Drewes, K., & Hoffman, N. (2010). Academic embedded librarianship: An introduction. Public Services Quarterly, 6 (2–3), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.498773
Elsevier Author Services. (n.d.a). Journal acceptance rates: Everything you need to know . Publication process. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-process/journal-acceptance-rates/#:~:text=your%20paper%20to%3F-,What%20Our%20Research%20Shows,over%201%25%20to%2093.2%25 .
Elsevier Author Services. (n.d.b). What is a good H-index? Publication recognition. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-recognition/what-good-h-index/
Emerald Publishing. (2023). How to…conduct empirical research . https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/research-methods/conduct-empirical-research
Enago Academy. (2022, May 3). How much research is enough for a good literature review? https://www.enago.com/academy/research-for-a-good-literature-review/
Fitzgibbons, M. (2021). Literature review synthesis matrix . Concordia University Library. [Adapted from original table by the WI+RE Team at UCLA Library.] https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/library/docs/research-guides/gradproskills/Lit-review-synthesis-matrix-Word.docx
Garrett, W. (n.d.) Marginalized populations . Minnesota Psychological Association. https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=division%20news&id=71:marginalized-populations
George Mason University Libraries. (2021, August 20). Find authors . Finding diverse voices in academic research. https://infoguides.gmu.edu/c.php?g=1080259&p=7871669
Gyles, C. (2014, February). Can we trust peer-reviewed science? The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 55 (2), 109–111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894865/#b2-cvj_02_109
Hern, A. (2022, December 4). AI bot ChatGPT stuns academics with essay-writing skills and usability . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/04/ai-bot-chatgpt-stuns-academics-with-essay-writing-skills-and-usability
Hoffman, N., Beatty, S., Feng, P., & Lee, J. (2017). Teaching research skills through embedded librarianship. Reference Services Review, 45 , 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2016-0045
Indeed Editorial Team. (2022, June 28). Create a theoretical framework for your research in 4 steps . Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/theoretical-framework
Jansen, D. (2021, June). How to choose your research methodology . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/choose-research-methodology/
Jansen, D., & Warren, K. (2020, June). What (exactly) is a literature review? GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-a-literature-review/
Jin, Y. Y., Noh, H., Shin, H., & Lee, S. M. (2015). A typology of burnout among Korean teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24 (2), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0181-6
Koufogiannakis, D., Buckingham, J., Alibhai, A., & Rayner, D. (2005). Impact of librarians in first-year medical and dental student problem-based learning (PBL) groups: A controlled study. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22 , 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2005.00559.x
Larsen, C. M., Terkelsen, A. S., Carlsen, A. F., & Kristensen, H. K. (2019). Methods for teaching evidence-based practice: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 19 , 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1681-0
Liberties EU. (2021, October 5). What is marginalization? Definition and coping strategies . https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/marginalization-and-being-marginalized/43767
Lucey, B., & Dowling, M. (2023). ChatGPT: Our study shows AI can produce academic papers good enough for journals—just as some ban it . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-our-study-shows-ai-can-produce-academic-papers-good-enough-for-journals-just-as-some-ban-it-197762
Maior, E., Dobrean, A., & Păsărelu, C. (2020). Teacher rationality, social-emotional competencies, and basic needs satisfaction: Direct and indirect effects on teacher burnout. Journal of Evidence—Based Psychotherapies, 20 (1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.24193/jebp.2020.1.8
Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Monash University. (2023). Structuring a literature review . Learn HQ. https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/excel-at-writing/how-to-write.../literature-review/structuring-a-literature-review
Nova, A. (2017, December 21). Learn how to write a literature review in simple steps . MyPerfectWords. https://myperfectwords.com/blog/research-paper-guide/how-to-write-a-literature-review
O’Byrne, I. (2018, February 9). Eight steps to write a literature review . https://wiobyrne.com/literature-review/
Online Campus Writing Center. (2023). Synthesis . The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. https://community.thechicagoschool.edu/writingresources/online/Pages/Synthesis.aspx
Phair, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/
Robinson, K. A., Akinyede, O., Dutta, T., Sawin, V. I., Li, T., Spencer, M. R., Turkelson, C. M., & Weston, C. (2013, February). Framework for determining research gaps during systematic review: Evaluation . Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U.S.). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126702/
Rommelspacher, A. (2020, November). How to structure your literature review: Three options to help structure your chapter . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-structure/
Royal Literary Fund. (2023). The structure of a literature review . https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process . SAGE Publications.
Scimago Lab. (2022a). About us . Scimago Journal and Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php
Scimago Lab. (2022b). Journal rankings . Scimago Journal and Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php
Shumaker, D. (2009). Who let the librarians out? Embedded librarianship and the library manager. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48 (3), 239–257.
Statistics Solutions. (2023). Tips for the literature review: Synthesis and analysis . Complete dissertation. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/tips-for-the-literature-review-synthesis-and-analysis/
TechTarget. (2023). What is OpenAI? Open AI. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/OpenAI
Texas A&M University Writing Center. (2023). Self-assessment . https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/Faculty-Advisors/Resources-for-Teaching/Feedback/Self-Assessment
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. (2022, May 13). Evaluate sources. Public administration research. https://libguides.uccs.edu/c.php?g=617840&p=4299162
University of Maryland Global Campus. (n.d.). Discipline-specific research methods . https://coursecontent.umgc.edu/umgc/shareable-content/toolkits/BEHS000/1402/ResearchMethods/Discipline-SpecificResearchMethods.html
University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21). Academic writing: Writing the literature review [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0
Walker, R., & Solvason, C. (2014). Methodology: Choosing your research approach . SAGE Publications.
Wardle, E., & Downs, D. (2019). Writing about writing (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Wiggers, K. (2023, January 31). OpenAI releases tool to detect AI-generated text, including from ChatGPT . TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/31/openai-releases-tool-to-detect-ai-generated-text-including-from-chatgpt/
Yilmaz, K., Altinkurt, Y., Guner, M., & Sen, B. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ emotional labor and burnout level. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 59 , 75–90.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Acting Assistant Vice Provost for University Libraries, Indiana University of PA, Indiana, PA, USA
Kelly Heider
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Kelly Heider .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Emerita, Indiana, PA, USA
Mary Renck Jalongo
Teaching & Learning, Policy & Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA
Olivia N. Saracho
Issue: AI-Based Text Production in Academic Research Writing
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a relatively new technological development that can be used to support academic research writing, particularly reviews of research. Although it holds promise as a research tool, there are also concerns that AI-based scholarly writing could threaten not only the integrity but also the creativity of academic research writing. ChatGPT, an advanced chatbot developed by OpenAI (a nonprofit research company founded by Elon Musk and Sam Altman in 2015) has been at the center of much controversy as of late because of its ability to produce academic papers using artificial intelligence-based text production that have fooled academics and academic journal publishers (Hern, 2022 ; Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ; TechTarget, 2023 ). To demonstrate ChatGPT’s capabilities, consider its response to the question, “What is artificial intelligence-based text production?”.
Artificial Intelligence-Based Text Production is a process where machine learning algorithms are used to generate written content such as articles, product descriptions, social media posts, and more. It involves training machine learning models with vast amounts of data to learn how to generate human-like text automatically. The process can involve different techniques such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), deep learning, and neural networks to analyze and understand language patterns, grammar, context, and semantics. The resulting AI-generated text can be used for a wide range of applications, including content marketing, chatbots, language translation, and more. One of the main benefits of AI-based text production is that it can help businesses and organizations automate their content creation process, saving time and resources while producing high-quality content. However, it is important to note that AI-generated text may not always be perfect and may require human editing and review to ensure accuracy and coherence.
This response was produced by ChatGPT in about ten seconds. According to Anson ( 2022 ), “cutting and pasting all or part of this auto-generated text into a new text box can continue to prompt further content. The material is not plagiarized from existing sources but freshly composed. For this reason, it usually evades plagiarism-detection programs like Turnitin” (p. 40).
How Might AI-Based Text Production Threaten Academic Research Writing?
Obviously, computer-generated text that evades plagiarism-detection programs threatens the integrity of academic research writing. Some academic publishers have already banned or limited the use of AI-generated text in papers submitted to their journals (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ). However, that is easier said than done. OpenAI recently developed a tool that attempts to distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text to prevent chatbots like ChatGPT from being abused, but it is only 26% effective (Wiggers, 2023 ).
Lucey and Dowling ( 2023 ) tested the credibility of ChatGPT by having expert reviewers examine papers produced by the chatbot. First, they asked ChatGPT to generate four parts of a research study: (1) research idea, (2) literature review, (3) dataset, and (4) suggestions for testing and examination. They chose a broad subject and instructed the chatbot to create a paper that could be published in “a good finance journal” (para. 6). Second, they pasted 200 relevant abstracts into the ChatGPT search box and asked the chatbot to consider the abstracts when generating the four-part research study. Finally, they asked academic researchers to read both versions of the AI-generated text and make suggestions for improvement. A panel of thirty-two reviewers read all versions of the four-part research study and rated them. In all cases, the papers were considered acceptable by the reviewers, although the chatbot-created papers that also included input from academic researchers were rated higher. However, “a chatbot was deemed capable of generating quality academic research ideas. This raises fundamental questions around the meaning of creativity and ownership of creative ideas—questions to which nobody yet has solid answers” (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 , para. 10).
How Might AI-Based Text Production Benefit Academic Research Writing?
Despite several publishers deciding to ban the inclusion of AI-based text production in submissions, some researchers have already listed ChatGPT as a co-author on their papers (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ). There are many who believe there is no difference between the way ChatGPT produces text and the way authors synthesize studies in their literature reviews. In fact, the chatbot’s review is much more exhaustive because it can analyze “billions of existing, human-produced texts and, through a process akin to the creation of neural networks, generate new text based on highly complex predictive machine analysis” (Anson, 2022 , p. 39).
There are other advantages to using AI-based text production. It has the potential to aid groups of researchers who lack funding to hire human research assistants such as emerging economy researchers, graduate students, and early career researchers. According to Lucey and Dowling ( 2023 ), AI-based text production “could help democratize the research process” (para. 18). Anson ( 2022 ) also sees the potential in AI-based text production to “spark some new human-generated ideas” (p. 42), extract keywords, and create abstracts. The development of AI-based text production might also force instructors to change the way they teach academic writing. Instead of trying to detect or prevent the use of chatbots like ChatGPT, “a more sensible approach could involve embracing the technology, showing students what it can and can’t do, and asking them to experiment with it” (Anson, 2022 , p. 44). In other words, students could be asked to write about writing which leads to a deeper understanding of the writing process and the ability to transfer that understanding to any writing project (Wardle & Downs, 2019 ).
The Responsible Use of AI-Based Text Production in Academic Research Writing
The responsible use of AI-based text production in academic research writing involves understanding the technology's capabilities and limitations, as well as considering its potential impact on the research process. Researchers must carefully evaluate the intended purpose and context of using AI-generated text and make certain they are not compromising the authenticity and integrity of their research work. To ensure responsible use, it is essential to balance the benefits of increased efficiency and new insights with the need for originality and critical thinking in academic research writing. Researchers must also be transparent in disclosing the use of AI-generated text when submitting their work for publication. By adopting a responsible and thoughtful approach to the use of AI-based text production, researchers can maximize the benefits of the technology while maintaining the quality and authenticity of their research.
Applications of Technology
How to Write a Paper in a Weekend : https://youtu.be/UY7sVKJPTMA
Note : University of Minnesota Chemistry Professor, Peter Carr is not advocating for procrastination. This video outlines a strategy for generating a first draft after you have all your reading and notes assembled.
Research Gap 101: What Is a Research Gap & How to Find One : https://youtu.be/Kabj0u8YQ4Y
Using Google Scholar for Academic Research : https://youtu.be/t8_CW6FV8Ac .
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Heider, K. (2023). Writing the Literature Review: Common Mistakes and Best Practices. In: Renck Jalongo, M., Saracho, O.N. (eds) Scholarly Writing. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_3
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_3
Published : 21 November 2023
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39515-4
Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39516-1
eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
![literature review on peer Williams logo](https://librarytools.williams.edu/assets/images/WILLIAMS_COLLEGE_LOGO_HALF_WHITE.png)
- Research Guides
Literature Review: A Self-Guided Tutorial
Peer review.
- Literature Reviews: A Recap
- Reading the Literature
- Using Concept Maps
- Developing Research Questions
- Considering Strong Opinions
- 2. Review discipline styles
- Super Searching
- Finding the Full Text
- Citation Searching This link opens in a new window
- When to stop searching
- Citation Management
- Annotating Articles Tip
- 5. Critically analyze and evaluate
- How to Review the Literature
- Using a Synthesis Matrix
- 7. Write literature review
As part of the scholarly publishing process, authors' manuscripts often go through peer review before they are published. Watch the video below to learn about the peer review process. As you watch the video, consider these questions:
- What is the purpose of peer review?
- What are the advantages of this process?
- What are the limitations?
Credit: CSU Dominguez Hills ( CC BY-NC 4.0 ) Run Time: 2:58
- << Previous: Literature Reviews: A Recap
- Next: Reading the Literature >>
- Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 4:12 PM
- URL: https://libguides.williams.edu/literature-review
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 review on peer Colourful bookmarks on note pads](https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_18645256.jpg)
Credit: Getty
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.
WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon
Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.
For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.
![literature review on peer](https://media.nature.com/w400/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_17947370.jpg)
Collection: Careers toolkit
A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.
My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.
A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.
![literature review on peer A man in glasses looking at the camera.](https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_18645262.jpg)
Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski
BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style
Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.
In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.
After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.
After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.
I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.
ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference
Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .
One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.
It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.
![literature review on peer](https://media.nature.com/w400/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_17834270.jpg)
Careers Collection: Publishing
Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.
An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.
![literature review on peer A woman wearing a lab coat smiles at the camera.](https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_18645264.jpg)
Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi
YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions
Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.
I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.
Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.
![literature review on peer](https://media.nature.com/w400/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_18649438.jpg)
Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing
However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.
The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.
Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.
PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology
PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.
Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.
As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.
That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.
The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.
My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.
Tools and techniques
Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.
Reference managers
Attribute | EndNote | Mendeley | Zotero | Paperpile |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost | A one-time cost of around US$340 but comes with discounts for academics; around $150 for students | Free version available | Free version available | Low and comes with academic discounts |
Level of user support | Extensive user tutorials available; dedicated help desk | Extensive user tutorials available; global network of 5,000 volunteers to advise users | Forum discussions to troubleshoot | Forum discussions to troubleshoot |
Desktop version available for offline use? | Available | Available | Available | Unavailable |
Document storage on cloud | Up to 2 GB (free version) | Up to 2 GB (free version) | Up to 300 MB (free version) | Storage linked to Google Drive |
Compatible with Google Docs? | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Supports collaborative working? | No group working | References can be shared or edited by a maximum of three other users (or more in the paid-for version) | No limit on the number of users | No limit on the number of users |
Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.
Collaborative writing tools
Attribute | Manubot | Overleaf | Google Docs |
---|---|---|---|
Cost | Free, open source | $15–30 per month, comes with academic discounts | Free, comes with a Google account |
Writing language | Type and write in Markdown* | Type and format in LaTex* | Standard word processor |
Can be used with a mobile device? | No | No | Yes |
References | Bibliographies are built using DOIs, circumventing reference managers | Citation styles can be imported from reference managers | Possible but requires additional referencing tools in a plug-in, such as Paperpile |
*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.
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
![literature review on peer literature review on peer](https://media.nature.com/lw100/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03422-x/d41586-020-03422-x_16726000.jpg)
- Research management
![literature review on peer What I learnt from running a coding bootcamp](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02745-3/d41586-024-02745-3_27444616.jpg)
What I learnt from running a coding bootcamp
Career Column 21 AUG 24
![literature review on peer Blow that whistle at your own risk](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02743-5/d41586-024-02743-5_27263250.jpg)
Blow that whistle at your own risk
Career Feature 20 AUG 24
![literature review on peer How a midwife became a neuroscientist to seek a cure for her son](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02723-9/d41586-024-02723-9_27472498.jpg)
How a midwife became a neuroscientist to seek a cure for her son
Iran’s election is an opportunity for Western nations to revive science diplomacy
Correspondence 20 AUG 24
![literature review on peer Cash for catching scientific errors](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02681-2/d41586-024-02681-2_27466478.png)
Cash for catching scientific errors
Technology Feature 19 AUG 24
![literature review on peer The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-01672-7/d41586-024-01672-7_27470224.jpg)
The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists
News 20 AUG 24
![literature review on peer Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?](https://images.nature.com/w140h79/magazine-assets/d41586-024-02630-z/d41586-024-02630-z_27440268.jpg)
Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?
Career Column 14 AUG 24
Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Regenerative Biology and Medicine, CIMR
Regenerative Biology and Medicine, including but not limited to disease immunology, ageing, biochemistry of extracellular matrix...
Beijing, China
The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing
Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Therapy, CIMR, Beijing
We're looking for outstanding scientists at all ranks interested in developing novel therapeutics in all disease areas.
2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China
The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...
Shenzhen,China
Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology
Qiushi Chair Professor
Distinguished scholars with notable achievements and extensive international influence.
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Zhejiang University
ZJU 100 Young Professor
Promising young scholars who can independently establish and develop a research direction.
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
![literature review on peer homepage](https://libapps.s3.amazonaws.com/customers/4713/images/library_logo_extendWidth_desktop.png)
Literature Reviews
- Getting Started
- Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
- Finding "The Literature"
- Organizing/Writing
- Peer Review
- Citation/Style Guides This link opens in a new window
Peer Review Video
This video describes and discusses the importance of peer review and its process.
( NCSU video, 3:15 minutes)
This video is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license.
Peer Review - What Does it Mean?
Peer review, also known as refereed, is a process in which experts in related fields of study review and evaluate literature before it is published. It is largely used with research journals to help ensure that published articles represent the best scholarship currently available. When an article is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, the editors send it to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc.
Publications that don't use peer review (Time, Discover, Newsweek, U.S. News) rely on the judgment of the editors as to whether an article is quality material or not. They are not as reliable because these journals do not rely on solid, scientific scholarship.
Note: This is an entirely different concept from "Review Articles." Those are book reviews.
How Do I Know if a Journal is Peer Reviewed?
Often, you can tell just by looking. A scholarly journal is visibly different from magazines, but occasionally it can be hard to tell. If you want to be certain that a journal is peer-reviewed, limit your searches to Peer Reviewed results. You can also search with Journal Search in OneSearch. Type the journal's title into the text box and search, and your results will provide a variety of information about the journal, including whether the journal contains articles that are peer-reviewed.
Additional Help
You might find that resources provided by your library can be really helpful, and you can access many of these resources online through your library's website. Don't forget that our Librarians are excellent resources!
- << Previous: Organizing/Writing
- Next: Citation/Style Guides >>
- Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 5:23 PM
- URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/literaturereview
Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library
- Collections
- Research Help
YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
- Biomedical Databases
- Global (Public Health) Databases
- Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
- Grey Literature
- Trials Registers
- Data and Statistics
- Public Policy
- Google Tips
- Recommended Books
- Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
What is a literature review?
A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.
Why is it important?
A literature review is important because it:
- Explains the background of research on a topic.
- Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
- Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
- Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
- Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
- Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.
APA7 Style resources
APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers
1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.
Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.
- Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
- Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
- If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.
2. Decide on the scope of your review
How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?
- This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?
3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.
Make a list of the databases you will search.
Where to find databases:
- use the tabs on this guide
- Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
- More on the Medical Library web page
- ... and more on the Yale University Library web page
4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.
- Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
- Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
- Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
- Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
- Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
- Ask your librarian for help at any time.
- Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.
Review the literature
Some questions to help you analyze the research:
- What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
- Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
- What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
- Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
- If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
- How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?
Tips:
- Review the abstracts carefully.
- Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
- Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
- << Previous: Recommended Books
- Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
- URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples
Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.
Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.
Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.
There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:
- Single-blind review
- Double-blind review
- Triple-blind review
Collaborative review
Open review.
Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.
Table of contents
What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.
Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.
However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.
Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.
Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.
Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.
Single-blind peer review
The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.
While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.
Double-blind peer review
In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.
Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.
Triple-blind peer review
While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.
Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.
In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.
Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.
Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.
While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.
In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:
- First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
- Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
- Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
- Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
- Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.
![literature review on peer The peer review process](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-peer-review-process.webp)
In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.
It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.
Summarize the argument in your own words
Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.
If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.
Separate your feedback into major and minor issues
It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.
Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.
Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.
The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.
Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive
No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.
Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.
As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:
- Easy to understand
- Constructive
Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.
Influence of phone use on sleep
Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.
The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.
For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.
The sample was then divided into 3 groups:
- Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
- Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
- Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.
All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.
Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).
This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.
Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.
- Protects the quality of published research
Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.
- Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field
Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.
- Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument
Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.
While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.
- Reviewer bias
The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.
- Delays in publication
The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.
- Risk of human error
By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Normal distribution
- Measures of central tendency
- Chi square tests
- Confidence interval
- Quartiles & Quantiles
- Cluster sampling
- Stratified sampling
- Thematic analysis
- Discourse analysis
- Cohort study
- Ethnography
Research bias
- Implicit bias
- Cognitive bias
- Conformity bias
- Hawthorne effect
- Availability heuristic
- Attrition bias
- Social desirability bias
Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.
In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:
- Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
- Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
- Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
- Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.
Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.
Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.
Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.
However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.
A credible source should pass the CRAAP test and follow these guidelines:
- The information should be up to date and current.
- The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
- The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
- For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.
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.
George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/
Is this article helpful?
Tegan George
Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, what is your plagiarism score.
- 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: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
- URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview
![literature review on peer Banner](https://d2jv02qf7xgjwx.cloudfront.net/sites/170/banner/lgheader.jpg)
Kinesiology: Peer Review vs Literature Review
- Peer Review vs Literature Review
What is Peer Review?
Peer Review is a critical part of evaluating information. It is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available, and articles from peer reviewed journal are often grounded in empirical research. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc. Sometimes, you'll see this referred to as "refereed."
Publications that don't use peer review (Time, Cosmo, Salon) rely on an editor to determine the value of an article. Their goal is mainly to educate or entertain the general public, not to support scholarly research.
Some of the library’s databases will allow you to limit your search to scholarly journals. When you enter your search term(s), you can check the Peer Reviewed boxes and run your search with confidence that results will be from peer reviewed journals. The image below is from an EBSCO database, CINAHL.
KEEP IN MIND THAT PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS ALSO CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED -- book reviews, letters to the editor, short commentary and editorial commentary are not peer reviewed.
You can access Ulrich's Web to see if a particular journal is peer reviewed. (highlighted stars mean that those titles are peer reviewed).
If you are unsure, please reach out to your Librarian and we will assist you.
Search Tips
Interfaces and search options vary across databases, but best practices for searching are relatively consistent across interfaces. No matter which database you choose, remember these important tips...
1) Don't search wth your topic as a single phrase! Determine the key concepts of your topic. Then place each concept in its own search bar. For example...
2) Use ORs to string together synonyms or related terms for core concepts...
3) Use truncation, when appropriate. Adding an * to the end of a word will catch all forms of that word. For example, teach* will return teach, teachers, teaching , etc.
4) Look for the "peer reviewed" limit in each database. You can set this limit on the main search screen (before you search) or narrow your results after you've started your search. Typically, this option is available in the Advanced Search settings.
5) Set Date and Full Text limits as appropriate for your topic..
APA Resources
Basics of Seventh Edition APA Style Free Tutorial from the American Psychological Association
Purdue OWL APA Formatting and Style
- Student Paper Checklist (Concise Guide Version) Use this checklist while writing your paper to make sure it is consistent with seventh edition APA Style. This checklist corresponds to the writing and formatting guidelines described in full in the Concise Guide to APA Style (7th ed.).
What is a Lit Review?
Think of scholarly papers like a conversation. A paper takes a look at what people are saying on a particular topic and then adds something new to the conversation based on their own research. A literature review is how scholars get caught up on the conversation so they will know what to say or ask next.
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.
Literature review
A literature review is a critical summary of what the scientific literature says about your specific topic or question. Often student research in APA fields falls into this category. Your professor might ask you to write this kind of paper to demonstrate your familiarity with work in the field pertinent to the research you hope to conduct.
While the APA Publication Manual does not require a specific order for a literature review, a good literature review typically contains the following components:
- Introduction
- Thesis statement
- Summary and synthesis of sources
- List of references
Some instructors may also want you to write an abstract for a literature review, so be sure to check with them when given an assignment. Also, the length of a literature review and the required number of sources will vary based on course and instructor preferences.
NOTE: A literature review and an annotated bibliography are not synonymous. While both types of writing involve examining sources, the literature review seeks to synthesize the information and draw connections between sources. If you are asked to write an annotated bibliography, you should consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for the APA Format for Annotated Bibliographies.
- << Previous: Home
- Last Updated: Jun 12, 2024 4:16 PM
- URL: https://librarysubjectguides.svsu.edu/Kinesiology
- Maps & Floorplans
- Libraries A-Z
![literature review on peer University of Missouri Libraries](https://library.missouri.edu/code/common/images/Ellis-Header-Unit-Signature1145x107px-20153.png)
- Ellis Library (main)
- Engineering Library
- Geological Sciences
- Journalism Library
- Law Library
- Mathematical Sciences
- MU Digital Collections
- Veterinary Medical
- More Libraries...
- Instructional Services
- Course Reserves
- Course Guides
- Schedule a Library Class
- Class Assessment Forms
- Recordings & Tutorials
- Research & Writing Help
- More class resources
- Places to Study
- Borrow, Request & Renew
- Call Numbers
- Computers, Printers, Scanners & Software
- Digital Media Lab
- Equipment Lending: Laptops, cameras, etc.
- Subject Librarians
- Writing Tutors
- More In the Library...
- Undergraduate Students
- Graduate Students
- Faculty & Staff
- Researcher Support
- Distance Learners
- International Students
- More Services for...
- View my MU Libraries Account (login & click on My Library Account)
- View my MOBIUS Checkouts
- Renew my Books (login & click on My Loans)
- Place a Hold on a Book
- Request Books from Depository
- View my ILL@MU Account
- Set Up Alerts in Databases
- More Account Information...
Clinical Psychology Capstone: Literature Review & Peer Review
- Articles & Guidelines
- Facts & Figures
- Laws & Policies
- Managing Citations
- Literature Review & Peer Review
Literature Review
What are the differences between literature reviews?
- Literature Review - A general summary, or overview of the topic that is typically qualitative and subjective
- Systematic Review - A type of literature review that answers a focused clinical question
- Meta-Analysis - A type of systematic review using statistical methods to combine data from systematic reviews
What is the best way to find literature reviews?
- PsycINFO - A psychology database with the capacity to limit by Methodology
How do I know a journal is peer reviewed?
- If searching in a database (eg: Social Work Abstracts,GenderWatch), select Peer Review from the Refine/Limit Results options.
- Check the journal's website: look for the 'about' or 'about this journal' section.
- Check Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ; Search by journal name and look for the little black referee's jersey icon.
- Ask us : Call, text, email, or chat
What does Peer Review mean anyway?
When you submit an article to a journal, someone has to determine if it's worth printing. Peer review was developed as a way to screen articles and determine the quality of your article.
At a peer reviewed journal, the editor sends your article out to several reviewers (usually three) who are in the same field, or 'peers'. Generally, your name will be taken off of the article so personalities don't interfer with the process. The reviewers read through your article looking to see if: the topic is unique or novel, if the data or research is sound, and if it's well written. The reviewers can: reject the article; accept it with revisions; accept it as is.
Benefits of peer review is that multiple people decide vs just the editor and the review process weeds out poorly written or researched articles.
Drawbacks of peer review is that it's only as good as the reviewers so poorly written or researched articles have gotten published. Also, peer review was established as a way to check quality not catch fraud.
For more on peer review (I know that someone is interested...), check out Nature Peer Review Debate
- << Previous: Managing Citations
- Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:41 AM
- URL: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/clinicalpsych
![literature review on peer Facebook Like](https://library.missouri.edu/images/layout/FB-LikeButton-online-58.png)
Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.
For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .
Loading metrics
Open Access
Study Protocol
Adolescent HIV prevent and care framework: A global scoping review protocol- BSGH 006
Contributed equally to this work with: Gamji Rabiu Abu-Ba’are, Osman Wumpini Shamrock
Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliations School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America, Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America, Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, Accra, Ghana, School of Nursing, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States of America
* E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliations School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America, Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America, Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, Accra, Ghana
![literature review on peer ORCID logo](https://journals.plos.org/resource/img/orcid_16x16.png)
Roles Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation Edward G. Miner Library, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States of America
Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America
Affiliations Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America, Behavioral, Sexual, and Global Health Lab, Accra, Ghana, School of Nursing, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
- Gamji Rabiu Abu-Ba’are,
- Osman Wumpini Shamrock,
- Darcey Rodriguez,
- George Rudolph Kofi Agbemedu,
- LaRon E. Nelson
![literature review on peer PLOS](https://journals.plos.org/resource/img/logo-plos.png)
- Published: August 19, 2024
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289994
- Peer Review
- Reader Comments
Among adolescents, HIV/AIDs remains a significant cause of death globally [ 1 – 4 ]. Given the unique stages in human development, adolescents have been shown to fall within a sexually active phase. Combined with other social and structural factors in their immediate environments, HIV prevention and care among adolescents can be filled with challenges for intervention. This paper outlines this protocol to systematically review peer-reviewed literature in prevention and care among adolescents 10–19 years. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to report this scoping review. The review will involve screening and extracting data using covidence as the primary tool. The review will encompass quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, utilizing a search strategy from electronic databases such as PubMed (NCBI), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Embase (Elsevier), and Scopus (Elsevier). Additionally, a search will be conducted for grey literature using Global Index Medicus (WHO), MedNar (Deep Web Technologies), and Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane). Duplicate removal and selection of articles that meet the inclusion criteria for the study will be performed using Covidence. Once the screening process is complete, data will be extracted from the full-text screened articles in Covidence. We will pilot the extracted data in Covidence to ensure that all relevant information has been captured, making necessary changes if required. Data extraction will be carried out by at least two authors, with any conflicts resolved by the same authors. If a conflict cannot be resolved between the two, a third author will make a final determination. We aim to analyze data thematically by employing a grounded theory approach to generate codes pertinent to the research question. The team will review and discuss codes to create a cohesive set of codes that will be instrumental in identifying knowledge gaps and constructing themes that summarize the data. The proposed systematic review will be among the pioneering efforts to rigorously assess global data on HIV prevention and care, with a specific focus on adolescents 10–19 years. It will consider the diverse socio-economic factors and experiences shaping these adolescents’ lives in HIV prevention and care. We expect this review to yield critical insights into the present landscape of HIV prevention and care for individuals aged 10–19. These findings will also play a pivotal role in shaping the development of a global framework that researchers and stakeholders can readily adopt and implement across socio-economic contexts. This framework will aim to address the unique needs of all adolescents concerning HIV prevention and care.
Citation: Abu-Ba’are GR, Shamrock OW, Rodriguez D, Agbemedu GRK, Nelson LE (2024) Adolescent HIV prevent and care framework: A global scoping review protocol- BSGH 006. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0289994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289994
Editor: Graeme Hoddinott, Stellenbosch University, SOUTH AFRICA
Received: August 17, 2023; Accepted: June 28, 2024; Published: August 19, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Abu-Ba’are et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Globally, HIV remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide [ 5 ]. Controlling the spread of the virus has been a major challenge, posing significant problems in advancing preventative measures and providing continuous care to affected individuals [ 6 – 10 ]. The global prevalence of HIV has reduced in this decade, but significant regional variations in trends and modes of transmission exist [ 11 , 12 ]. The epidemiology of HIV among various key population groups, such as adolescents and socially marginalized groups, based on varying community perceptions about sex, has challenged the global efforts to control the spread of the virus [ 13 – 17 ]. Adolescents aged 10–19 years account for approximately 16% of the world’s population. In 2021, 1.7 million adolescents were living with HIV, comprising 5% of all people living with HIV globally, and accounted for 11% of all new infections among emerging adults [ 18 , 19 ].
Adolescent HIV/AIDS is a distinct epidemic that needs to be handled and managed differently from adult HIV [ 20 , 21 ]. Adolescent sexual and reproductive health remains a significant public health concern globally, especially in communities where child marriage and adolescent childbearing are high, with low exposure to modern contraceptives [ 22 ]. Several factors contribute to the high prevalence of HIV among adolescents, including vulnerability during their transitional stage in life and biological changes that can affect their social relationships, potentially leading to risky behaviors that increase the risk of HIV infections [ 19 , 23 – 25 ]. The severity of addressing HIV prevention and care in adolescence is crucial, as many adolescents with HIV are unaware of their status and fail to consistently use condoms in sexual encounters or face challenges when accessing preventive options due to alcohol-drug abuse, sex-HIV-age stigma and discrimination [ 26 – 27 ].
Adherence to HIV medication is a concern among adolescents diagnosed with HIV [ 28 – 32 ]. Accepting a positive HIV test result is challenging for adolescents due to the need for lifelong treatment and worries about their future goals regarding health, education, career and marriage, among other personal goals, producing a micro-level barrier to adolescents’ readiness for HIV care [ 21 , 33 ]. HIV stigma and sex stigma in some communities deter adolescents from accessing HIV care [ 33 , 34 ]. Additionally, the side effects of HIV medications can affect adherence as they can affect adolescents’ ability and willingness to consistently take their prescribed Antiretrovirals [ 35 – 37 ]. Determining appropriate antiretroviral (ART) dosages for sustained suppression in adolescents is challenging adolescent may experience growth spurt, particularly in under resourced health facilities [ 38 ]. Failure to take the correct dosage of antiretroviral can intensify side effects and result in poor adherence [ 39 – 41 ].
Although several preventative measures have been proposed to curb the incidence of HIV among adolescents, it has been recognized that no singular technique is enough to address the epidemic adequately, hence, an integrated approach that combines biomedical preventive techniques with behavioral and structural interventions is recommended as the ideal means of preventing HIV among adolescents [ 6 , 42 ]. The World Health Organization has also proposed using psychosocial techniques to support preventive measures for HIV among adolescents [ 43 ]. Considering that contextual factors significantly influence the effectiveness of interventions in HIV prevention and care among adolescents, it is important to pay attention to regional dynamics when proposing interventions for adolescents. Adolescent girls in 2021 accounted for 75% of all new HIV infections among adolescents. This percentage was even higher with adolescent girls in the 35 HIV-priority countries in UNICEF’s Strategic Plan, accounting for 80% of all new HIV infections among adolescents. In sub-Saharan Africa in the same year, about six times as many adolescent girls were newly infected with HIV than adolescent boys. Beyond the sub-Saharan Africa region, the highest numbers of HIV-positive adolescents are in Asia and Latin America. In East Asia and the Pacific, more boys are newly infected with HIV each year than girls in adolescence. This finding mirrors the various distinct risk behaviors in the respective regions, which suggests that interventions must be personalized to the specific nature and dynamic of the epidemic.
Moreover, there’s a lack of a universal framework that adequately encompasses the multifaceted dynamics of HIV among adolescents, particularly those between the ages of 10–19 years. It’s important to address the gaps in adolescent HIV prevention and care research. Failing to consider social differences, intersectionality, and political climates in different geographical areas could hinder the development of practical and universally applicable policy recommendations that cater to the needs of this population. Our review proposes to:
- Develop a comprehensive assessment of data by conducting a thorough evaluation of existing research on HIV prevention and care among adolescents aged 10–19, considering diverse social factors such as geography, race, sex, age, gender, education, religion, sexual orientation, occupation, nationality, marital status, socio-economic status, disability, and immigration status.
- Use data to develop a global framework based on theory, research and practice to capture the diverse dynamics inherent in adolescent HIV prevention and care. This framework will be adaptable to various economic contexts and provide a standardized measure to support intervention in adolescent HIV prevention and care.
Method and analysis
We will utilize the guidelines provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) by Tricco et al. (2018) for reporting this scoping review. As outlined by Tricco et al. (2018), the first step in conducting a scoping review is to develop a protocol to clarify the purpose and methodology of the review. By documenting and sharing this protocol, we aim to ensure transparency in our process and prevent duplication of efforts in the field of adolescent HIV prevention and care [ 45 , 46 ].
Ethics and dissemination
Our scoping review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, making them accessible to researchers, practitioners, and the public. We will also share these findings at relevant conferences and events on adolescent HIV prevention and care. Additionally, we aim to use the insights gained from this review to inform future research studies, addressing gaps in the scholarly literature on HIV among adolescents, particularly in prevention and care.
Patient and public involvement
This study does not involve human participants or data collection, so it does not require ethical approval. The research findings will be disseminated through various channels, including conferences, webinars, and peer-reviewed manuscripts. The insights gained from this study have the potential to inform and influence the policies and practices of government health agencies and healthcare facilities, fostering improvements in the field.
Criteria for study inclusion
Only articles addressing HIV prevention or care among adolescents aged 10–19 will be considered. Such articles must present empirical data on the topic and be published in English. We will limit the search inclusion to English for two reasons. The first is due to the unavailability of a multilingual reviewer in the research team and the cost of translation services. The second is connected to our researchers’ expertise and proficiencies in English to ensure an accurate and thorough review of selected studies, enhancing the reliability of data extraction and minimizing the possibility of misinterpretation. Only studies published after 2013 will be included to provide up-to-date information.
Criteria for study exclusion
The review will exclude all individuals aged below 10 and above 19 years. Studies that do not capture empirical data on the topic and are not published in English will be excluded. Studies published before 2013 will be excluded. This review will not include certain types of publications such as review papers (including scoping and systematic reviews), book chapters, reports, opinions, commentaries, conference abstracts, and articles published in languages other than English.
Types of studies
Our review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. We will encompass both experimental and observational studies without excluding any based on methodological approaches. However, we will exclude articles that synthesize existing literature, such as reviews, in our analysis.
Search strategy
Identifying sources..
A medical librarian (DR) from the University of Rochester Medical Center will create the search strategy with input from other authors to help find any extra sources, such as grey literature, similar to what was done in other protocols [ 45 , 46 ].
Electronic database searching.
DR will conduct a literature search using PubMed (NCBI), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Embase (Elsevier), and Scopus (Elsevier). The search strategy will use a combination of index terms when available in each database and keywords including HIV, adolescent, care continuum, and anti-retroviral agents. See attached file for an example. The search will limit results to those published in the English language between 2013 to present.
Grey literature searching.
Grey literature will also be searched for using Global Index Medicus (WHO), MedNar (Deep Web Technologies), and Central Registry of Controlled Trials (Cochrane) to capture other relevant data that may not be included in other databases.
Data screening.
After the search process is complete, all articles will be exported to Covidence, and duplicate articles will be removed. Using the inclusion criteria set forth by the team, a two-step screening process will occur in Covidence. After de-duplication, the first process will include two reviewers screening the title and abstract of all remaining articles. After the title and abstract screening process, a team of two will independently review the full text of articles that have met the inclusion criteria. When the two reviewers complete the screening process, they will meet to resolve any conflicts. If the two reviewers cannot resolve, a third reviewer will make a final determination.
Data extraction
Data extraction will begin after all articles have undergone title, abstract, and full-text screening. Using Covidence, the data extraction form will identify publication details, including title, author, and year of publication. The form will also extract data on the methods, including study design, aim, and date. Participate data will include a description of the population, methods of recruitment, and number of participants.
To ensure that all the relevant data is captured as intended, the data extraction form in Covidence will be pilot-tested on a few studies. After pilot testing, modifications will be made, and the form will be used to collect data from eligible studies. The data extraction process will involve two authors working together to ensure accuracy. In the event of any conflicts, they will discuss and resolve the issues. If they are unable to reach an agreement, a third reviewer will be consulted to make a final determination. The review will adhere to the JBI guidelines when conducting the review.
Analysis and reporting.
The findings in the study will adhere to the guidelines outlined in PRISMA-ScR [ 44 ]. We will present a narrative summary of the results while utilizing tables to organize the data. The outcomes will be categorized, taking into account the number of studies, their designs, and methodology. Additionally, key findings from each study will be condensed and presented in tables. Although we will focus on screening experimental studies, we will not conduct quantitative data analysis. Instead, we will employ descriptive statistics such as frequency and range to elucidate the results. Our data will be thematically analyzed [ 45 , 46 ]. We will utilize grounded theory and establish a comprehensive list of codes relevant to the research question and outcomes. This code list will undergo a duplicate review by the research team involved in the data extraction process. A consensus will be reached on a unified set of codes through group discussion. These codes serve as the foundation for creating themes that capture the narrative synthesis of the extracted data and identify any existing knowledge gaps. The proposed framework will be guided by data derived from the systematic review and recommendations from researchers in the diverse research fields in HIV prevention and care among adolescents aged 10–19 years. We will use data derived to serve as a checklist and measure the extent to which the framework considers the social differences, intersectionality, and political climates of adolescents globally.
Outcome. The primary objective of this study is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current state of HIV prevention and care research among adolescents aged 10–19 years. We will use this knowledge to create a global framework that can be easily used in various economic contexts and serve as a standardized intervention measure in adolescent HIV prevention and care. This framework proposes to enhance research, theory, practice, and policy efforts that consider the diverse experiences of adolescents in HIV prevention and care.
The prevention and care of HIV among adolescents pose significant global challenges due to various factors, including their transitional stage in life, vulnerability associated with their age groups, and the complex interplay of biological, structural, and social factors [ 23 , 24 , 47 ]. These factors individually and collectively may hinder efforts to reduce adolescent HIV-related deaths and transmission. The prevalence of HIV among adolescents is particularly concerning, with areas such as the sub-Saharan region experiencing higher burden of HIV-related deaths among this population group, exacerbated by risky behaviors associated with their transitional stage and a lack of awareness of HIV status [ 4 ]. Our review will aim to analyze global data on HIV prevention and care, focusing on adolescents aged 10–19 years. We will take into account various socio-economic factors and life experiences that affect how these adolescents engage with HIV prevention and care. The insights gained from this analysis will be invaluable in tailoring HIV prevention and care specifically for this age group. Additionally, we plan to use these findings to create a framework that researchers and stakeholders can easily adopt in different socio-economic contexts. This framework will cater to the unique needs of all adolescents in HIV prevention and care, ensuring inclusivity and effectiveness in diverse settings.
Strengths and limitations of this study
1. A notable strength of this study will be its rigorous approach to literature search conducted by a skilled librarian. The search strategy will be comprehensive, augmented by including grey literature sources. This meticulous process will thoroughly cover the existing literature, bolstering the study’s credibility and reliability.
2. Furthermore, this study will offer significant advantage by providing cutting-edge insights and valuable guidance for future research and interventions focused on enhancing awareness among adolescents in HIV prevention and care globally. By keeping abreast of the latest developments, this research will actively advance effective strategies and interventions in this critical area of HIV research.
3. The restriction to articles published exclusively in the English language may be one of the notable limitations of this study. While this ensures consistency and enables a comprehensive analysis within that language, it may inadvertently exclude valuable contributions from non-English sources.
4. Another anticipated limitation of this study will be its specific focus on adolescents (10–19) as the target population. While this emphasis allows for in-depth exploration and tailored insights, it may overlook valuable perspectives and findings relevant to other age groups or people affected by HIV prevention and care.
Supporting information
S1 checklist. prisma-p 2015 checklist..
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289994.s001
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
- 4. UNICEF. Although strides have been made in the HIV response, children are still affected by the epidemic. Unicef Data. 2021;(July 2022).
- 5. WHO. The top 10 causes of death—Factsheet. WHO reports. 2020;(December 2020).
Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...
![literature review on peer U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
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
- Browse Titles
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
![literature review on peer Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-hndbkehealth-lrg.png)
Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].
Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.
Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .
9.1. Introduction
Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).
Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).
The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).
When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.
The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.
9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:
- formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
- searching the extant literature,
- screening for inclusion,
- assessing the quality of primary studies,
- extracting data, and
- analyzing data.
Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).
Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).
9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.
9.3.1. Narrative Reviews
The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).
Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).
Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.
Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.
9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews
The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).
In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.
An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).
9.3.3. Scoping Reviews
Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.
Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).
One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).
9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews
Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.
Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:
- Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
- Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
- Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
- Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
- Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
- Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.
Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.
The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.
Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.
A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.
In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).
9.3.5. Realist Reviews
Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).
To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).
The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.
9.3.6. Critical Reviews
Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).
Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.
9.4. Summary
Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.
Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).
As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.
9.5. Concluding Remarks
In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.
We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.
To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.
- Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
- Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
- Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
- A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
- Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
- Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
- Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
- Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
- Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
- Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
- Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
- Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
- Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
- Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
- Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
- Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
- Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
- Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
- Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
- Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
- Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
- King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
- Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
- Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
- Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
- Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
- Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
- Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
- Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
- Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
- Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
- Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
- Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
- Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel .aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article =1221&context =ecis2011 .
- Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
- Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
- Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
- Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
- Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
- Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
- Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
- Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
- Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
- Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
- Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
- Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
- Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
- Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
- Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
- Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
- Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
- Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
- Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
- Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
- Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]
This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
- Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
- PDF version of this title (4.5M)
- Disable Glossary Links
In this Page
- Introduction
- Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
- Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
- Concluding Remarks
Related information
- PMC PubMed Central citations
- PubMed Links to PubMed
Recent Activity
- Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
Turn recording back on
Connect with NLM
National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894
Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
Help Accessibility Careers
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
COMMENTS
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 . Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective ... but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared ...
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
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).
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
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.
The literature review is an essential component of academic research writing, providing a comprehensive overview of existing research and informing the development of new studies. ... The types of sources that should be cited most often in a literature review include peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles and books published by academic ...
The peer review process is essential for evaluating the quality of scholarly works, suggesting corrections, and learning from other authors' mistakes. The principles of peer review are largely based on professionalism, eloquence, and collegiate attitude. As such, reviewing journal submissions is a privilege and responsibility for 'elite ...
Peer Review As part of the scholarly publishing process, authors' manuscripts often go through peer review before they are published. Watch the video below to learn about the peer review process.
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
Peer review, also known as refereed, is a process in which experts in related fields of study review and evaluate literature before it is published. It is largely used with research journals to help ensure that published articles represent the best scholarship currently available. When an article is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, the ...
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature ...
The peer review process generally results in articles appearing in the Journal in better condition than when they were first submitted; apart from improvements in clarity of writing and enhanced presentation, relevant literature and limitations of methodology may be better acknowledged, and over-reaching conclusions moderated [10].
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
The most common types are: Single-blind review. Double-blind review. Triple-blind review. Collaborative review. Open review. Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you've written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor.
Introduction 'Peer-review' is a term with a long history. The first documented use of the term was found in a manual of professional practices and ethics for visiting doctors published over a thousand years ago (Spier Citation 2002).When the term was first coined, peer-review was a process used to evaluate doctors' practices and ensure that they were on par with professional and ethical ...
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 Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!
Peer Review is a critical part of evaluating information. It is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available, and articles from peer reviewed journal are often grounded in empirical research. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to ...
Benefits of peer review is that multiple people decide vs just the editor and the review process weeds out poorly written or researched articles. Drawbacks of peer review is that it's only as good as the reviewers so poorly written or researched articles have gotten published.
This article is a practical guide to conducting data analysis in general literature reviews. The general literature review is a synthesis and analysis of published research on a relevant clinical issue, and is a common format for academic theses at the bachelor's and master's levels in nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, public health and other related fields.
We hope that it will also encourage the use of trustworthiness assessment as an integral part of the peer review process. 2 METHODS To identify common domains/questions, we searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials, irrespective of how ...
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it. 2) Be pleasant. If the paper is of low quality, suggest ...
This paper outlines this protocol to systematically review peer-reviewed literature in prevention and care among adolescents 10-19 years. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to report this scoping review. The review will involve screening and extracting ...
Background Mental disorders are a significant contributor to disease burden. However, there is a large treatment gap for common mental disorders worldwide. This systematic review summarizes the factors associated with mental health service use. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched for articles describing the predictors of and barriers to mental health service use among ...
Economic sanctions are defined as restrictions imposed by other countries against individuals, groups, or governments of other countries. These sanctions have a detrimental impact on the economies of countries and can also limit access to healthcare services for people as a secondary consequence. This study aims to systematically review the literature to examine the direct and indirect effects ...
This review updates the previous review conducted by the team [].Table 2 outlines the 95 papers in our combined review: the 62 additional papers in the updated review along with the 33 papers in our original review. The latter 33 papers are shown in italics in Table 2, which includes details about the study characteristics of all 95 included papers as well as key dimensions of the findings.
The strengths of this scoping review include an existing protocol, which was peer-reviewed by study authors before conducting the review. We also conducted an in-depth search strategy developed by an information specialist. Two independent reviewers double-screened at all stages of the screening process. Our review also has several limitations.
The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). ... and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a ...
A literature review was conducted using PubMed, focusing on articles discussing spirituality, religiosity, and their intersection with mental health and psychopathology. Out of 312 identified articles, 69 peer-reviewed articles were included after screening for relevance.