without a literature review a research paper will be

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Is it possible to write a thesis without a literature review?

Short answer: No, it’s not possible to write a thesis without a literature review. The literature review is an essential part of your thesis, and it helps you to situate your research within the existing body of knowledge on your topic. Plus, without a literature review, your supervisor is likely to tell you to go back and do one!Understand that doing research is entering a debate

When you sit down to write a literature review, the first thing to do is to understand that you are entering a certain conversation. In order to contribute to that conversation, you need to know what has already been said – in other words, you need to do a literature review. That means that, when you start your literature review, you need to have a clear sense of the focus of your work and what gap in the existing research you are aiming to fill with your paper. Only then can you start looking for material and begin reading with a purpose in mind (and do empirical research).

Literature Reviews come in different flavors

A literature review can come in different flavors, depending on your field and research questions . In some disciplines (e.g., history, philosophy, religious studies), a literature review is primarily a summary of what scholars have said about a particular topic. In other disciplines (e.g., education, psychology, nursing), a literature review is primarily a synthesis of what scholars have said about a particular topic. There are also other types of literature reviews that go beyond summarizing and synthesizing previous research (e.g., historiographic, methodological, analytic). No matter what type of literature review you are writing, the process will generally follow these steps: 1. Choose a topic 2. Search the literature 3. Read and take notes on the literature 4. Organize your notes 5. Write the literature review<

At step 2, an important distinction is whether you do this in a systematic or non-systematic (“narrative”) fashion. If you are doing a proper literature review that should stand on its own, then a full-fledged systematic review is the type of review of your choice. If you need the literature review just to provide a base for an empirical study, a narrative review is usually acceptable and more than enough.

Science is a dialoge, a debate. If you can pull of a theatrical monologue, that’s fine, but it is not science /research. You cannot do science by only talking (doing research) and without listening (reading papers).

But if you very strongly feel that you need to go that way, your best bet is a very exploratory research question.

Also, I m certainly not a strong reader myself. I think it’s about finding personalized strategies that work for you. It definitely gets easier when climbing the career ladder. But also in the beginning, you can seek collaborators that are well read.

Related Posts

Boosting your early scientific impact metrics.

• April 5, 2024

Demystifying Thesis Writing: From Research to Refined Communication

• March 19, 2024

Mastering Thesis Writing: A Comprehensive Guide to Unlocking Academic Success

• March 10, 2024

WashU Libraries

Library services for undergraduate research.

• Creating an Abstract
• What is a Literature Review?
• Creating a Poster
• Presenting Your Research
• Share Your Undergraduate Research
• Contact a Subject Librarian This link opens in a new window
• Conducting Research
• College Writing: Citizen Scientist

Literature Review: A Definition

What is a literature review, then.

A literature review discusses and analyses published information in a particular subject area.   Sometimes the information covers a certain time period.

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

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

While the main focus of an academic research paper is to support your own argument, the focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others. The academic research paper also covers a range of sources, but it is usually a select number of sources, because the emphasis is on the argument. Likewise, a literature review can also have an "argument," but it is not as important as covering a number of sources. In short, an academic research paper and a literature review contain some of the same elements. In fact, many academic research papers will contain a literature review section. What aspect of the study (either the argument or the sources) that is emphasized determines what type of document it is.

( "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone.

For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field.

For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation.

Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Journal Articles on Writing Literature Reviews

• Research Methods for Comprehensive Science Literature Reviews Author: Brown,Barry N. Journal: Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship Date: Spring2009 Issue: 57 Page: 1 more... less... Finding some information on most topics is easy. There are abundant sources of information readily available. However, completing a comprehensive literature review on a particular topic is often difficult, laborious, and time intensive; the project requires organization, persistence, and an understanding of the scholarly communication and publishing process. This paper briefly outlines methods of conducting a comprehensive literature review for science topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR];
• Research: Considerations in Writing a Literature Review Authors: Black,K. Journal: The New Social Worker Date: 01/01; 2007 Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Page: 12 more... less... Literature reviews are ubiquitous in academic journals, scholarly reports, and social work education. Conducting and writing a good literature review is both personally and professionally satisfying. (Journal abstract).
• How to do (or not to do) A Critical Literature Review Authors: Jesson,Jill; Lacey,Fiona Journal: Pharmacy Education Pub Date: 2006 Volume: 6 Issue: 2 Pages:139 - 148 more... less... More and more students are required to perform a critical literature review as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Whilst most of the latest research methods textbooks advise how to do a literature search, very few cover the literature review. This paper covers two types of review: a critical literature review and a systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
• Conducting a Literature Review Authors: Rowley,Jennifer; Slack,Frances Journal: Management Research News Pub Date: 2004 Volume: 27 Issue: 6 Pages:31-39 more... less... Abstract: This article offers support and guidance for students undertaking a literature review as part of their dissertation during an undergraduate or Masters course. A literature review is a summary of a subject field that supports the identification of specific research questions. A literature review needs to draw on and evaluate a range of different types of sources including academic and professional journal articles, books, and web-based resources. The literature search helps in the identification and location of relevant documents and other sources. Search engines can be used to search web resources and bibliographic databases. Conceptual frameworks can be a useful tool in developing an understanding of a subject area. Creating the literature review involves the stages of: scanning, making notes, structuring the literature review, writing the literature review, and building a bibliography.

Some Books from the WU Catalog

• The SAGE handbook of visual research methods [electronic resource] by Edited by Luc Pauwels and Dawn Mannay. ISBN: 9781526417015 Publication Date: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2020.

Helpful Websites

• "How to do a Literature Review" from Ferdinand D. Bluford Library
• "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It." from the University of Toronto
• << Previous: Creating an Abstract
• Next: Creating a Poster >>
• Last Updated: Jun 10, 2024 2:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our

How to Write a Literature Review

• What is a literature review

How is a literature review different from a research paper?

• What should I do before starting my literature review?
• What type of literature review should I write and how should I organize it?
• What should I be aware of while writing the literature review?
• For more information on Literature Reviews
• More Research Help

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

• << Previous: What is a literature review
• Next: What should I do before starting my literature review? >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2021 11:35 AM
• URL: https://midway.libguides.com/LiteratureReview

RESEARCH HELP

• Research Guides
• Databases A-Z
• Journal Search
• Citation Help

LIBRARY SERVICES

• Accessibility
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms

INSTRUCTION SUPPORT

• Course Reserves
• Library Instruction
• Little Memorial Library
• 512 East Stephens Street
• 859.846.5316
• [email protected]

• Skip to search box
• Skip to main content
• Princeton University Library
• Research Guides
• Writing Seminars
• Writing Seminar 163/164 And the Rest is Drag
• What is a Literature Review?

Writing Seminar 163/164 And the Rest is Drag: What is a Literature Review?

• Finding Books
• Finding Articles
• Specialized Databases
• Academic Integrity at Princeton This link opens in a new window

Finding Examples

It may be useful to look at other reviews to learn how researchers in the field "summarize and synthesize" the literature. Most research article or dissertation in the sciences will include a section which reviews the literature. Though the section may not be labeled as such, you will quickly recognize it by the number of citations and the discussion of the literature. Another option is to look for Review Articles, which are literature reviews as a stand alone article. Here are some resources where you can find Research Articles, Review Articles and Dissertations:

• Articles+ - Due to the interdisciplinary nature of gender & sexuality studies Articles+ can be a great place to start your research. Please make use of the filters on the left-hand side of the screen to help refine your searches. 
• Gender Studies Database  & LGBT Thought and Culture - Gender Studies Database & LGBT Though and Culture have a large corpus of reviews and research articles. As with Articles+ make sure to take advantage of the filters (type of publication, publication date) to help refine your searches. 
• Google Scholar   - Using the Cited By feature, hyperlinked below the search results, you can trace the scholarly conversation moving forward. 
• Dissertations @ Princeton - Provides access to many Princeton dissertations, full text is available for most published after 1996.
• Purdue OWL - The Purdue OWL site provides tips and examples of literature reviews and is a great source for reviewing citation styles 

*** Note about using Review Articles in your research - while they are useful in helping you to locate articles on your topic, remember that you must go to and use the original source if you intend to include a study mentioned in the review. The only time you would cite a review article is if they have made an original insight in their work that you talk about in your paper. Going to the original research paper allows you to verify the information about that study and determine whether the points made in the review are valid and accurate.

What is a literature review?

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

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

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Remember, this is a process and not necessarily a linear one. As you search and evaluate the literature, you may refine your topic or head in a different direction which will take you back to the search stage. In fact, it is useful to evaluate as you go along so you don't spend hours researching one aspect of your topic only to find yourself more interested in another.

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

• << Previous: Specialized Databases
• Next: Academic Integrity at Princeton >>
• Subjects: Writing Program
• Last Updated: Jan 30, 2024 2:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.princeton.edu/andtherestisdrag

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 318 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our  mailing list  and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

• Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing A Literature Review  

7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid ☠️.

By: David Phair (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Crafting a high-quality literature review is critical to earning marks and developing a strong dissertation, thesis or research project. But, it’s no simple task. Here at Grad Coach, we’ve reviewed thousands of literature reviews and seen a recurring set of mistakes and issues that drag students down.

In this post, we’ll unpack 7 common literature review mistakes , so that you can avoid these pitfalls and submit a literature review that impresses.

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

• Over-reliance on low-quality sources
• A lack of landmark/seminal literature
• A lack of current literature
• Description instead of integration and synthesis
• Irrelevant or unfocused content
• Poor chapter structure and layout
• Plagiarism and poor referencing

Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources . This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles.

Of course, just because a piece of content takes the form of a blog post doesn’t automatically mean it is low-quality . However, it’s (generally) unlikely to be as academically sound (i.e., well-researched, objective and scientific) as a journal article, so you need to be a lot more sceptical when considering this content and make sure that it has a strong, well-reasoned foundation. As a rule of thumb, your literature review shouldn’t rely heavily on these types of content – they should be used sparingly.

Ideally, your literature review should be built on a strong base of journal articles , ideally from well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals with a high H index . You can also draw on books written by well-established subject matter experts. When considering books, try to focus on those that are published by academic publishers , for example, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Routledge. You can also draw on government websites, provided they have a strong reputation for objectivity and data quality. As with any other source, be wary of any government website that seems to be pushing an agenda.

Source: UCCS

As I mentioned, this doesn’t mean that your literature review can’t include the occasional blog post or news article. These types of content have their place , especially when setting the context for your study. For example, you may want to cite a collection of newspaper articles to demonstrate the emergence of a recent trend. However, your core arguments and theoretical foundations shouldn’t rely on these. Build your foundation on credible academic literature to ensure that your study stands on the proverbial shoulders of giants.

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Another issue we see in weaker literature reviews is an absence of landmark literature for the research topic . Landmark literature (sometimes also referred to as seminal or pivotal work) refers to the articles that initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. In other words, the articles that put the specific area of research “on the map”, so to speak.

The reason for the absence of landmark literature in poor literature reviews is most commonly that either the student isn’t aware of the literature (because they haven’t sufficiently immersed themselves in the existing research), or that they feel that they should only present the most up to date studies. Whatever the cause, it’s a problem, as a good literature review should always acknowledge the seminal writing in the field.

But, how do you find landmark literature?

Well, you can usually spot these by searching for the topic in Google Scholar and identifying the handful of articles with high citation counts. They’ll also be the studies most commonly cited in textbooks and, of course, Wikipedia (but please don’t use Wikipedia as a source!).

So, when you’re piecing your literature review together, remember to pay homage to the classics , even if only briefly. Seminal works are the theoretical foundation of a strong literature review.

Mistake #3: A lack of current literature

As I mentioned, it’s incredibly important to acknowledge the landmark studies and research in your literature review. However, a strong literature review should also incorporate the current literature . It should, ideally, compare and contrast the “classics” with the more up to date research, and briefly comment on the evolution.

Of course, you don’t want to burn precious word count providing an in-depth history lesson regarding the evolution of the topic (unless that’s one of your research aims, of course), but you should at least acknowledge any key differences between the old and the new.

But, how do you find current literature?

To find current literature in your research area, you can once again use Google Scholar by simply selecting the “Since…” link on the left-hand side. Depending on your area of study, recent may mean the last year or two, or a fair deal longer.

So, as you develop your catalogue of literature, remember to incorporate both the classics and the more up to date research. By doing this, you’ll achieve a comprehensive literature base that is both well-rooted in tried and tested theory and current.

Mistake #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

This one is a big one. And, unfortunately, it’s a very common one. In fact, it’s probably the most common issue we encounter in literature reviews.

All too often, students think that a literature review is simply a summary of what each researcher has said. A lengthy, detailed “he said, she said”. This is incorrect . A good literature review needs to go beyond just describing all the relevant literature. It needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together.

A good literature review should also highlight what areas don’t fit together , and which pieces are missing . In other words, what do researchers disagree on and why might that be. It’s seldom the case that everyone agrees on everything because the “truth” is typically very nuanced and intricate in reality. A strong literature review is a balanced one , with a mix of different perspectives and findings that give the reader a clear view of the current state of knowledge.

A good analogy is that of a jigsaw puzzle. The various findings and arguments from each piece of literature form the individual puzzle pieces, and you then put these together to develop a picture of the current state of knowledge . Importantly, that puzzle will in all likelihood have pieces that don’t fit well together, and pieces that are missing. It’s seldom a pretty puzzle!

By the end of this process of critical review and synthesis of the existing literature , it should be clear what’s missing – in other words, the gaps that exist in the current research . These gaps then form the foundation for your proposed study. In other words, your study will attempt to contribute a missing puzzle piece (or get two pieces to fit together).

So, when you’re crafting your literature review chapter, remember that this chapter needs to go well beyond a basic description of the existing research – it needs to synthesise it (bring it all together) and form the foundation for your study.

Mistake #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Another common mistake we see in literature review chapters is quite simply the inclusion of irrelevant content . Some chapters can waffle on for pages and pages and leave the reader thinking, “so what?”

So, how do you decide what’s relevant?

Well, to ensure you stay on-topic and focus, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions . Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to build the theoretical foundation that will help you achieve your research aims and objectives, and answer your research questions . Therefore, relevant content is the relatively narrow body of content that relates directly to those three components .

Let’s look at an example.

If your research aims to identify factors that cultivate employee loyalty and commitment, your literature review needs to focus on existing research that identifies such factors. Simple enough, right? Well, during your review process, you will invariably come across plenty of research relating to employee loyalty and commitment, including things like:

• The benefits of high employee commitment
• The different types of commitment
• The impact of commitment on corporate culture
• The links between commitment and productivity

While all of these relate to employee commitment, they’re not focused on the research aims , objectives and questions, as they’re not identifying factors that foster employee commitment. Of course, they may still be useful in helping you justify your topic, so they’ll likely have a place somewhere in your dissertation or thesis. However, for your literature review, you need to keep things focused.

So, as you work through your literature review, always circle back to your research aims, objective and research questions and use them as a litmus test for article relevance.

Need a helping hand?

Mistake #6: Poor chapter structure and layout

Even the best content can fail to earn marks when the literature review chapter is poorly structured . Unfortunately, this is a fairly common issue, resulting in disjointed, poorly-flowing arguments that are difficult for the reader (the marker…) to follow.

The most common reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature review chapter without a plan or structure . Of course, as we’ve discussed before, writing is a form of thinking , so you don’t need to plan out every detail before you start writing. However, you should at least have an outline structure penned down before you hit the keyboard.

So, how should you structure your literature review?

We’ve covered literature review structure in detail previously , so I won’t go into it here. However, as a quick overview, your literature review should consist of three core sections :

• The introduction section – where you outline your topic, introduce any definitions and jargon and define the scope of your literature review.
• The body section – where you sink your teeth into the existing research. This can be arranged in various ways (e.g. thematically, chronologically or methodologically).
• The conclusion section – where you present the key takeaways and highlight the research gap (or gaps), which lays the foundation for your study.

Another reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature chapter prematurely . In other words, they start writing before they’ve finished digesting the literature. This is a costly mistake, as it always results in extensive rewriting , which takes a lot longer than just doing it one step at a time. Again, it’s completely natural to do a little extra reading as thoughts crop up during the writing process, but you should complete your core reading before you start writing.

Long story short – don’t start writing your literature review without some sort of structural plan. This structure can (and likely will) evolve as you write, but you need some sort of outline as a starting point. Pro tip – check out our free literature review template to fast-track your structural outline.

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

This one is by far the most unforgivable literature review mistake, as it carries one of the heaviest penalties , while it is so easily avoidable .

All too often, we encounter literature reviews that, at first glance, look pretty good. However, a quick run through a plagiarism checker and it quickly becomes apparent that the student has failed to fully digest the literature they’ve reviewed and put it into their own words.

“But, the original author said it perfectly…”

I get it – sometimes the way an author phrased something is “just perfect” and you can’t find a better way to say it. In those (pretty rare) cases, you can use direct quotes (and a citation, of course). However, for the vast majority of your literature review, you need to put things into your own words .

The good news is that if you focus on integrating and synthesising the literature (as I mentioned in point 3), you shouldn’t run into this issue too often, as you’ll naturally be writing about the relationships between studies , not just about the studies themselves. Remember, if you can’t explain something simply (in your own words), you don’t really understand it.

A related issue that we see quite often is plain old-fashioned poor referencing . This can include citation and reference formatting issues (for example, Harvard or APA style errors), or just a straight out lack of references . In academic writing, if you fail to reference a source, you are effectively claiming the work as your own, which equates to plagiarism. This might seem harmless, but plagiarism is a serious form of academic misconduct and could cost you a lot more than just a few marks.

So, when you’re writing up your literature review, remember that you need to digest the content and put everything into your own words. You also need to reference the sources of any and all ideas, theories, frameworks and models you draw on.

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Let’s quickly recap on the 7 most common literature review mistakes.

Now that you’re aware of these common mistakes, be sure to also check out our literature review walkthrough video , where to dissect an actual literature review chapter . This will give you a clear picture of what a high-quality literature review looks like and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

If you have any questions about these literature review mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. If you’re interested in private coaching, book an initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

Dear GradCoach,

Thank you for making our uni student lives better. Could you kindly do a video on how to use your literature review excel template? I am sure a lot of students would appreciate that.

Thank you so much for this inlightment concerning the mistakes that should be avoided while writing a literature review chapter. It is concise and precise. You have mentioned that this chapter include three main parts; introduction, body, and conclusion. Is the theoritical frameworke considered a part of the literature review chapter, or it should be written in a seperate chapter? If it is included in the literature review, should it take place at the beginning, the middle or at the end of the chapter? Thank you one again for “unpacking” things for us.

Hi I would enjoy the video on lit review. You mentioned cataloging references, I would like the template for excel. Would you please sent me this template.

on the plagiarism and referencing what is the correct way to cite the words said by the author . What are the different methods you can use

its clear, precise and understandable many thanks affectionately yours’ Godfrey

Thanks for this wonderful resource! I am final year student and will be commencing my dissertation work soon. This course has significantly improved my understanding of dissertation and has greater value in terms of its practical applicability compared to other literature works and articles out there on the internet. I will advice my colleague students more especially first time thesis writers to make good use of this course. It’s explained in simple, plain grammar and you will greatly appreciate it.

Thanks. A lot. This was excellent. I really enjoyed it. Again thank you.

The information in this article is very useful for students and very interesting I really like your article thanks for sharing this post!

Thank you for putting more knowledge in us. Thank you for using simple you’re bless.

This article is really useful. Thanks a lot for sharing this knowledge. Please continue the journey of sharing and facilitating the young researchers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Reply to Danette - Allessaysexpert - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]
• Reply to Danette - Academia Essays - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

• Search Website
• Office Directory
• Employee Directory
• Learning Commons
• Topic Sentences

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review.

An organized discussion of  published information like surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) in a particular subject area (and/or a subject within a certain time period) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory .

It provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work.

What is it NOT?

• A descriptive list
• Not JUST a summary
• Not a survey of everything ever written on a subject

How is a literature review different from a research paper? 

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument. Often times, a research paper or published article contains a literature review as one of its main sections. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that YOU contribute.

The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions or new arguments like you would in a research paper.

What is the purpose?

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• provide an overview of sources explored while researching a topic ( surveys the literature )
• provide solid background ( summary of prior research ) for a research paper’s investigation or research question/topic
• synthesize  ( integrate and analyze ) information about the subject
• define what you have learned from others and what the relationship of each work is to the others
• critically evaluate   the information gathered
• identify gaps in current knowledge (shows limitations of theories or points of view) and revealing those gaps
• demonstrate  how your research fits within the larger field of study
• establish credibility for your work

4 Easy Tasks

Let’s break it down more simply. There are 4 main tasks or reasons for completing a literature review. We present those for tasks below, and we also break down some of the difficult terms for a clearer understanding.

Evaluation and Synthesis

Things to consider as you evaluate and synthesize:

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

Literature reviews usually consist of 3 major sections: an introduction, main body, and conclusion.

Introduction:

• Defines topic
• Establishes reasons/point of view for reviewing literature
• Explains the organization (see Literature Review page for more information)
• States the scope/depth of the review
• Current situation or information needed to understand topic and focus
• History and/or progression of topic (if necessary)
• Methods and/or standards for selecting sources for your literature review (i.e. only peer-reviewed articles and journals, current news, resources published between certain dates, etc.)

Offers conclusions about which pieces are better considered on analysis above, objectivity of topic, and greatest contribution to area of research

• Share source’s credentials and whether or not arguments within source are supported by evidence
• Examine methodology and techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data
• Explanation of how each work is similar to and/or how it varies from others
• Discuss relationship between topic and the wider subject area
• Evaluate objectivity (perspective) of source and persuasiveness

Conclusion:

• Summarize key points in your main body—what have you learned from the survey of the literature?
• Outlines areas for future study—where might discussion proceed?

Ways to organize a literature review

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further. Below are the 5 most commons ways of organizing a literature review:

1. Chronologically: writing about the materials according to when they were published.

This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. Think of a timeline—can you write about your sources in a way that would fit nicely on a timeline? For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union over a clear span of time would be a good reason to organize your topic chronologically.

If you choose this route, you might need to also sub-organize your review by publication only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

2. Thematically (conceptual categories):   writing about a cluster of topics and subtopics.

Here, you are going to focus on a specific topic or subtopic. You will provide background for the topic OR put the problem into historical perspective (why is this topic important, historically). This forces you to summarize your sources and to group topics that are important to your research.

3. Methodologically: focusing on the methods utilized by the researchers in your sources.

This differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For questions to consider when evaluating the methods, see the "Common Errors" section below. 

Avoiding Common Errors

Many students commit the following errors when they write annotated bibliographies.

Here a great example of a thematic literature review . It was written by a student at the University of West Florida. (This PDF will open in a new window/tab).

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/

https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/write-a-literature-review

https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/literaturereview

https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/what-is-a-literature-review/

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/10_questions_to_ask_about_scientific_studies

https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215199&p=1420828

• How it works
• Pay for essays
• Do my homework
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Do my assignment
• Coursework help
• Our Writers

How to write a research proposal: a detailed guide for students

A professional writer with ten years of experience and a Ph.D. in Modern History, Catharine Tawil writes engaging and insightful papers for academic exchange. With deep insight into the impact of historical events on the present, she provides a unique perspective in giving students a feel for the past. Her writing educates and stimulates critical thinking, making her a treasure to those wading through the complexities of history.

How to write a research proposal? Although writing academic papers and completing projects is part of the routine of any young learner, this assignment can often be troublesome. Still, if you are looking for professional research proposal guidelines, you’ve come to the right place. In this post, we’ll go down the rabbit hole and discover all the best ways to complete this assignment easily and quickly. 

Research proposal: meaning and description

Research proposals are not easy to write. However, if you follow our tips and tricks, you will achieve all your academic goals. As a rule, you need to develop a strong research proposal before you start working on your research paper. In other words, it’s like preparing a list of ingredients for cooking your main course. 

Your paper will generally contain a topic (well, that’s the most straightforward component), your research questions, methodology, and the significance of the chosen field. However, the requirements might differ depending on your academic level and the overall complexity of your paper. 

Why a good research proposal matters

What do I need to compose a proposal writing? Many bright minds ask this question. The answer is that it has many goals. First and foremost, it allows learners to clarify their ideas and get approval from their teachers or professors. The second thing about this writing is that it helps students create a well-structured and properly formatted paper before diving too deep into the research paper. As a rule, you must submit your proposal before you start working on your research project, thesis, or dissertation. 

Top components of a research proposal

Your research proposal must cover many experts. For your convenience, we’ve prepared a list of top features you are expected to have in this type of writing. 

• Topic: Similar to a research paper, your proposal must have a precise topic. It should be understandable, fresh, and sharp. And, of course, it should be focused on your research for 100%.
• Intro: This is background info for your topic. In most cases, it highlights the importance of your study and describes the research objectives. 
• Literature review: What literature is related to the chosen niche? What unresolved questions does your field have? Why do you need to conduct the research? Your literature review helps you prove that you have already conducted the primary research and understand the selected topic well. This point is a must-to-write for all research proposals.
• Research questions: What questions will your study address? Make sure they are unique, measurable, and achievable.
• Methodology: In this field, you must specify the methods and techniques you will use to collect and process your findings. 
• Timeline: Every project has its deadlines and milestones. You will need to create an approximate schedule for completing your assignment. This schedule must include time for collecting information, advanced data analysis, and writing. 
• Reference: As with the other academic assignments, you must develop a reference list for your paper proposal. 
• Appendices: This is the best place to provide your supplementary artifacts and other materials. 

How can you understand your research problem 

Now that you have a better understanding of a research proposal, what’s next? Below is a simple step-by-step solution for writing a research proposal. 

Spotlighting the research gap

Identifying a research gap for a research proposal involves several stages. Firstly, you will need to review existing literature in your field. This will allow you to pinpoint areas where knowledge is lacking or contradictory. For example, you can search for some unanswered questions that require more investigation. After that, you may consider recent developments or emerging trends that created new gaps in existing research. Finally, you should critically evaluate your expertise and interests. 

Developing your main research question

Developing your main research question for a research proposal usually involves the following critical steps: 

• Brainstorming ideas and narrowing down your topic to a specific field. 
• Clarify the gaps you’ve discovered in the previous stage.
• Formulate your main research question.
• Double-check your question for relevance and clarity.
• Refine your research question and make sure it fully aligns with your goals. 

Choosing your top-notch research objectives

Now, it’s time to dive into the ocean of your research proposal objectives. Although there might be too many goals, you must select only the most important ones. Moreover, it requires careful consideration and strategic planning. The best approach to this task is to start by identifying the main purpose of your research. After that, you may try to connect your goals with the main questions and the research gap. Not to mention, make sure to focus only on realistic goals during your objective’s research design. 

Working on your literature review

If you look at any good-written research proposal example, you will notice that it always has a literature review section. To complete it easily, feel free to follow these easy steps:

• Gather articles and texts that address these themes.
• Critically analyze and synthesize the findings from the chosen sources.
• Organize your literature review thematically or chronologically.
• Conclude by summarizing the current state of knowledge and explaining your proposed research's contribution.

Selecting the research methodology 

When choosing the most fitting research methodology, consider the following parameters: 

• Define the research questions to guide your methodology selection.
• Evaluate different research methodologies (for example, you can choose quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods.)
• Consider practical factors, including resources, time constraints, and access to participants.
• Choose a methodology that aligns with your research goals and theoretical framework.
• Explain how the chosen methodology enables you to collect relevant data and generate insights for your research proposal.

Developing the introduction

There is nothing new about the introduction being one of the most impactful parts of any academic paper. To succeed in writing your assignment, you must follow many rules and requirements. So, here is a quick start on how to complete this part like a real pro. 

Collecting the background information

Writing a research proposal is never an easy task. However, a good introduction with properly arranged background information is one of the keys to success. You can begin by introducing the broad study area and its significance in the academic or practical realm. After that, you can provide historical context or foundational theories relevant to the research topic. It is always a brilliant idea to summarize past research and scholarly discussions related to the subject and highlight your key findings and knowledge gaps. After all, connect your background info and the proposed research. You can also add a smooth transition to your problem statements and research proposal purpose. 

Arranging the study context

This part of writing is one of the most complicated. However, the tips below might help you cope with it more easily. 

• Describe your research's social, cultural, economic, or environmental context.
• Identify any trends, developments, or events that underscore the relevance of the research significance.
• Highlight any specific challenges or opportunities presented by the research context.
• Emphasize the need to address the identified research problem.

Describing the research problem and objectives

This section articulates the specific research problem the proposal aims to address. The research problem is the focal point of the study, representing the gap or issue in knowledge that the research seeks to explore. Always make sure your objectives provide clear and measurable targets for the study.

Demonstrating the significance of the study

All excellent research proposal examples can boast of having an outstanding demonstration of the significance of the study. And you can do that, too! For these purposes, follow this easy schema: 

• Discuss the broader significance of the research topic within its field or discipline, emphasizing its relevance and timeliness.
• Identify the potential contributions that the proposed research is expected to make.

Composing the research methodology

You might feel tired of all the rules, but it’s not the time to give up. Your research proposal template desperately needs a sound research methodology. So, let’s get started! 

Determining the right research design

When determining the right research design for your proposal, consider the following tips:

• Clarify your research questions and objectives.
• Explore various research designs and methodologies that can fit the research proposal structure well. This approach will help you identify the best options for your research aims.
• Consider practical constraints. You need to consider time, budget, access to participants or data, and ethical considerations.
• Pilot-test your research design. It is always good to conduct a pilot study or small-scale test to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of your chosen research design in the primary stage of the research proposal template development. 

Choosing the research participants

Always consider the practical aspects of participant selection, such as accessibility and feasibility. Finally, be transparent about the participant selection process in your research proposal.

Collecting data: your most fitting methods

Any student is required to select the most suitable methods of data collection for their assignment. Here are a few tips for your convenience: 

• Choose methods that best capture the data needed to address your research questions and objectives.
• Assess the practicality of each method in terms of resources, time, and access to participants or data sources.
• Select methods that yield data with high reliability and validity.

The truth is that every research proposal format requires diverse methods of collecting data. So, always adapt them to your specific writing. 

Creating the plan for data analysis

In this step, you will outline the specific techniques and procedures you will use to analyze your research data. This includes selecting appropriate statistical or qualitative analysis methods and organizing and coding your data. The data analysis plan should align with your research objectives. This is the essential feature of all research proposals.

Ensuring the validity and reliability of your research

Ensuring validity and reliability means making sure your research methods accurately measure what they're supposed to and produce consistent results. Remember that ensuring research study validity is a must for this type of academic paper. 

Crafting the literature review

According to research proposal format rules, your paper must contain a literature review. Some students believe that completing this task during the data collection step is easier, while others admit they usually craft it at the final steps of writing a proposal. Anyway, the process usually has several steps. 

Choosing the relevant literature

Identifying the foundational studies and key sources that will guide your research is essential. Although you can look for some research proposal examples, it is still good to follow this plan during writing:

• Search academic databases and scholarly sources related to your research topic.
• Look for key studies, articles, and books that provide insights into your research area.
• Focus on literature that directly addresses your research questions and objectives.

Summarizing the literature lists

Once you've gathered relevant literature for your paper proposal, synthesizing it will be your next step. Here's how to approach it:

• Summarize the main findings and arguments of the chosen literature list.
• Identify common themes, trends, and patterns in different sources.
• Analyze how the literature contributes to the understanding of your research topic.

Evaluating the literature sources

Now, it's high time to evaluate the resources’ quality and relevance critically:

• Assess each source's credibility, relevance, and methodological rigor for your proposal writing.
• Consider the strengths and weaknesses of different research methods used in the literature.

Exploring the research gaps

At the final step of working with your literature sources, you need to find out the areas for further investigation: 

• Evaluate the existing literature to identify unanswered questions.
• Look for contradictions, inconsistencies, or limitations in the current research.
• Consider emerging trends, recent developments, or advancements in your field.

Now, the work with literature lists for your research proposal is done. 

Note: Failure to effectively analyze your sources is one of the most common mistakes in writing a research proposal, so don’t underestimate it. 

Creating the conclusion 

Every research proposal has a conclusion. Although many students don’t like this part of writing, it is still necessary to pay attention to it. Here is how to do that. 

Summarizing your findings

• Condense the primary outcomes of your study into clear statements.
• Make sure that your summary captures the essential research findings derived from your research.

Adding recommendations for future research

• Suggest areas for further investigation based on the limitations identified in your research proposal.
• Offer suggestions or directions for future research.

Showing off the implications of your study

• Discuss the broader significance and relevance of your study's findings for theory, practice, or policy.
• Articulate the potential impact or practical applications of your research results.

Note: The conclusion is a must-have writing piece in every research proposal format. Always add it to your paper. 

Composing the abstract

If you look at any professionally written research proposal example, you will discover it also has an abstract. 

Offering a concise study overview

Start your abstract with a brief overview of the study. In other words, you can provide a snapshot of your paper’s purpose and significance. You will also need to summarize the main topic and objectives. If you are feeling a bit lost in what to write in this part, read the introduction of your research proposal once more - you will find some basic info to write about. 

Introducing the research problem and objectives

Regardless of your writing style, it is crucial to add your research paper objectives to your abstract: 

• Clearly present your research problem and objectives.
• Define the research problem, emphasizing its importance.
• Clearly state the specific research questions that your study aims to address.

Detailing the research methodology

• Ensure the credibility of your study by providing a detailed overview of your research methodology.
• Describe your research design and methods used while composing a research proposal briefly.
• Justify your methodology choice.
• Briefly outline your data collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures.

Recapping the research findings

• Summarize your key findings.
• Outline the main outcomes of your study in clear and straightforward language.
• Highlight how your findings address the research objectives and contribute to filling the research gap.

Note: According to research proposal format requirements, all these abstract parts are obligatory.

Style and formatting

If you look for a fresh and up-to-date research proposal example online, you will likely discover they all have different formats. However, there are still some rules you are expected to follow. 

Following the research proposal guidelines

Employing clear and concise writing, proofreading and editing the proposal, conclusion .

Of course, writing papers is usually a tricky process. Fortunately, you can always get professional help and pay for essay online. Still, if you want to complete it by yourself, remember about these critical aspects. 

Most universities and colleges have a solid view of the components of the proposal:

• Introduction;
• Literature Review;
• Methodology;
• Research Timeline;
• References;
• Appendices.

A perfectly written research proposal is a roadmap for the entire research project. In other words, it guides the researcher in defining objectives, methods, and expected outcomes. A research proposal is also necessary to secure funding, gain approval from ethics committees, and attract collaborators or participants.

Final thoughts and recommendations

The best recommendation for creating this type of writing is to begin far in advance and follow all the professor’s requirements. Still, if you have an urgent deadline or writing difficulties, you can always rely on the Write my paper for me professional service. So, how to write a research proposal? It’s up to you!

What is the main goal of a research proposal?

The purpose of a research proposal is to outline the planned research project, including its objectives, methodology, and significance.

How long should a typical research proposal be?

Research proposal length typically ranges from 1500 to 2500 words.

What are the common mistakes to avoid when composing a research proposal?

The list of mistakes includes unclear objectives, inadequate literature review, and lack of coherence in the methodology.

Can I revise a research proposal after submission?

Yes, a research proposal can be revised after submission based on reviewer feedback or research plan changes.

How is it better to ensure the validity and reliability of my research study?

Use appropriate research designs and methods, maintain consistency in data collection and analysis, and address potential sources of bias.

Related posts

8 Answers on How to Write an Annotated Bibliography

How to write a research proposal: top tips for busy students

Exploring the Creative Universe of Jenny Parks Illustration 🎨

What are you waiting for?

You are a couple of clicks away from tranquility at an affordable price!

A systematic review of peer-reviewed gender literature in sustainability science

• Frank, Elisabeth
• Mühlhaus, Rike
• Mustelin, Katinka Malena
• Trilken, Esther Lara
• Kreuz, Noemi Katalin
• Bowes, Linda Catharine
• Backer, Lina Marie
• von Wehrden, Henrik

We conducted a systematic review of the available peer-reviewed literature that specifically focuses on the combination of sustainability and gender. We analyzed the existing peer-reviewed research regarding the extent to which gender plays a role in the empirical literature, how this is methodologically collected and what understanding of gender is applied in those articles. Our aim is to provide an overview of the current most common fields of research and thus show in which areas gender is already being included in the sustainability sciences and to what extent and in which areas this inclusion has not yet taken place or has only taken place to a limited extent. We identified 1054 papers that matched our criteria and conducted research on at least one sustainable development goal and gender research. Within these papers (i), the overall number of countries where lead authors were located was very high (91 countries). While the majority of lead authors were located in the Global North, less than a third of the articles were led by authors located in the Global South. Furthermore, gender is often just used as a category of empirical analysis rather than a research focus. We were able to identify (ii) a lack in coherent framing of relevant terms. Often no definition of sustainability was given, and only the sustainability goals (SDGs or MDGs) were used as a framework to refer to sustainability. Both gender and sustainability were often used as key words without being specifically addressed. Concerning the knowledge types of sustainability, our expectation that system knowledge dominates the literature was confirmed. While a problem orientation dominates much of the discourse, only a few papers focus on normative or transformative knowledge. (iii) Furthermore, the investigated literature was mainly contributing to few SDGs, with SDG 5 `Gender Equality' accounting for 83% of all contributions, followed by SDG 8 `Decent Work and Economic Growth' (21%), SDG 3 `Good Health and Well-being' (15%) and SDG 4 `Quality Education' (12%). We were additionally able to identify seven research clusters in the landscape of gender in sustainability science. (iv) A broad range of diverse methods was utilized that allow us to approximate different forms of knowledge. Yet within different research clusters, the spectrum of methodologies is rather homogeneous. (v) Overall, in most papers gender is conceptualized in binary terms. In most cases, the research is explicitly about women, running the risk that gender research in sustainability sciences grows into a synonym for women's studies.

• Sustainable development goals;
• Gender studies;
• Womens studies;
• Sustainability

• Open access
• Published: 24 June 2024

Analysis of funding landscape for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A scoping review of the literature over the past decade

• Racha Fadlallah 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Fadi El-Jardali   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4084-6524 1 , 3 , 4 ,
• Nesrin Chidiac 3 ,
• Najla Daher 3 &
• Aya Harb 3  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  70 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

77 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles.

We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors’ affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews.

We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level.

Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran ( n  = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ( n  = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan ( n  = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding ( n  = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles’ first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author’s affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%.

This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated how vulnerabilities in health systems can have profound implications for health, economic progress, trust in governments and social cohesion [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Strengthening the capacity of health systems to respond swiftly and effectively has become a priority for governments worldwide as they emerge from the pandemic [ 4 ]. Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can provide context-relevant knowledge to strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. In spite of international calls to increase investments in HPSR, studies suggest that less than 2% of global health funding is being spent on health systems strengthening and HPSR. This lack of adequate funding is especially an issue in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where funding remains largely dependent on external sources [ 8 ]. This is further challenged by the near invisibility of domestic funding flow for HPSR on a national level [ 9 ].

In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), while much of the policy priorities are related to health systems, there is poor recognition of the importance of HPSR [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], and funding limitations remain the main challenge facing HPSR in the region [ 11 , 13 ]. Given that the advancement of HPSR is greatly dependent on the availability of adequate and reliable funding [ 14 , 15 ], it would be important to gain a better understanding of HPSR funding in the EMR. Previous studies have assessed funding for HPSR at the level of national government and from international donor perspectives [ 11 , 14 ]. Rabbat et al. assessed funding for HSPR in the EMR on a national level and found that none of the EMR countries have explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR [ 11 ]. Grepin et al. analysed donor funding for HPSR in LMICs, including EMR, and found that such funding is heavily concentrated, with more than 93% coming from just 10 donors, and only represents approximately 2% of all donor funding for health and population projects. Moreover, countries in the sub-Saharan African region were the major recipients of HPSR funding, while countries in the EMR were the least recipients of such funding [ 14 ].

The current study adds to existing literature by analysing the sources of funding for published HPSR studies in countries of the EMR. Analysis of HPSR publications in countries from the region can be used to monitor progress and trends in the production of policy-relevant research and is a core requirement for strengthening health research systems to generate and use knowledge to improve health systems [ 8 , 16 ]. The specific objectives are to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for COVID-19-related articles. Findings will enable a better understanding of the HPSR funding landscape in the EMR.

We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, addressing the following broad areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors’ affiliations and country of focus. Scoping reviews are an ideal tool to convey the breadth and depth of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview of its focus [ 17 ]. We followed standard methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines for reporting scoping reviews (Supplementary file 1) [ 18 ].

Eligibility criteria

Study design: All study designs were included except for letters, correspondence, commentaries, dissertations, technical papers, handbooks, protocols and editorials. We restricted the search date to studies published in the last decade (that is, 2010–2022, inclusive).

Setting: Eastern Mediterranean Region. We included all countries established within the WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, namely Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Population: We did not limit the search to any specific type of population.

Dimensions of interest: We considered studies to be eligible if they met the criteria of health systems topics developed by the McMaster Health Forum, including governance, financial and delivery arrangements, and implementation strategies. The selected coding framework has been previously implemented for coding health policy and systems topics in countries from the region [ 19 , 20 ].

We did not restrict the search to any language.

Literature search

We searched the following electronic databases in December 2022: PubMed, Web of Science, The Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR) and Google Scholar. We used both index terms and free text words for the following two concepts (and their variations): (1) EMR countries and (2) HPSR. The search strategy was validated with the guidance of an information specialist. For the Web of Science, we limited the search to 72 journals listed under the “Health Policy and Services” (HPS) category in Web of Science between 2010 and 2022. A similar approach was previously adopted in a study examining the reporting of funding in HPSR [ 19 ]. We also screened the reference lists of all included articles.

Study selection and data extraction

Prior to proceeding with the selection process, we conducted a calibration exercise to enhance validity of the selection process. Two reviewers used the above eligibility criteria to screen the identified citations for potential eligibility. Half of the included studies were screened in duplicate and independently by teams of two reviewers, while the remaining were screened independently by each reviewer. We obtained the full text for citations judged as potentially eligible by at least one of the reviewers. To enhance validity of the process, all excluded studies were validated by a senior reviewer (who is the senior author). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion, and when needed, with the help of a third reviewer.

We developed a data extraction form. Prior to proceeding with the selection process, we conducted a calibration exercise to enhance validity of the selection process. Each of four reviewers independently abstracted data from a subset of articles assigned to them (collectively covering the full dataset), using a standardized and pilot-tested form. Throughout the process, all team members were consulted to validate coding decisions. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion, and when needed, with the help of a third reviewer. We revisited and considered data in the context of any newly emergent decision. Additionally, the coding sections related to reported source of funding and first authors’ affiliations were independently validated by a second reviewer.

The following information was abstracted from all included studies:

Study ID (author last name, title of study).

Date of publication.

Type of article.

Country subject of the paper: This refers to the geographical scope of the article, specifically the country where the research was conducted. Articles encompassing more than one country were categorized into two distinct groups: those focusing solely on the EMR (referred to as “more than one within the region”), and those extending beyond the EMR (referred to as “more than one beyond the region”) – maintaining a distinction from individual country analyses.

Country income group classification (first country) as per World Bank classification data for 2021–2022.

Reported affiliation(s) by the first author.

Reported affiliation(s) by the corresponding author.

Country of the institution to which the first author is affiliated.

Country of the institution to which the corresponding author is affiliated.

Reporting of study funding (not reported, reported as funded or reported as not funded).

Reported source(s) of funding.

Whether the study was COVID-19-related.

Statistical analysis

We conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables collected for the included papers using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics v.25. We used the chi-square test at 0.05 significance level to compare categorical data and investigate the associations between reporting of funding by papers, type of funding and income groups. We also used the chi-square test to examine whether significant associations exist between funding sources and the following variables: country income level, country focus of the HPSR articles (that is, within the EMR only, or beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), the first author’s country of affiliation and COVID-19-related studies.

Characteristics of included articles

Figure  1 shows the PRISMA flowchart for study selection. Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included.

PRISMA flowchart

Figure  2 illustrates the distribution of HPSR articles by country focus. The top country focus was Iran ( n  = 1018, 29.9%), followed by Saudi Arabia ( n  = 595, 17.5%), Pakistan ( n  = 360, 10.6%), Jordan ( n  = 208, 6.1%) and Lebanon ( n  = 150, 4.4%). Notably, more than half of the included articles originated from only three EMR countries: Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Pakistan. Countries where the fewest number of articles were conducted were Libya ( n  = 10, 0.3%), Bahrain ( n  = 12, 0.4%), Somalia ( n  = 13, 0.4%), Syria ( n  = 18, 0.5%), and Yemen ( n  = 18, 0.5%). No articles were found focusing on Djibouti only. Approximately 10% of the included articles were conducted in more than one EMR country. Of these, 5% focused on multiple countries within the EMR, while an additional 5% included at least one country beyond the EMR region (along with at least one within the EMR).

Distribution of HPSR articles by country of focus ( N  = 3408)

COVID-19-related articles accounted for 9.3% of the total HPSR studies published. Of these, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia produced the highest number of publications ( n  = 93, 29.3%), followed by Iran ( n  = 68, 21.5%).

Figure  3 illustrates the increase in the production of HPSR articles in the EMR from 2010 to 2022. The number of HPSR articles in 2010 was approximately 37, increasing to 598 by 2022. Furthermore, HPSR articles nearly doubled after 2020.

Annual production of HPSR articles from 2010 to 2022

Reporting of funding and funding sources for HPSR articles across country income groups

Table  1  presents the reporting of funding and sources of funding in the 3408 HPSR articles retrieved. Approximately 40% ( n  = 1346) of the articles reported being funded, while 29% (or 1001) did not report any details on study funding. It is worth noting that, while the number of funded articles is 1346, when taking into account all funding sources within an article, the total number of funding sources increases to 1635.

Among the 1346 funded articles (with 1635 funding sources) in the EMR, analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most common source was national ( n  = 905, 55.4%) followed by international (682, 41.7%) and lastly regional sources (41, 3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9% of the sources. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (as classified by the World Bank at the time of data collection), all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources. The majority of funded articles’ first authors were affiliated with academia/university distributed into public university ( n  = 959, 71.2%) and private ( n  = 204, 15.2%) while a minority were affiliated with government, private for-profit or intergovernmental organizations.

Of the COVID-19-related HPSR articles, 95 (or 30%) were funded, while 69 (or 21.8%) did not report any detail on the study funding. The most notable funding source was national (75, 78.95%), mainly universities (61.05%), with governments contributing to 10.53% of funding. International funding sources accounted for 15 (or 15.79%) of publications. Regarding the first authors’ affiliations of funded COVID-19-related articles, almost all authors are from the EMR and affiliated to public academic universities (80%).

Source of funding and first-author affiliation for HPSR articles, by EMR country (2010–2020)

A breakdown of the source of funding by country is provided in Table  3 .

All of the articles conducted in Somalia, Syria and Yemen and the majority of articles conducted in Afghanistan (76.27%), Egypt (62.39%), Iraq (66.5%), Lebanon (70.5%), Morocco (82.54%), Pakistan (80%), Palestine (95.8%), Sudan (80.6%) and Tunisia (89%) were funded by international sources. Articles conducted in the remaining EMR countries were largely funded by national sources; among those conducted in Iran (92.96%), Jordan (55.5%), the KSA (89%), Qatar (99.8%) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE; 68.2%), the majority were funded by universities, whereas in Libya (100%) and Kuwait (75%), the government was the main source of funder. Regarding Oman (46%), funding was equally distributed between national and international sources.

Concerning the first author’s affiliations, the majority of articles conducted in Egypt (71.1%), Iran (95.3%), Jordan (73.8%), the KSA (79.3%), Kuwait (70%), Morocco (63.2%), Oman (55.6%), Palestine (83.3%), Qatar (56.3%), Tunisia (66.7%), Somalia (100%), Syria (57.1%), the UAE (58.3%), Iraq (40%), and Yemen (100%) were affiliated with public academic institutions. In Lebanon (65.3%), Sudan (32%), and Pakistan (41.1%), the majority of the papers’ first authors were affiliated with private academia/university. In Afghanistan (27.8%), the papers’ first authors were equally affiliated with private university/academia and not-for-profit organizations. In Libya (100%), the first author of the only funded study was affiliated with intergovernmental organizations.

Across all income groups, the majority of the papers’ first authors were affiliated with academia/university. A minority of papers’ first authors was affiliated with private for-profit and intergovernmental organizations (Table 2 ).

Associations between variables of interest and sources of funding for HPSR articles

There was significant association between country income level and source of funding ( P  < 0.001; Table  3 ). Countries in the high-income and upper-middle income groups were significantly more likely to be funded by national sources (78.7% versus 77.1%, respectively), more specifically universities, while countries in the low-income groups were significantly more likely to be funded by international sources (87.2%).

Studies that included at least one country beyond the EMR (for example, as part of international research consortia) were significantly more likely to be funded by international sources (80.2%), while studies focusing on one or more country within the EMR only were significantly more likely to be funded by national sources (65.3%), mainly universities (52%; Table  4 ).

Regarding the first author’s country of affiliation, articles with first authors from the EMR were more likely to be funded by national sources (73.9%), mainly universities (61.7%) while articles were the first authors were from non-EMR countries were more likely to be funded by international sources (79.8%) These differences are statistically significant, with a P -value < 0.001 (Table  5 ).

Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles (compared to non-COVID-19-related HPSR articles), with national sources, mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding (78.95% versus 59%). In contrast, international funding sources decreased for COVID-19-related HPSR articles (15.8% versus 37.7%). This difference was statistically significant at P  < 0.001 (Table 6 ).

Summary and interpretation of findings

This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. More than half of the included articles originated from only three out of the 22 EMR countries, namely Iran, the KSA and Pakistan. When it comes to funding, approximately 30% of HPSR papers in the EMR did not report any details on study funding. Among the articles that reported being funded, analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most common source was national, followed by international and lastly regional sources. Among the national sources, universities accounted for the majority of funding. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (as classified by the World Bank at the time of data collection), all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. However, exceptions to this trend included Kuwait, Oman and Libya, where government funding took precedence.

The majority of funded papers’ first authors were affiliated with academia/university while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations.

When articles conducted in Iran, which accounted for the highest number of included papers (30%), were excluded from the entire analysis (and not only those related to upper-middle-income countries), a different overall funding pattern emerged. In this scenario, international funding sources took precedence (457, 54.7%), followed by national (336, 40.2%) and regional (40, 4.8%) sources. This is not unexpected, given that, in Iran, the main source of funding is national funding (94%), specifically universities (82.80%). Furthermore, international sanctions have reduced the willingness of international scholars to cooperate with Iranians scholars and students, while also making it difficult for Iranian researchers to receive health-related grants from foreign regional or international organizations [ 21 ].

We found the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: income level, focus of HPSR article (that is, EMR or as part of international research consortia) and first-author affiliation. The latter may be partially explained by the limited expertise in the EMR to generate solid proposals to compete for these grants, restricting HPSR’s access to worldwide competitive funding options [ 11 ].

While the COVID-19 pandemic had drastic consequences on health systems, highlighting the importance of HPSR for evidence-informed decision-making, our findings suggest that funding from government did not increase for COVID-19-related HPSR, while universities/academia took the lead in funding COVID-19-related HPSR articles in the EMR. In contrast, international funding for HPSR in the EMR decreased during the pandemic. According to Becerra-Posada et al., given a higher need for funds for medical care and vaccines for COVID-19, research funding may be a lesser priority in countries suffering budgetary restrictions [ 22 ]. Thus, the international funding may have been diverted from HPSR to health systems reforms, testing centres, and more health-related and clinical research.

Some potential limitations of the study are worth noting. Firstly, despite our attempts to enhance the comprehensiveness of our search by utilizing several databases, including IMEMR, which is specific to the EMR, it should be acknowledged that some researchers in the region may publish their research papers on websites or journals not indexed in the databases we searched or these publications might not be available online. We attempted to partially overcome this by searching Google Scholar and screening the reference lists of included as well as relevant articles. Furthermore, our search date for articles extended up to 2022; hence, it does not encompass studies that could have been published after this date. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that such studies would change the findings in a significant way. At the same time, we believe the 12-year review we conducted provides a good analysis of the funding landscape for HPSR in the EMR. Secondly, for articles encompassing multiple countries, we categorized them into two groups: “More than one beyond the region” and “More than one within the region”, maintaining a distinction from individual country analyses. While this categorization may overlook specific contributions from individual countries within these broader categories, the lack of specificity regarding the countries involved made it challenging to merge them accurately with respective national totals. Indeed, several articles referenced broader regions such as “EMR” or “Middle East” without specifying the countries included, potentially leading to inaccuracies if merged without clear delineation. Also, it is worth noting that articles focusing on more than one country contributed to only 10% of the total included articles, suggesting limited implications for our findings. Finally, the income classification for two countries – Iran and Jordan – changed since the completion of the data collection period for this study. However, this is not expected to significantly alter the results, as both countries are still considered middle-income countries, with variations between upper-middle and lower-middle income levels.

Comparison to other studies and trends

Iran’s leading position in HPSR production has been re-iterated in previous publications [ 11 ]. When it comes to reporting of funding for HPSR papers, our findings align with a cross-sectional survey of 400 HPSR studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies), which revealed that a third of sampled HPSR papers did not provide any information about funding [ 19 ]. This is in contrast to clinical papers whereby 89% of clinical trial reports published in 2015 included funding statements [ 23 ]. This is a reflection of both a suboptimal compliance by authors with the funding policies and a deficient enforcement by the journals [ 19 ].

As for the sources of funding for published HPSR papers, our findings align with reported funding sources for HPSR in LMICs, indicating notably low government spending on HPSR, whereby governments tend to give more consideration to basic science and clinical research over HPSR [ 24 ]. In these settings, funding for HPSR primarily originates from international and multilateral aid as well as contracts with larger research consortia, with limited contributions from national governments [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. This funding pattern was particularly evident in low-income and lower-middle income countries of the EMR. Additionally, international funding sources predominated when Iran was excluded from the analysis.

Existing research indicates that the strong dependence of countries on international funding generally comes at the expense of addressing community needs and health system priorities where research topics dictated by funders and donors are prioritized [ 14 , 28 , 29 ]. This concern is further reinforced by another study on HPSR funding in LMIC, which revealed that these countries depend on a narrow array of donors, which puts them at risk of losing funding if the donors’ priorities shift away from HPSR [ 14 ]. In addition to that, the reliance on international funding impedes the national authorities from developing local, sustainable capacity to perform HPSR [ 25 ].

A number of factors have been identified as influencing investment in or funding for health research in general and HPSR in particular in the EMR. Health research in this region is fragmented and insufficient because of the absence of national policies and strategic plans that promote investment in health systems research [ 11 , 28 ]. Moreover, in the conflict-affected countries of the region, health systems research is not a top priority of the national and international investments and initiatives [ 28 ]. Bureaucratic bottlenecks such as corruption and lack of accountability and unstable government regimes further hamper the establishment and improvement of domestic HPSR funding [ 29 ]. Additionally, the weak institutional and infrastructural capacity and the absence of a critical mass, that is, an abundant number of qualified researchers with a uniquely varied skill mix in research institutions hinders HPSR national as well as international funding [ 8 , 11 , 25 , 27 ].

Implications for policy and practice

Study findings indicate limited interest and commitment of governments to HPSR funding in the EMR. We provide key implications for policy and practice moving forward. First and foremost, governments are urged to outline a national vision with clearly defined goals, objectives, policies and strategies for HPSR [ 30 , 31 ]. The WHO Global Ministerial Forum suggests institutionalizing HPSR and forming a separate institute or department for HPSR, whether as part of ministry of health or not [ 29 , 32 ]. This would allow for better governance of research, improved management for resources and consequently enhanced credibility and integrity [ 29 , 32 ]. Also, these institutions and departments can hold national health programs and work on integrating them with those of the external donors [ 25 , 29 ].

Second, increasing domestic funding for HPSR is needed to reduce reliance on external donors while improving HPSR’s focus on national priorities. To this end, governments in the EMR should establish explicit national funding or a budget line item for HPSR with sustainable and transparent processes in place for mobilizing and allocating funds for HPSR [ 11 ]. Additional strategies for increasing domestic funding of HPSR include the formation of advocacy coalitions and continuous advocacy to both public- and private-sector stakeholders. Moreover, the engagement of local stakeholders in research priority-setting exercises, in organizational-level capacity-building to improve the use of research evidence, in assessing the gains of previous funding, and in assigning a portion of international funds to local research teams all enhance demand and funding for HPSR at the national level [ 31 , 33 ]. Given that funding from international sources will continue to play a role in the region, strong governance to ensure coordinated efforts and alignment to country priorities will be key to attaining maximum return on investment [ 11 ]. It is also important to ensure that at least some of this external funding is used to strengthen national researcher capacity as well as sensitize decision-makers to the potential of HPSR to inform improved national policy. Initiatives to promote donor alignment and harmonization such as the International Health Partnership are also a promising option for governments to align their HPSR vision with the funder’s interests [ 25 ].

Third, given that increases in domestic funding commitments for HPSR are likely to be difficult to achieve without stronger policy-maker demand for HPSR, it would be important for EMR countries to invest in capacity-building and awareness raising for HPSR to improve the prevailing culture for research and evidence-informed decision-making. Individual-level capacity should be complemented by institutional mandates for policy-makers to use research evidence as input into the decision-making process as well as institutional structures and mechanisms to hold decision-makers accountable for their decisions. Furthermore, given that generating appropriate, trustworthy evidence depends on the existence of good research organizations, building and strengthening academic programs (master’s and PHDs) and institutions for HPSR and knowledge translation would enhance the technical capacities of all HPSR stakeholders and improve the integration of research findings into policy-making. Incentive mechanisms to support knowledge translation work and interdisciplinary research can further incentivize researchers to engage in HPSR and evidence-informed policy-making.

Fourth, considerations could be given to establish a regional strategy for HPSR which articulates the vision and goal for HPSR in the EMR as well as guides resource mobilization and allocation decisions for HPSR, including priority-setting exercises to shape HPSR research agenda in the region. A regional advocacy coalition can also be considered to raise regional funds for HPSR, which can be allocated in an informed manner to support national HPSR initiatives [ 5 , 12 ]. Moreover, a regional forum or network can be established for raising awareness, building capacity and creating demand for HPSR.

Finally, given that our study identified suboptimal reporting of funding information in HPSR papers, journals need to better enforce their funding policies.

This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in HPSR articles in the EMR. Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately 30% of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources in funding HPSR articles in the EMR, with a minimal role of national governments and regional entities. Study findings can guide researchers, policy-makers and funders to strengthen and improve the profile of HPSR funding in the EMR.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Tran BX, Tran LM, Hwang J, Do H, Ho R. Editorial: strengthening health system and community responses to confront COVID-19 pandemic in resource-scare settings. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 935490.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, et al. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hassounah M, Raheel H, Alhefzi M. Digital response during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9): e19338.

Sachs JD, Karim SSA, Aknin L, Allen J, Brosbol K, Colombo F, et al. The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet. 2022;400(10359):1224–80.

Koon AD, Rao KD, Tran NT, Ghaffar A. Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:30.

Pantoja T, Barreto J, Panisset U. Improving public health and health systems through evidence informed policy in the Americas. Br Med J. 2018;362: k2469.

Article   Google Scholar  

El-Jardali F, Fadlallah R, Bou Karroum L, Akl EA. Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21(1):40.

El-Jardali F, Saleh S, Khodor R, Abu Al Rub R, Arfa C, Ben Romdhane H, et al. An institutional approach to support the conduct and use of health policy and systems research: the Nodal Institute in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(1):40.

Lamba G, Zennaro LD, Ha S, Yangchen S. Domestic funding for health policy and systems research: why is it invisible? Public Health Res Pract. 2021;31(4).

World Food Program (WFP). WFP East Africa COVID-19 Update, 23 July 2020. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/south-sudan/wfp-east-africa-covid-19-update-23-july-2020 . 2020.

Rabbat ME, El-Jardali F, Fadlallah R, Soror S, Ahmadnezhad E, Badr E, et al. Funding for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean region: amount, source and key determinants. Public Health Res Pract. 2021;31(4).

Al-Mandhari A. Achieving, “Health for All by All” in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. East Mediterr Health J. 2019;25(9):595–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bennett S, Agyepong IA, Sheikh K, Hanson K, Ssengooba F, Gilson L. Building the field of health policy and systems research: an agenda for action. PLoS Med. 2011;8(8): e1001081.

Grépin KA, Pinkstaff CB, Shroff ZC, Ghaffar A. Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):68.

Khor SK. Challenges and opportunities for health policy and systems research funding in the Western Pacific region. Public Health Res Pract. 2021;31(4).

Kennedy A, Khoja TA, Abou-Zeid AH, Ghannem H. National health research system mapping in 10 Eastern Mediterranean countries. East Mediterr Health J. 2008;14(3):502–17.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Khamis AM, Bou-Karroum L, Hakoum MB, Al-Gibbawi M, Habib JR, El-Jardali F, et al. The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):83.

El-Jardali F, Jamal D, Ataya N, Jaafar M, Raouf S, Matta C, et al. Health policy and systems research in twelve Eastern Mediterranean countries: a stocktaking of production and gaps (2000–2008). Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:39.

Dehghani M, Mesgarpour B, Akhondzadeh S, Azami-Aghdash S, Ferdousi R. How the US sanctions are affecting the health research system in Iran? Arch Iran Med. 2021;24(2):101–6.

Becerra-Posada F, Dos Santos Boeira L, Garcia-Godoy B, Lloyd E, Martinez-Sanchez HX, O’Donnell C, et al. Politics and political determinants of health policy and systems research funding in Latin America and the Caribbean. Public Health Res Pract. 2021;31(4).

Hakoum MB, Jouni N, Abou-Jaoude EA, Hasbani DJ, Abou-Jaoude EA, Lopes LC, et al. Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10): e015997.

Lin V, Ghaffar A, Khor SK, Reddy KS. Strengthening health systems globally: a lingering challenge of funding. Public Health Res Pract. 2021;31(4).

Bennett S, Adam T, Zarowsky C, Tangcharoensathien V, Ranson K, Evans T, et al. From Mexico to Mali: progress in health policy and systems research. Lancet. 2008;372(9649):1571–8.

Bennett S, Agyepong IA, Sheikh K, Hanson K, Ssengooba F, Gilson L. Building the field of health policy and systems research: an agenda for action. PLoS Med. 2011;8(8):e1001081.

Gonzalez Block MA, Mills A. Assessing capacity for health policy and systems research in low and middle income countries*. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1(1):1.

El Achi N, Papamichail A, Rizk A, Lindsay H, Menassa M, Abdul-Khalek RA, et al. A conceptual framework for capacity strengthening of health research in conflict: the case of the Middle East and North Africa region. Glob Health. 2019;15(1):81.

Okedo-Alex IN, Akamike IC, Olisaekee GO, Okeke CC, Uneke CJ. Identifying advocacy strategies, challenges and opportunities for increasing domestic health policy and health systems research funding in Nigeria: perspectives of researchers and policymakers. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):41.

Mansoori P. Evolution of Iran’s health research system over the past 50 years: a narrative review. J Glob Health. 2018;8(2): 020703.

Hanney S, Kanya L, Pokhrel S, Jones T, Boaz A. What is the evidence on policies, interventions and tools for establishing and: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2020.

Organization WH. Scaling up research and learning for health systems: now is the time: report of a high level task force. Scaling up research and learning for health systems: now is the time: report of a high level task force. 2009.

Adam T, Ahmad S, Bigdeli M, Ghaffar A, Røttingen J-A. Trends in health policy and systems research over the past decade: still too little capacity in low-income countries. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(11): e27263.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to extend their thanks to the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research at the World Health Organization for their support and guidance. We also wish to acknowledge the Health Systems Global Society (HSG) for their overall support. We would also like to acknowledge Ms. Diana Jamal for her support with data analysis and Ms. Mathilda Jabbour and Ms. Nour Hemadeh for their support in study screening.

This research was supported as part of the work of the Health Systems Global’s (HSG) Regional Networks – Eastern Mediterranean.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Racha Fadlallah & Fadi El-Jardali

Health Systems Global Society, London, UK

Racha Fadlallah

Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Racha Fadlallah, Fadi El-Jardali, Nesrin Chidiac, Najla Daher & Aya Harb

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Fadi El-Jardali

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

R.F. conceived the idea. R.F. and F.E.J. designed the study and the methodology. R.F. developed and ran the search strategy. R.F., N.D. and A.H. conducted title and abstract screening. R.F., N.C., N.D. and A.H. conducted full text screening. R.F., N.C. and N.D. abstracted key variables from included studies. F.E.J., R.F. and N.C. analysed and interpreted the findings. R.F. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript with input from F.E.J. and N.C. All authors read and approved the submitted version. All authors have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fadi El-Jardali .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

12961_2024_1161_moesm1_esm.pdf.

Supplementary Material 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fadlallah, R., El-Jardali, F., Chidiac, N. et al. Analysis of funding landscape for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A scoping review of the literature over the past decade. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 70 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01161-3

Download citation

Received : 19 July 2023

Accepted : 08 June 2024

Published : 24 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01161-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health policy and systems research
• Funding sources
• Eastern Mediterranean Region
• Scoping review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Incantation as Linguistic Disruption: Magic in Postcolonial Literature

Ned Tagtmeier is a third-year at the University of Chicago studying computer science and English. His hobbies include volunteering at local theater Doc Films as well as scrolling.

The grammar turned and attacked me. Adrienne Rich, “A Valediction Forbidding Mourning”

The logics of colonial domination are those of the idealized scientific mind William Blake called “Bacon & Newton & Locke”: ideologies that present themselves as rationality (Blake 54). Such logics operate in two stages: first elevating rationality as the supreme principle under which politics and social life should be governed, and then asserting that the colonial power’s actions are a priori rational. Once this project is complete, many of the power structures undergirding colonialism become taken for granted and impervious to critique. In his description of the way that new social structures become entrenched in everyday life, Frankfurt School theorist Walter Benjamin states that the gestures that reify these structures are “mastered gradually – taking their cue from tactile reception – through habit” (Benjamin 40). Benjamin sees this process as both dangerous insofar as it allows capital to shape people in accordance with its interests and generative insofar as it gives art with mass appeal a chance to create a new world. While his analysis is limited to mass media (and specifically film), it may be instructive to look towards more niche postcolonial literature to find strategies for such generative rehabituation. M. NourbeSe Philip’s poem Zong! , a reinterpretation of the text of a court case concerning the murder of enslaved people during the Middle Passage, is one such piece of literature, as is Amitav Ghosh’s Sea of Poppies, a sprawling multi-character epic about a ship destined to carry indentured servants from India to Mauritius. Both works take seriously magical and spiritual connections between characters that transcend space and time. Rather than impart habits onto the reader through distraction, this focus on magic serves to defamiliarize the habits that underwrite colonial ideology. Ghosh’s character of Baboo Nob Kissin organizes his life around a feat of necromancy. As Ma Taramony, the great love of Baboo’s life, dies, she tells him “...your body will be the vessel for my return. There will come a day when my spirit will manifest itself in you, and then the two of us, united by Krishna’s love, will achieve the most perfect union” (Ghosh 162). In his book Another Mind-Body Problem, John Harfouch connects the history of “the institution of a racial non-being, conceived as a mind-body union without reason” to Edward Said’s work on imperialism (Harfouch xiii). The idea of racial non-being that allows for the labor arrangements that make colonialism profitable is dependent on a version of Cartesian mind/body dualism under which the human being is a mind that uses reason to control a body. Already embedded in Ma Taramony’s promise to Baboo is the rejection of such a hierarchy. Her use of the word “vessel” to describe Baboo’s body might seem like a call to the idea of possession, where a foreign consciousness empties out a body in order to inhabit and control it. However, such a model of possession emphasizes the continuity of the identity of the possessing force in a way that is inadequate to explain the union with Baboo that Ma Taramony foresees. The relationship between body and mind is not straightforwardly dualistic; it is a complex and mutually constitutive bond.

The function of resurrection in Zong! engenders a similar confusion of the mind/body distinction. Such a confusion might also be called a contusion. Like the process of bruising, wherein blood spills out into the interior of the body, trauma allows the substance of the mind into parts of the body where it was not intended [sic] to go. For Philip, that foreign but ultimately aesthetically generative mind is that of Derrida’s “generations of skulls and spirits,” which Philip gives the name of Setaey Adamu Boateng and credits as a co-author (Philip & Boateng 204). However, Philip’s concern with resurrecting the voices of the dead is not just about the thoughts of the dead, but also their vocal cords and, by extension, their bodies as a whole. She uses the word “exaqua” to give a name to her task of bringing up the bodies again, of offering her flesh to the minds of the murdered Africans while simultaneously offering her mind to their flesh. Were it the case that Setaey Adamu Boateng had used Philip’s hands to commit their voice to paper, Philip would have had no reason to credit herself as an author of Zong!. Like in Sea of Poppies , then, her relationship with the spirit does not obey the simple logic of possession, but might be better understood as a creative collaboration.

Creative collaboration between the living and dead in Sea of Poppies disrupts the efforts of colonizers to use language to establish hierarchies of meaning. After seeing Baboo Nob Kissin wearing women’s clothes, Burnham provokes him, attempting to uphold a strict gender binary. Baboo Nob Kissin attempts to reassure him: “It is outward appearance only–just illusions. Underneath all is same-same” (Ghosh 209). Burnham takes this to indicate that Baboo Nob Kissin is denigrating the importance of the institution of gender rather than making manifest that which had been latent in Baboo Nob Kissin since the death of Ma Taramony. This misunderstanding leads in turn to other misunderstandings and fabrications that eventually allow Baboo Nob Kissin to express the spirit of Ma Taramony in peace. Baboo Nob Kissin’s use of language, difficult to understand as it is, thus becomes a model by which challenges to colonial order maintenance can slip under the radar. It is at precisely the moment that he begins attempting to express something magical that communication with Burnham begins to break down in a manner advantageous to him. Through understanding that a central part of the British colonial project consisted of “reject[ing] the presence of femininity in man as virtually the negation of all humanness” both at home and abroad, the reader may come to see Baboo Nob Kissin’s habits of language as not just rejecting the gender binary system insofar as it disadvantaged Ma Taramony, but also evading colonial systems of control net large (Nandy 43). 

In parallel to how Sea of Poppies presents a magical alternative to the British imposition of the gender binary, Zong! destabilizes the very idea of the gender binary as an unassailable rational force in the British psyche. In a section narrated by a white sailor and addressed to Ruth, the sailor sees “visions of l / ace for a queen / my queen / there is pus / dire visions / tempt all” (Philip & Boateng 65-66). This juxtaposition between “visions of lace” and the reality of “pus” parallels the entrance of the voice of the white slaver into the poem being relayed to Philip by the ancestors. The evocation of playing cards in the line about an “ace for a queen” shows not only how the perspective of enslaved people can be swapped out for that of the slaver, but also how the pus on the sailor’s body and his vision of lace on that of Ruth can become swapped and confused. The poem uses a strange, archaic word for breasts: “dugs” (65). That word is also used in T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land to describe the “wrinkled” breasts of the magically sex-changed prophet and “old man” Tiresias (Eliot 228). Along with other moments in the surrounding text that sound like Eliot (“at tea time éclairs”, “bo / ne men”), there are clear echoes of The Waste Land ’s gender confusion, a confusion born of chaos and societal breakdown. In Zong! , however, this breakdown comes from delirium, from visions induced by illness and poor rations. All the dualisms upon which the Western metaphysics decried by Harfouch depend are dependent on the notion that rationality can rule one’s life supremely, that when there are lapses in rationality, rationality can reassert itself and suppress dissent. In a state of delirium, however, the subject has no sense of what is and is not rational. For this reason, the sailor succumbs to magical visions, which are anathema to the metaphysics he depends upon to justify his profession of shipping Black people to America. As those metaphysics crumble, so too does the difference between self and other, between narrator and Ruth, and between man and woman.

Similar mystical visions in Sea of Poppies challenge the efforts of colonial power structures to limit the imagination of colonized people. The very first sentence of the novel is “The vision of a tall-masted ship, at sail on the ocean, came to Deeti on an otherwise ordinary day, but she knew instantly that the apparition was a sign of destiny, for she had never seen the vessel before, not even in a dream” (Ghosh 3). The epistemic standpoint privileged by Western conceptions of rationality demands a certain level of doubt by which any piece of sense experience or intuition must be ruthlessly criticized before being integrated with the sum of all one knows about the world. What’s striking about Deeti’s alternative form of integrating perception with knowledge is that it is no less rational than the Western model. Unlike Philip’s sailor aboard the song lost in a fever dream, Deeti has full control of her mental faculties, which allows her to neatly separate visions from dreams and dreams from realities. She soberly notes that “the vision was not materially present in front of her” (8). However, the guiding framework of those mental faculties allows for faith as opposed to doubt. Destiny, rather than the senses as they exist in the physical world, is axiomatized in Deeti’s epistemic system, counterbalancing the self-contradictory empiricism of colonial ideology. 

This alternate system is not just Deeti’s system, but a fundamental component of a larger anticolonial order. In the first of the novel’s striking flash-forwards, Ghosh writes that “in time, among the legions who came to regard the Ibis as their ancestor, it was accepted that it was the river itself that had granted Deeti the vision” (10). The historical significance of the novel’s plot is never fully explained, but it is implied to be immense. Most of the characters whose perspectives are represented in the novel’s storytelling have an antagonistic relationship to the colonial powers-that-be. Many, like Deeti, are members of colonized groups; Zachary and Paulette are marginalized on the basis of race and gender. The use of the word “legions” in this vision of the future thus implies two things: that those inspired by the Ibis will form a military and that this military will not treat the British with the utmost kindness. The “legions” go on to calculate that the vision occurred “the moment the vessel made contact with the sacred waters…in the second week of March 1838” (10). The scholars of the future do significant historical and mathematical work in order to construct an accurate timeline of events. This work is eminently rational, but that is not to say that it assimilates the vision into Western epistemological norms. Those norms are inherently incompatible with knowledge gained from intuition that is neither empirical nor rational. When empirical facts and deductive reasoning are used to expand societal knowledge about a mystical vision, then, an entirely new epistemology is constructed that cannot be reduced to that of the West.

Zong! ’s treatment of the Yoruban divination practice of ifá is similarly methodologically complex. An early usage of the word occurs when the narrator muses, “am sum / am / ame / if / if / if / if only ifá ” (Philip and Boateng 70). The metaphysical constraints provided by the “am” statements are harsh and restrictive. The speaker is a “sum” of money that may or may not be awarded to the owners of the ship depending on the ruling of the court. The alternate Latin meaning of sum (“I am”), which could grant the line recursive meaning (the Biblical name Yahweh is associated with the powerful phrase “I am that I am”) is rendered inactive by the lack of italics. The speaker’s insistence on being “ ame ” communicates little more than a cruel joke: the French word for soul, âme , is rendered incomplete by the rending of the letters from the circumflex above the “a.” In Latin, ame means love, but this meaning is conspicuously absent from the glossary, where love is absent from the definitions of all the words from European languages. Language rends itself open to deny the speaker the opportunity to use it to find meaning, like a bear chewing off its leg so a hunter will not find it in a trap. The speaker then searches vainly for logic and meaning, repeating the word “if,” but is unable to find the second part of the “if-then” statement, the future. 

The word “ ifá ” represents a radical break from these inadequacies, as it is presented as a whole word with all of the meaning bestowed upon it by Yoruba culture. What is important about ifá is that it provides a future that is not premised on death. Roman methods of divination like auguries and haruspicy took as their source the entrails of dead animals, but ifá uses pine nuts instead. While those Roman methods of divination were abandoned by the West as part of the rationalist philosophical project discussed in this essay, they were replaced by historical disciplines with an outsized focus on war and suffering. Popular aphorisms such as “If we cannot remember the past, we will be doomed to repeat it” make clear that the future conjured by the discipline of history is one that finds its basis on the bloodiest elements of the past, a dilemma that ifá is freed from. In the context of the poem, however, ifá cannot be separated from the disgusting “bile cum pus” that characterizes the ship. Visions of the future allowed by ifá must eventually give way to an unbearable present. Ifá can thus be thought of as “if a,” a beginning to a sentence that never reaches an end. Nevertheless, imagining a better future allows for the creative collaboration between Philip and Boateng that, while unable to redeem the violence done aboard the Zong, nonetheless represents a retroactive challenge to colonial oppression and a meaningful demonstration of care towards the dead enslaved people.

The kinds of language games that lead to the elevation of ifá as a practice worth holding onto in Zong! can be found in Sea of Poppies in the various meanings given to the English word “black.” When Baboo Nob Kissin announces his plan to board the Ibis , Mr. Burnham objects “Won’t your Gentoo brethren ban you from their midst for crossing the Black Water?”, leading Baboo Nob Kissin to successfully argue, “[p]ilgrims cannot lose caste—this can also be like that. Why not?” (Ghosh 211). One of the most liberatory aspects of magic as presented in the novel is its ability to transform itself in response to material conditions and organize itself around the principle of sufficient reason. Burnham’s knowledge of Hindu custom is significant, but not intimate: he realizes that the Black Water might be a problem, but he lacks the understanding and energy necessary to challenge Baboo Nob Kissin’s redefinition of the rules of caste. It is precisely his provocation, however, that leads Baboo Nob Kissin to redefine the rules in the way he does and thus redefine his actions in the eyes of Krishna as a pilgrimage. 

Of course, this redefinition is based on the gomusta’s interpretation of “Black” as the color of Krishna “whose very name meant ‘black’ and whose darkness had been celebrated in thousands of songs, poems and names” (142). Upon perceiving Zachary as white, Baboo Nob Kissin contorts his mental image of Zachary to align with the legends of Krishna. Eventually, he discovers a crew list with “the word ‘Black’ scribbled beside Zachary’s name” (430). Ironically, he interprets the word “Black” as Zachary’s good-name, when it is actually his race or color. This misunderstanding could be read as a comedic coincidence that is simply fortunate for Baboo Nob Kissin, but it might better be theorized as an example of the way that magic can reveal and manifest into being fundamental truths outside the purview of deductive reasoning. As the negative sense of the word “Black” as in “Black Water” is rejected and nullified in Baboo Nob Kissin’s mind by the positive connotations of Krishna’s “Blackness,” the racial hierarchies associated with other parts of the British Empire start to break down. The logic of passing, whereby Zachary is required to hide his racial status in order to gain wealth and status, fades away as Baboo Nob Kissin gives Zachary the chance to form an authentic relationship based on the truth with Paulette. It is no surprise that magic negating the curse of the Black Water might have some effect in terms of the Hindu caste system, as that is the social structure in which the Black Water has meaning. The fact that this negation is able to affect other forms of racialization shows that magic has the ability to transcend its original setting, allowing it to adapt to changes brought upon by colonialism.

Attempts to change the magical energies attached to water in Zong! bear less narrative fruit but are no less urgent. One passage, again from the perspective of the white slaver and lover of Ruth, reads, “geld / the negro now / and wash the / water of all sin” (Philip and Boateng 106). One issue at stake in these lines is the rape of African women by slavers, who were sometimes thrown into the sea to hide the slavers’ shame at having copulated with a non-white woman. Miscegenation, not murder, is the sin mentioned here, and the slavers place the blame for this sin at the feet of Black women and men alike. The sexual aggressiveness of the slavers is displaced in an act of sympathetic magic onto the Black men, who must now be “gelded,” or castrated, in order to atone for the sins of the white man. However, to consider magic as solely the providence of the white man in this line would be to apply an overly reductionist lens to the formal complexity of the poem. Shortly after the voice of the slaver comes a plea: “ èsù oh / èsù / save / the / us / in you” (106). Èsù is the trickster orisha and messenger god in Yoruban myth who brought the ritual of ifá to humankind, stealing it from its eponymous god (Britannica). Here, the enslaved people aboard the Zong beg Èsù (who might be compared to the figure of Setaey Adamu Boateng) to tell their stories with their voices and thus keep them alive. The earlier prayer from the slavers to “wash the water of all sin” thus becomes hijacked by the voices of the dead, recentering the crimes of murder and rape that Philip wishes so dearly to foreground in her poem. Unlike in Sea of Poppies , where magical struggle leads to a turn against oppression on the narrative level, in Zong! , the magical struggle occurs on the level of form. It helps to provide order (another concept strongly associated with Èsù ) to the multiplicity of voices offered in the poem, and thus to emphasize that even if the voices of the slavers must persist, what matters is keeping alive the voices of enslaved people. The idea of washing water is paradoxical, and Philip’s poem cannot achieve it, but if Zong! can accurately record a desire to wash the water of murder and not of miscegenation, then it has achieved its goal of “exaquay.”

Ultimately, it appears that the role of magic in postcolonial literature is to reject colonial accounts of history and to create new concepts of knowledge and time oriented towards the postcolonial future rather than the colonial past. However, the way it does so is radically different from Benjamin’s account of art-creating habits in the spectator for better or for worse. The adaptive quality of magic, by which an individual can transform the rules to suit their position, makes it difficult for its depiction in postcolonial literature to be habit-forming. It encourages re-evaluation of the habits of the past without necessarily providing a clear blueprint for what everyday life will look like in the future. The future presented by magic is one of the radical possibilities that magic makes available to the reader. Of course, one danger of this view of magic is that it could succumb to an atomized individualistic account of the relations between people. However, it could also provide the basis for anticolonial and anticapitalist forms of resistance that reject the teleologies that have historically impeded such resistance. The success of Zong! and Sea of Poppies in using magic to tell stories that the English language does not want to tell indicates that the latter, more optimistic path might be more likely.

Works Cited

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility . Edited by Michael W Jennings et al. Translated by Edmund Jephcott, Second ed., Harvard College, 2008. 

Blake, William. Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion . Edited by David Erdman, Doubleday, 1988, The William Blake Archive , https://erdman.blakearchive.org/#203 , Accessed 23 May 2023. 

Eliot, T.S. “The Waste Land.” The Waste Land , 2 Jan. 2023, wasteland.windingway.org/. 

Ghosh, Amitav. Sea of Poppies . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. 

Harfouch, John. Another Mind-Body Problem: A History of Racial Non-Being . State University of New York Press, 2019. 

Luebering, J.E. “Eshu.” 11 May 2015. Encyclopedia Britannica . https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eshu .

Nandy, Ashish. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism . Oxford University Press, 1983. 

Philip, M. NourbeSe, and Setaey Adamu Boateng. Zong! Wesleyan University Press, 2008.

Articles copyright © 2024 the original authors. No part of the contents of this Web journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without permission from the author or the Academic Writing Program of the University of Maryland. The views expressed in these essays do not represent the views of the Academic Writing Program or the University of Maryland.

Study on Intermetallic Compound (IMC) in dissimilar joining of steel and aluminum (Fe-Al) – a review paper

• Review Article
• Published: 24 June 2024

Cite this article

• Syahril Azli Abdul Rahman 1 ,
• Sarizam Mamat   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5997-4075 1 ,
• Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad 1 ,
• Narong Mungkung 2 ,
• Toshifumi Yuji 3 ,
• Shinichi Tashiro 4 &
• Manabu Tanaka 4  

10 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Dissimilar metal joints, particularly those involving aluminum and iron (Al–Fe), are widely employed in engineering due to their exceptional mechanical properties and unique microstructures. The purpose of this literature review is to assess the extent and depth of research related to dissimilar metal joint research, with a specific focus on microstructure analysis and the reported findings. The review identified three key themes for improving the quality of these joints: welding techniques, parametric optimization, and material treatment. Three themes were identified, namely, the welding techniques (i.e., Friction Stir Welding, TIG-MIG Hybrid welding, etc.), parameter optimization (e.g., Taguchi method, Response Surface Method etc.), and the material treatment (pre-heating, Backing Plate, etc.). This systematic and comprehensive literature review highlights the importance of microstructural analysis in Dissimilar Metal Joint research, providing a foundation for understanding the nuances of different welding methods and their effects on joint quality. Additionally, strategies to mitigate the challenges posed by thick Fe2Al5 formation are discussed, ultimately contributing to advancements in dissimilar material joint technology and joint strength enhancement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Enhancement of joint properties and reduction of intermetallics in FSW of highly dissimilar Al/Ti alloys

Microstructural characteristics and mechanical properties of the dissimilar friction-stir butt welds between an Al–Mg alloy and A316L stainless steel

Intermetallic compounds (imcs) formation during dissimilar friction-stir welding of aa5005 aluminum alloy to st-52 steel: numerical modeling and experimental study.

Stodolsky F, Vyas A, Cuenca R, Gaines L (1995) Life-cycle energy savings potential from aluminum-intensive vehicles. SAE Tech Pap. https://doi.org/10.4271/951837

Article   Google Scholar  

Taub A, De Moor E, Luo A, Matlock DK, Speer JG, Vaidya U (2019) Materials for Automotive Lightweighting. Annu Rev Mater Res 49:327–359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070218-010134

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Brown KR, Venie MS, Woods RA (1995) Increasing use of aluminum in automotive applications. Jom 47(7):20–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03221224

Zielinski J, Andreucci R, Aktas CB (2016) Prospects for Meeting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards in the U.S. Procedia Eng 145:460–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.018

Kochan A (2000) Audi moves forward with all-aluminium cars. Assem Autom 20(2):132–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445150010321751

Pană GM (2020) Developments of Audi Space Frame Technology for Automotive Body Aluminum Construction. Appl Mech Mater 896:127–132. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.896.127

Nandan G, Kumar G, Arora KS, Kumar A (2022) MIG and CMT brazing of aluminum alloys and steel: A review. Mater Today Proc 56:481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.166

Nene SS, Gupta S, Morphew C, Mishra RS (2020) Friction stir butt welding of a high strength Al-7050 alloy with a metastable transformative high entropy alloy. Materialia 11:100740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtla.2020.100740

Wang P et al. (2021) Hierarchical morphology and formation mechanism of collision surface of al/steel dissimilar lap joints via electromagnetic pulse welding. Metals (Basel). 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/met11091468

Chudasama G, Kalyankar Phd V, Chauhan S, Shende D (2023) Dissimilar Resistance Spot Welding of Steel and Aluminium Alloy Using Ni Interlayer for Automobile Structure. SAE Tech. Pap., no. May 2023. https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-28-1355

Kalyankar V, Chudasama G (2023) On the metallurgical challenges of intermetallic compound in steel/Al dissimilar resistance spot welding: significance, growth and controlling mechanisms. Adv Mater Process Technol 00(00):1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/2374068X.2023.2206175

Wang X et al (2023) Interface structure and mechanical properties of Fe/Al dissimilar lap joints formed by friction stir welding using an adjustable tool. Sci Technol Weld Join 28(8):701–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621718.2023.2210980

Xu W, He H, Yi Y, Wang H, Yu C, Fang W (2021) Dissimilar joining of stainless steel and aluminum using twin-wire CMT. Weld World 65(8):1541–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-021-01089-0

Bellamy MA, Basole RC (2013) Network analysis of supply chain systems: A systematic review and future research. Syst Eng 16(2):235–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21238

Wacker JG (1998) A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. J Oper Manag 16:361–385

Krippendorff K (2014) Content Analysis : An Introduction to its Methodology . by Klaus Krippendorff Review by : Mack Shelley Published by : American Statistical Association Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2288384 . J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79(385):240

Krippendorff K (2004) Content Analysis - An Introduction to Its Methodology , Second Edi. Sage Publications Inc, California

Google Scholar  

Suzuki R, Ryo C (2019) Aluminum-steel dissimilar robotic arc spot welding with auxiliary insert. Weld World 63(6):1733–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-019-00795-0

Alaeibehmand S, Mirsalehi SE, Ranjbarnodeh E (2021) Pinless FSSW of DP600/Zn/AA6061 dissimilar joints. J Mater Res Technol 15:996–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.08.071

Xu P, Hua X, Shen C, Huang Y, Li F, Zhang Y (2021) Dynamic growth model of Fe2Al5 during dissimilar joining of Al to steel using the variable polarity cold metal transfer (VP-CMT). J Mater Process Technol 302(September):2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117477

Gester A et al (2019) Hybrid joints of die-casted aluminum/magnesium by ultrasound enhanced friction stir welding (USE-FSW). Weld World 63(5):1173–1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-019-00767-4

Cheepu M, Ashfaq M, Muthupandi V (2017) A New Approach for Using Interlayer and Analysis of the Friction Welding of Titanium to Stainless Steel. Trans Indian Inst Met 70(10):2591–2600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-017-1114-x

Nothdurft S et al. (2019) Surface integrity of laser beam welded steel– aluminium alloy hybrid shafts after turning. Metals (Basel). 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/met9020134

Zhu C, Xu S, Gao W, Meng Y, Lin S, Dai L (2021) Microstructure characteristics and mechanical properties of Al/Mg joints manufactured by magnetic pulse welding. J. Magnes. Alloy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2021.09.004

Peng M et al (2022) CMT welding-brazing of al/steel dissimilar materials using cycle-step mode. J Mater Res Technol 18:1267–1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.03.043

Hincapié OD, Salazar JA, Restrepo JJ, Torres EA, Graciano-Uribe J (2019) Control of formation of intermetallic compound in dissimilar joints aluminum-steel. Int J Eng Trans A Basics 32(1):127–136. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2019.32.01a.17

Kanakavalli PB, Babu BN, Sai CPNV (2020) A hybrid methodology for optimizing MIG welding process parameters in joining of dissimilar metals. Mater Today Proc 23:507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.05.396

Niroumand-Jadidi A, Kashani-Bozorg SF (2018) Microstructure and property assessment of dissimilar joints of 6061–T6 Al/dual-phase steel fabricated by friction stir spot welding. Weld World 62(4):751–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-018-0602-x

Shi L, Kang J, Chen X, Haselhuhn AS, Sigler DR, Carlson BE (2019) Determination of fracture modes in novel aluminum-steel dissimilar resistance spot welds. Procedia Struct Integr 17:355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.08.047

Szallies K, Zwicker M, Bergmann JP (2020) Single-sided resistance spot welding of steel–aluminum dissimilar joints—mechanical characterization and interface formation. 125. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2957-3_6

Lu Y, Mayton E, Song H, Kimchi M, Zhang W (2019) Dissimilar metal joining of aluminum to steel by ultrasonic plus resistance spot welding - Microstructure and mechanical properties. Mater Des 165:107585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107585

Bick T, Heuler V, Treutler K, Wesling V (2020) Characterization of influences of steel-aluminum dissimilar joints with intermediate zinc layer. Metals (Basel). 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/met10040442

Selvamani ST, Yoganandan G, Bakkiyaraj M, Sivaraman V (2022) Influence of Heat Input on Cold Metal Transfer Welded Joints. Mater Manuf Process 37(13):1555–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2022.2030877

Muhammad NA, Wu CS, Su H (2021) Concurrent influences of tool offset and ultrasonic vibration on the joint quality and performance of dissimilar Al/Cu friction stir welds. J Mater Res Technol 14:1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.009

Heidarzadeh A et al (2020) Friction stir welding/processing of metals and alloys: A comprehensive review on microstructural evolution. Prog Mater Sci 117(11):100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100752

Isa MSM et al (2021) Recent research progress in friction stir welding of aluminium and copper dissimilar joint: a review. J Mater Res Technol 15:2735–2780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.09.037

Karthikeyan M, Jonah (2021) Effect of tool travel speed on tensile strength of friction stir welded dissimilar joint of aluminium AA6061 T6 alloy and maraging M250 steel. Mater. Res. Express. 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/abde57

Kimthong P, Wattanapornphan P, Phongphisutthinan C, Uthaisangsuk V (2022) Experimental investigations and FE modeling considering microstructural inhomogeneity of laser welded steel-aluminum joints. 22(1). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-021-00353-w

Kumar T, Kiran DV, Arora N, Kumar PS (2022) Study of steel-aluminium joining under the influence of current waveforms using advanced CMT process variants. Mater Manuf Process 37(13):1578–1595. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2022.2030879

Abima CS, Madushele N, Mwema FM, Akinlabi SA (2023) Experimental and finite element simulation for thermal distribution in TIG, MIG and TIG-MIG hybrid welds. Int J Interact Des Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-01173-9

Shao Q, Tan F, Li K, Yoshino T, Guo G (2021) Multi-objective optimization of mig welding and preheat parameters for 6061-t6 al alloy t-joints using artificial neural networks based on fem. Coatings. 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11080998

Shao L, Shi Y, Huang JK, Wu SJ (2015) Effect of joining parameters on microstructure of dissimilar metal joints between aluminum and galvanized steel. Mater Des 66(PB):453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.06.026

Singh J, Singh A, Arora KS, Shukla DK (2022) Multi-objective Optimization of Process Parameters during Dissimilar Cold Metal Transfer Weld-Brazing of Al-Steel. Trans Indian Inst Met 75(7):1929–1940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-022-02567-9

Zhang G, Chen M, Shi Y, Huang J, Yang F (2017) Analysis and modeling of the growth of intermetallic compounds in aluminum-steel joints. RSC Adv 7(60):37797–37805. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra06354g

Ye Z et al (2017) Microstructure and mechanical properties of 5052 aluminum alloy/mild steel butt joint achieved by MIG-TIG double-sided arc welding-brazing. Mater Des 123:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.039

Chen C, Gao C, Xing Y (2018) Investigations on the Dissimilar Metal Joints Capability between Aluminum Alloy and Steel under CMT Welding. 04007

Xu P, Hua X, Shen C, Huang Y, Li F, Zhang Y (2021) Dynamic growth model of Fe2Al5 during dissimilar joining of Al to steel using the variable polarity cold metal transfer (VP-CMT). J Mater Process Technol 302(June):2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117477

Xu P et al (2023) Fracture Mode Variation Mechanism of Al/Steel Dissimilar Overlap Joint Made Using Variable Polarity Cold Metal Transfer-Based Arc Brazing. J Mater Eng Perform 32(2):512–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07134-3

Su Y, Hua X, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Guo Y (2015) Characterization of intermetallic compound layer thickness at aluminum-steel interface during overlaying. Mater Des 78:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.04.025

Rizi EC, Ranjbarnodeh E, Mirsalehi SE (2023) Predicting the quantity and type of intermetallic phases in aluminum–steel dissimilar joints produced by zinc interlayer. Weld World 67(1):151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-022-01388-0

Kang M, Kim C (2015) Joining Al 5052 alloy to aluminized steel sheet using cold metal transfer process. Mater Des 81:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.05.035

Ye Z et al (2017) Microstructure and mechanical properties of 5052 aluminum alloy/mild steel butt joint achieved by MIG-TIG double-sided arc welding brazing. Mater Des 17:264–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.039

Ahmed MMZ, Jouini N, Alzahrani B, Seleman MME-S, Jhaheen M (2021) Dissimilar Friction Stir Welding of AA2024 and AISI 1018: Microstructure and Mechanical Properties. Metals (Basel) 11(330):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/met11020330

Farmanbar N, Mousavizade SM, Ezatpour HR (2019) Protrusion friction stir spot welding: A simple novel method to produce dissimilar joints of galvanized steel/aluminum sheets with high mechanical performance,” Mater. Res. Express. 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/aaf1ff .

Mahmoud ERI et al. (2022) Free Intermetallic Cladding Interface between Aluminum and Steel through Friction Stir Processing. Crystals. 12(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12101413

Gao K, Zhang S, Mondal M, Basak S, Hong ST, Shim H (2021) Friction stir spot butt welding of dissimilar S45C steel and 6061-T6 aluminum alloy, Metals (Basel). 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/met11081252

Benkherbache H, Amroune S, Zaoui M, Mohamad B, Silem M, Saidani H (2020) Characterization and mechanical behaviour of similar and dissimilar parts joined by rotary friction welding. Eng Solid Mech 9(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.esm.2020.6.002

Sapanathan T et al (2019) A new physical simulation tool to predict the interface of dissimilar aluminum to steel welds performed by friction melt bonding. J Mater Sci Technol 35(9):2048–2057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.05.004

Ramya G et al . (2022) Assessment of Rotational Speed and Plunge Rate on Lap Shear Strength of FSSW Joints of AA7075/Mild Steel. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6215249

Thomä M, Gester A, Wagner G, Fritzsche M (2020) Analysis of the oscillation behavior of hybrid aluminum/steel joints realized by ultrasound enhanced friction stir welding. Metals (Basel) 10(8):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10081079

Das T, Paul J (2020) Resistance Spot Welding of Similar and Dissimilar Metals: The Effect of Graphene Interlayer. Jom 72(8):2863–2874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-020-04159-8

Ramachandran KK, Murugan N, Shashi Kumar S (2015) Friction stir welding of aluminum alloy AA5052 and HSLA steel. Weld J 94(9):291s–300s

Grong Ø, Sandnes L, Bergh T, Vullum PE, Holmestad R, Berto F (2019) An analytical framework for modelling intermetallic compound (IMC) formation and optimising bond strength in aluminium-steel welds. Mater Des Process Commun 1(3):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.57

Ogata KA, Lazarevic S, Miller SF (2014) Dissimilar material joint strength and structure for friction stir forming process, in Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference., pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2014-4044

Ramachandran KK, Murugan N, Shashi Kumar S (2015) Influence of tool traverse speed on the characteristics of dissimilar friction stir welded aluminium alloy, AA5052 and HSLA steel joints. Arch Civ Mech Eng 15(4):822–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.06.002

Das H, Pal TK (2015) High cycle fatigue behaviour of friction stir lap welded 6061 aluminium alloy to coated steel sheet joint. Trans Indian Inst Met 68(5):959–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-015-0533-9

Sameer MD, Birru AK (2019) Investigations on Microstructural Evolutions and Mechanical Properties of Dual-Phase 600 Steel and AA6082-T6 Aluminum Alloy Dissimilar Joints Fabricated by Friction Stir Welding. Trans Indian Inst Met 72(2):353–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-018-1487-5

Torres EA, Graciano-Uribe J, Santos TFA (2021) Control of steel detachment and metal flow on aluminum-steel friction stir welding of thin joints. Int J Eng Trans A Basics 34(4):1024–1034. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2021.34.04a.29

Swamy MM, Muthukumaran S, Kiran K (2017) A Study on Friction Stir Multi Spot Welding Techniques to Join Commercial Pure Aluminum and Mild Steel Sheets. Trans Indian Inst Met 70(5):1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-016-0916-6

Wang T, Sidhar H, Mishra RS, Hovanski Y, Upadhyay P, Carlson B (2019) Evaluation of intermetallic compound layer at aluminum/steel interface joined by friction stir scribe technology. Mater Des 174:107795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107795

Watanabe M, Feng K, Nakamura Y, Kumai S (2011) Growth manner of intermetallic compound layer produced at welding interface of friction stir spot welded aluminum/steel lap joint. Mater Trans 52(5):953–959. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.L-MZ201120

Wei Y, Sun F (2018) Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Al/Fe and Cu/Fe Joints by Continuous Drive Friction Welding. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2809356 .

Khalil C, Marya S, Racineux G (2021) Construction of physical welding windows for magnetic pulse welding of 5754 aluminum with DC04 steel. Int J Mater Form 14(5):843–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12289-020-01597-2

Yuce C, Karpat F, Yavuz N (2018) Influence of heat input on mechanical properties and microstructure of laser welded dissimilar galvanized steel- aluminum joints, in Proceedings of the ASME 2018 13th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2018-6419

Xia H, Tan C, Li L, Ma N (2018) In Situ SEM Observations of Fracture Behavior of Laser Welded-Brazed Al/Steel Dissimilar Joint. J Mater Eng Perform 27(3):1047–1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-018-3227-8

Yang J, Yu Z, Li Y, Zhang H, Guo W, Zhou N (2018) Influence of alloy elements on microstructure and mechanical properties of Al/steel dissimilar joint by laser welding/brazing. Weld World 62(2):427–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-017-0540-z

Narsimhachary D, Pal S, Shariff SM, Padmanabham G, Basu A (2017) AA6082 to DX56-Steel Laser Brazing: Process Parameter-Intermetallic Formation Correlation. J Mater Eng Perform 26(9):4274–4281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-017-2902-5

Wang C, Cui L, Mi G, Jiang P, Shao X, Rong Y (2017) The influence of heat input on microstructure and mechanical properties for dissimilar welding of galvanized steel to 6061 aluminum alloy in a zero-gap lap joint configuration. J Alloys Compd 726:556–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.08.015

Hu Y, Zhang Y, Mi G, Wang C, Zhang W, Zhang X (2021) Effects of Si contents in filling wires on microstructure evolution and properties of Al-steel dissimilar joint by laser welding-brazing. J Mater Res Technol 15:1896–1904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.09.053

Nishimoto K, Harano T, Okumoto Y, Atagi K, Fujii H, Katayama S (2009) Mechanical properties of laser-pressure-welded joint between dissimilar galvannealed steel and pure aluminium. Weld Int 23(11):817–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/09507110902842893

Zhang MJ, Chen GY, Zhang Y, Wu KR (2013) Research on microstructure and mechanical properties of laser keyhole welding-brazing of automotive galvanized steel to aluminum alloy. Mater Des 45:24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.023

Takaya S, Yamamoto M, Shinozaki K, Matsuda H, Ikeda R (2017) “Hot-wire laser brazing technology for steel / aluminum alloy dissimilar joint”, Yosetsu Gakkai Ronbunshu/Quarterly . J Japan Weld Soc 35(1):155S-159S. https://doi.org/10.2207/QJJWS.35.155S

Tadamalle AP, Reddy YP, Ramjee E, Reddy KVK (2018) Characterization of fully and partially penetrated Nd : YAG laser-weld dissimilar metal joints †. 32(2):615–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-018-0108-2

Kobayashi S, Yakou T (2002) Control of intermetallic compound layers at interface between steel and aluminum by diffusion-treatment. Mater Sci Eng A 338(1–2):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(02)00053-9

Sarizam M (2018) A Study on Characterization of the Plasma MIG Welding Process

Wang P, Chen X, Pan Q, Madigan B, Long J (2016) Laser welding dissimilar materials of aluminum to steel: an overview. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87(9–12):3081–3090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8725-y

Meco S, Cozzolino L, Ganguly S, Williams S, McPherson N (2017) 2016 Laser welding of steel to aluminium: Thermal modelling and joint strength analysis. J Mater Process Technol 247(July):121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.04.002

Miyamoto K, Nakagawa S, Sugi C, Sakurai H, Hirose A (2009) Dissimilar joining of aluminum alloy and steel by resistance spot welding. SAE Tech. Pap. (October):58–67 https://doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-0034

Borrisutthekul R, Yachi T, Miyashita Y, Mutoh Y (2007) Suppression of intermetallic reaction layer formation by controlling heat flow in dissimilar joining of steel and aluminum alloy. Mater Sci Eng A 467(1–2):108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2007.03.049

Xu L, Wang L, Chen YC, Robson JD, Prangnell PB (2016) Effect of Interfacial Reaction on the Mechanical Performance of Steel to Aluminum Dissimilar Ultrasonic Spot Welds. Metall Mater Trans A Phys Metall Mater Sci 47(1):334–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-015-3179-7

Chi L, Wang X, Liang S, Ran Y, Wang Y (2021) Experimental study and numerical simulation of interfacial morphology by electromagnetic pulse welding with aluminum to steel. Mater Trans 62(9):1343–1351. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.MT-M2021036

Silvayeh Z, Götzinger B, Karner W, Hartmann M, Sommitsch C (2018) Calculation of the intermetallic layer thickness in cold metal transfer welding of aluminum to steel. Materials (Basel). 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12010035

Liu FC, Dong P (2021) From thick intermetallic to nanoscale amorphous phase at Al-Fe joint interface: roles of friction stir welding conditions. Scr Mater 191:167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2020.09.031

Shinnosuke C, Masaya S, Hisaya K, Manabu T (2021) Particle simulation of nugget formation process during steel/aluminum alloy dissimilar resistance spot welding and thickness estimation of intermetallic compounds. Soc Weld Jt 39(4):371–378. https://doi.org/10.2207/qjjws.39.371

Selvamani ST, Yoganandan G, Bakkiyaraj M, Sivamaran V (2022) Corrosion resistance and metallurgical behaviour of CMT welded Al-LCS dissimilar butt joint exposed in simulated industrial environment. J Mech Eng Sci 236(14):7853–7863. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544062221079503

Lin HL, Huang WH (2022) Multi-Response Optimization and Investigations of Al-Steel Lap-Joint Performance Using a Novel MIG Weld-Brazing Technique. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 23(9):1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-022-00672-9

Yu X, Huang J, Yang T, Fan D (2022) The Growth Behavior for Intermetallic Compounds at the Interface of Aluminum-Steel Weld Joint. Materials (Basel). 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103563

Huda N, Chen J, Gerlich AP (2023) Mechanical properties of aluminum to steel dissimilar spot joints produced by cold metal transfer weld-brazing. Forces Mech 11(March):100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmec.2023.100192

Liu J, Wu B, Wang Z, Li C, Chen G, Miao Y (2023) Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminum-steel dissimilar metal welded using arc and friction stir hybrid welding. Mater Des 225:111520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111520

Tanaka T, Nezu M, Uchida S, Hirata T (2020) Mechanism of intermetallic compound formation during the dissimilar friction stir welding of aluminum and steel. J Mater Sci 55(7):3064–3072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-019-04106-2

Bae J-H, Park Y-D, Lee M (2021) Optimization of Welding Parameters for Resistance Spot Welding of AA3003 to Galvanized DP780 Steel Using Response Surface Methodology. Int J 22(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-021-0055-x

Jimenez-Mena N, Sapanathan T, Jacques PJ, Simar A (2021) Combined numerical and experimental estimation of the fracture toughness and failure analysis of single lap shear test for dissimilar welds. Eng. Fract. Mech. 249(February):107756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.107756

Campanella D, Buffa G, Fratini L (2021) Friction stir welding of dissimilar aluminum-steel joints for the shipbuilding industry, in 24th International Conference on Material Forming. 5 1–10. https://doi.org/10.25518/esaform21.4008

Murugan S, Sathiya P, Nooorul Haq A (2021) Continuous drive dissimilar friction welding of wrought aluminium AA6063- T6 and austenitic stainless steel AISI304L with different welding methods and welding trials Article. Kov Mater 59(Julai):161–179. https://doi.org/10.4149/km20213161

Kimura M, Yoneda A, Kusaka M, Kaizu K, Hayashida K, Takahashi T (2021) Weldability and its improvement of friction welded joint between ductile cast iron and 5052 Al alloy. J Adv Mech Des Syst Manuf 15(4):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1299/JAMDSM.2021JAMDSM0045

Hynes NRJ, Nagaraj P, Sujana JAJ (2019) Regression Modelling of Joining Aluminium Studs to Steel with AA 1100 Interlayer. Exp Tech 43(5):491–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40799-019-00303-5

Thomä M, Wagner G, Straß B, Wolter B, Benfer S, Fürbeth W (2018) The influence of ultrasound enhancement during friction stir welding of aluminum to steel. Key Eng Mater 767:351–359. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.767.351 . (KEM, no. Im)

Bellmann J, Lueg-Althoff J, Schulze S, Gies S, Beyer E, Tekkaya AE (2016) Measurement and analysis technologies for magnetic pulse welding: established methods and new strategies. Adv Manuf 4(4):322–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-016-0162-5

Kakiuchi T, Uematsu Y, Suzuki K (2016) Evaluation of fatigue crack propagation in dissimilar Al/steel friction stir welds. Procedia Struct Integr 2:1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2016.06.129

López EAT, Ramirez AJ (2015) Effect of process parameters in obtaining aluminium–steel joints and their microstructure by friction stir welding (FSW). Weld Int 29(9):689–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/09507116.2014.932989

Springer H, Szczepaniak A, Raabe D (2015) On the role of zinc on the formation and growth of intermetallic phases during interdiffusion between steel and aluminium alloys. Acta Mater 96:203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.06.028

Haddadi F (2015) Rapid intermetallic growth under high strain rate deformation during high power ultrasonic spot welding of aluminium to steel. Mater Des 66(PB):459–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.001

Wojarski L, Tillmann W (2014) TLP brazing of aluminum to steel using PVD-deposited interlayer. Weld World 58(5):673–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-014-0143-x

Luo J, Wang X, Wang C, Yao Z (2013) Characteristics of Light Alloy/ Steel Dissimilar Metals Joint by the Longitudinal Electromagnetic Hybrid TIG Welding - Brazing Method–I.Experimental Research. Proceedings of the Japan Welding Society 31(4):48–52. https://doi.org/10.2207/qjjws.31.48s

Karimi N, Nourouzi S, Shakeri M, Habibnia M, Dehghani A (2012) Effect of Tool Material and Offset on Friction Stir Welding of Al Alloy to Carbon Steel. Adv Mater Res 445(January):747–752. https://doi.org/10.4028/scientific5/amr.445.747

Ogura T, Umeshita H, Saito Y, Hirose A (2009) “Characteristics and estimation of interfacial microstructure with additional elements in dissimilar metal joints of aluminum alloys to steel”, Yosetsu Gakkai Ronbunshu/Quarterly . J Japan Weld Soc 27(2):174–178. https://doi.org/10.2207/qjjws.27.174s

Behrens BA et al (2021) Challenges in the forging of steel-aluminum bearing bushings. Materials (Basel) 14(4):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14040803

Bansal P et al (2022) Physics-informed machine learning assisted uncertainty quantification for the corrosion of dissimilar material joints. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 227(July):108711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108711

Casalino G, Leo P, Mortello M, Perulli P, Varone A (2017) Effects of laser offset and hybrid welding on microstructure and IMC in Fe-Al dissimilar welding. Metals (Basel). 7(8) https://doi.org/10.3390/met7080282

Lee WB, Schmuecker M, Mercardo UA, Biallas G, Jung SB (2006) Interfacial reaction in steel-aluminum joints made by friction stir welding. Scr Mater 55(4):355–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2006.04.028

Liu Y, Zhao H, Peng Y (2020) Metallurgical reaction and joining phenomena in friction welded Al/Fe joints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 107(3–4):1713–1723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05128-w

Manh NQ (2018) Dissimilar Joining a6061 Aluminum Alloy and Sus304 Stainless Steel By the Tungsten Inert Gas Welding Process. Vietnam J Sci Technol 54(5A):64. https://doi.org/10.15625/2525-2518/54/5a/12062

Mohamad MR, Shah LH, Ishak M (2017) Investigation of preheating method on joint strength of aluminium-stainless steel dissimilar welding using metal inert gas (MIG) process, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 238(1) https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/238/1/012019

Baskoro AS, Muzakki H, Kiswanto G, Winarto W (2019) Mechanical Properties and Microstructures on Dissimilar Metal Joints of Stainless Steel 301 and Aluminum Alloy 1100 by Micro-Resistance Spot Welding. Trans Indian Inst Met 72(2):487–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-018-1500-z

Shah LH, Akhtar Z, Ishak M (2013) Investigation of aluminum-stainless steel dissimilar weld quality using different filler metals. Int J Automot Mech Eng 8(December):1121–1131. https://doi.org/10.15282/ijame.8.2013.3.0091

Liu Y, Zhao H, Peng Y, Ma X (2020) Microstructure and tensile strength of aluminum/stainless steel joint welded by inertia friction and continuous drive friction. Weld World 64(10):1799–1809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-00960-w

Matsuda T, Adachi H, Yoshida R, Sano T, Hori H, Hirose A (2021) Formation of interfacial reaction layer for stainless steel/aluminum alloy dissimilar joint in linear friction welding. Mater Today Commun 26:101700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101700

Singh P, Deepak D, Brar GS (2021) Optical micrograph and micro-hardness behavior of dissimilar welded joints of aluminum (Al 6061–T6) and stainless steel (SS 304) with friction crush welding. Mater Today Proc 44:1000–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.171

Vyas H, Mehta KP, Badheka V, Doshi B (2020) Pipe-to-pipe friction welding of dissimilar Al-SS joints for cryogenic applications. J Brazilian Soc Mech Sci Eng 42(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-020-2181-1

Goel P et al (2019) Investigation on material mixing during FSW of AA7475 to AISI304. Mater Manuf Process 34(2):192–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2018.1544717

Alves EP, Toledo RC, Piorino Neto F, Botter FG, An CY (2019) Experimental thermal analysis in rotary friction welding of dissimilar materials. J Aerosp Technol Manag 11:1–9. https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v11.1068

Grund T, Gester A, Wagner G, Habisch S, Mayr P (2018) Arc brazing of aluminium, aluminium matrix composites and stainless steel in dissimilar joints. Metals (Basel) 8(3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/met8030166

Darzi Naghibi H, Shakeri M, Hosseinzadeh M (2016) Neural Network and Genetic Algorithm Based Modeling and Optimization of Tensile Properties in FSW of AA 5052 to AISI 304 Dissimilar Joints. Trans Indian Inst Met 69(4):891–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12666-015-0572-2

Kulkarni SS, Konnur VS, Ganjigatti JP (2022) Optimization of MIG welding process parameters with grey relational analysis for AL 6061 alloy. Weld Int 36(7):387–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09507116.2022.2087569

Pu J, Wei Y, Xiang S, Ou W, Liu R (2021) Optimization of Metal Inert-Gas Welding Process for 5052 Aluminum Alloy by Artificial Neural Network. Russ J Non-Ferrous Met 62(5):568–579. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1067821221050059

Chafekar A, Sapkal S (2020) Multi-objective optimization of mig welding of aluminum alloy. Techno-Societal 2018 - Proc. 2nd Int Conf Adv Technol Soc Appl 2:523–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16962-6_53

Radhakrishnan K, Parameswaran P, Antony AG, Rajaguru K (2020) Optimization of mechanical properties on GMAW process framework using AA6061-T6 Mater. Today Proc 37(Part 2):2924–2929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.08.684

Shi C, Sun H, Liu C, Zhu K, Yang Q (2022) Effect of water cooling on microstructure and mechanical properties of friction stir welded dissimilar 2A12/6061 aluminum alloys. Mater. Res. Express 9(5) https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ac6d4c

Memon S, Paidar M, Mehta KP, Babaei B, Lankarani HM (2021) Friction Spot Extrusion Welding on Dissimilar Materials AA2024-T3 to AA5754-O: Effect of Shoulder Plunge Depth. J Mater Eng Perform 30(1):334–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-020-05387-4

Msomi V, Mabuwa S (2020) Analysis of material positioning towards microstructure of the friction stir dissimilar joint. Adv Ind Manuf Eng 1(September):100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aime.2020.100002

Han J, Paidar M, Vignesh RV, Mehta KP, Heidarzadeh A, Ojo OO (2020) Effect of shoulder features during friction spot extrusion welding of 2024–T3 to 6061–T6 aluminium alloys. Arch Civ Mech Eng 20(3):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-020-00086-2

Nie F et al (2018) Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Pulse MIG Welded 6061/A356 Aluminum Alloy Dissimilar Butt Joints. J Mater Sci Technol 34(3):551–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2016.11.004

Vigneshwar M, Selvamani ST, Hariprasath P, Palanikumar K (2018) Analysis of Mechanical, Metallurgical and Fatigue Behavior of Friction Welded AA6061-AA2024 Dissimilar Aluminum Alloys in Optimized Condition. Mater Today Proc 5(2):7853–7863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.466

Ogbonna OS, Akinlabi SA, Madushele N, Fatoba OS, Akinlabi ET (2022) 2023 Grey-based taguchi method for multi-weld quality optimization of gas metal arc dissimilar joining of mild steel and 316 stainless steel. Results Eng 17(December):100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.100963

Abima CS, Akinlabi SA, Madushele N, Fatoba OS, Akinlabi ET (2022) Multi-objective optimization of process parameters in TIG-MIG welded AISI 1008 steel for improved structural integrity. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 118(11–12):3601–3615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08181-1

Mahmood NY, Alwan AH (2019) Mechanical properties improvement of MIG welding steel sheets using Taguchi method. Aust J Mech Eng 00(00):2204–2253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14484846.2019.1661810

Baloyi P et al (2021) Two-staged technique for determining ultimate tensile strength in MIG welding of mild steel. Mater Today Proc 44:1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.244

Prasetyo T, Muzakki H, Lumintu I, Hartanto D (2020) Optimization of Metal Inert Gas Welding with Taguchi Method. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1569(3) https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1569/3/032059

Kanakavalli PB, Babu BN, Sai CPNV (2019) A hybrid methodology for optimizing MIG welding process parameters in joining of dissimilar metals. Mater. Today Proc 23:507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.05.396

Kumar S, Singh R (2019) Optimization of process parameters of metal inert gas welding with preheating on AISI 1018 mild steel using grey based Taguchi method. Meas J Int Meas Confed 148:106924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.106924

Wu Y, Guo Y, Zhang W, Li L (2022) Microstructure evolution and dynamic mechanical behavior of laser welded dissimilar joint between QP1180 and TRIP780. J Mater Res Technol 16:977–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.12.076

Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Berto D, Pullin E, Masaggia S (2021) Fatigue strength of austempered ductile iron-to-steel dissimilar arc-welded joints. Weld World 65(4):667–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-01058-z

Bai Y, Su H, Wu C (2021) Enhancement of the Al / Mg Dissimilar Friction Stir Welding. Metals (Basel) 11(7):1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/met11071113

Mehta K et al (2021) Investigation of exit-hole repairing on dissimilar aluminum-copper friction stir welded joints. J Mater Res Technol 13:2180–2193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.06.019

Tan C et al (2018) Laser Brazing Characteristics of Al to Brass with Zn-Based Filler. J Mater Eng Perform 27(7):3521–3531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-018-3401-z

Sudhakar R, Sivasubramanian R, Yoganandh J (2018) Effect of automated MIG welding process parameters on ASTM A 106 Grade B pipe weldments used in high-temperature applications. Mater Manuf Process 33(7):749–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1401719

Odiaka T, Madushele N, Akinlabi S (2018) “Improvement of joint integrity in MIG welded steel: A review”, ASME Int . Mech Eng Congr Expo Proc 2:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018-86788

Ramesh Kumar R et al (2023) Experimental and analytical investigation on friction welding dissimilar joints for aerospace applications. Ain Shams Eng J 14(2):101853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101853

Yao H et al (2022) Microstructure and mechanical properties of friction stir lap welds between FeCoCrNiMn high entropy alloy and 6061 Al alloy. Mater Des 224:111411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111411

Chapke YU, Kamble DN (2022) Effect of friction-welding parameters on the tensile strength of AA6063 with dissimilar joints. Frat ed Integrita Strutt 16(62):573–584. https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.62.39

Anaman SY, Zhang S, Lee JS, Cho HH, Hong ST (2022) A comprehensive assessment of the galvanic corrosion behavior of an electrically assisted pressure joint of dissimilar stainless steel alloys under uniaxial tensile stress. J Mater Res Technol 19:3110–3129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.06.089

Buchmayr B (2021) A systems engineering analysis of tailored formed metallic hybrids. Prod Eng 15(2):211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-020-01001-7

Rajendran C, Suryaprakash E, Sivasankar V, Suryaprakash P, Rohith K (2020) Predict the Tensile Strength of Friction Welded Steel/ASS304L Dissimilar Joints, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng 995(1) https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/995/1/012042

Arumugam A, Pramanik A (2020) Review of Experimental and Finite Element Analyses of Spot Weld Failures in Automotive Metal Joints. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 14(3):315–337

Satpathy MP, Chandra Routara B, Sahoo SK (2020) Weldability appraisement of dissimilar metal joints: application of ultrasonic spot welding to Li-ion batteries. LTD. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819496-6.00003-8

Zhang X, He X, Xing B, Wei W, Lu J (2020) Quasi-static and fatigue characteristics of self-piercing riveted joints in dissimilar aluminium-lithium alloy and titanium sheets. J Mater Res Technol 9(3):5699–5711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.03.095

Sobhani S, Pouranvari M (2019) Duplex stainless steel/martensitic steel dissimilar resistance spot welding: Microstructure-properties relationships. Weld J 98(9):263S-272S. https://doi.org/10.29391/2019.98.023

Li W, Vairis A, Preuss M, Ma T (2016) Linear and rotary friction welding review. Int Mater Rev 61(2):71–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2015.1109214

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by a grant from the Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (grant no : R/MTCH/A1300/00896A/003/2021/00972). The sponsorship and support are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Bioengineering and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, 17600, Jeli, Kelantan, Malaysia

Syahril Azli Abdul Rahman, Sarizam Mamat & Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad

Faculty of Industrial Education Technology, King Mongkut University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Rd., Bang Mod, Thung Khru, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand

Narong Mungkung

Faculty of Education, University of Miyazaki, 1-1 Gakuenkibanadai-Nishi, Miyazaki, 889-2192, Japan

Toshifumi Yuji

Joining and Welding Research Institute, Osaka University, 11-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan

Shinichi Tashiro & Manabu Tanaka

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarizam Mamat .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Recommended for publication by Commission XII - Arc Welding Processes and Production Systems

Tabulation data of articles related to Dissimilar Metal Joints

See Table 5 , Table 6 , Table  7 , Table  8 , Table  9 and Table  10 .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rahman, S.A.A., Mamat, S., Ahmad, M.I. et al. Study on Intermetallic Compound (IMC) in dissimilar joining of steel and aluminum (Fe-Al) – a review paper. Weld World (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-024-01784-8

Download citation

Received : 11 November 2023

Accepted : 07 May 2024

Published : 24 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-024-01784-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Dissimilar metal joint
• Intermetallic compound
• Aluminum-steel
• Hybrid TIG-MIG welding
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research