review research articles

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

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts

Review Articles

Sophisticated natural products as antibiotics

This Review examines the diverse strategies utilized by naturally occurring antibiotics and suggests how they have provided, and will in future provide, inspiration for the design of novel antibiotics.

Richard E. Lee
Ingo Wohlgemuth

Expanding chemistry through in vitro and in vivo biocatalysis

This Review considers developments in enzymes, biosynthetic pathways and cellular engineering that enable their use in catalysis for new chemistry and beyond.

Elijah N. Kissman
Max B. Sosa
Michelle C. Y. Chang

Decoding the interplay between genetic and non-genetic drivers of metastasis

This Review discusses the importance of genetic and non-genetic reprogramming events during the metastatic cascade.

Panagiotis Karras
James R. M. Black
Jean-Christophe Marine

Bridging structural and cell biology with cryo-electron microscopy

The interplay between cryo-electron microscopy and cryo-electron tomography to define complex macromolecular assemblies and visualize them in situ is explored.

Eva Nogales
Julia Mahamid

Ion and lipid orchestration of secondary active transport

This Review describes the various mechanisms of ion-coupled transport across membranes and how the activities of transporter proteins are modulated by the composition of the lipid bilayer.

Olga Boudker

Natural killer cell therapies

This Review explores in detail the complexity of NK cell biology in humans and highlights the role of these cells in cancer immunity.

Eric Vivier
Lucas Rebuffet
Valeria R. Fantin

A break in mitochondrial endosymbiosis as a basis for inflammatory diseases

We suggest that as mitochondrial signals probably contribute to the homeostatic role of inflammation, dysregulation of these processes may lead to autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, with increasing evidence pointing to the recent failure of endosymbiosis being crucial.

Michael P. Murphy
Luke A. J. O’Neill

Molecular pathology of neurodegenerative diseases by cryo-EM of amyloids

Structural studies of amyloid filaments purified from brains of people with neurodegenerative diseases link specific amyloid folds with distinct diseases and provide a basis for the development of models of neurodegenerative disease.

Sjors H. W. Scheres
Benjamin Ryskeldi-Falcon
Michel Goedert

From target discovery to clinical drug development with human genetics

This Review provides a perspective on the development of non-cancer therapies based on human genetics studies and suggests measures that can be taken to streamline the pipeline from initial genetic discovery to approved therapy.

Katerina Trajanoska
Claude Bhérer
Vincent Mooser

Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

The advances in artificial intelligence over the past decade are examined, with a discussion on how artificial intelligence systems can aid the scientific process and the central issues that remain despite advances.

Hanchen Wang
Marinka Zitnik

Physiology and diseases of tissue-resident macrophages

This Review addresses the current understanding of the roles of tissue-resident macrophages in physiology and disease, including their development and their functions in tissue remodelling and nutrient recycling.

Tomi Lazarov
Sergio Juarez-Carreño
Frederic Geissmann

A second wave of topological phenomena in photonics and acoustics

The current state of the art of topological phenomena in photonics and acoustics is reviewed and future research directions for valuable applications are discussed.

Xiujuan Zhang
Farzad Zangeneh-Nejad
Johan Christensen

The neuroscience of cancer

This Review examines the interplay between the nervous system and tumours, from cancer initiation to progression and metastasis.

Rebecca Mancusi
Michelle Monje

Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus

This Review examines the palaeobiology of Australopithecus in terms of morphology, phylogeny, diet, tool use, locomotor behaviour and other characteristics, and considers the role of this genus of hominins in human evolution.

Zeresenay Alemseged

Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery

Recent advances in computational approaches and challenges in their application to streamlining drug discovery are discussed.

Anastasiia V. Sadybekov
Vsevolod Katritch

Revisiting the Holocene global temperature conundrum

Examination of available evidence on whether anthropogenic global warming was preceded by a long-term warming trend or by global cooling provides support for a relatively mild millennial-scale global thermal maximum during the mid-Holocene.

Darrell S. Kaufman
Ellie Broadman

River ecosystem metabolism and carbon biogeochemistry in a changing world

A review of current river ecosystem metabolism research quantifies the organic and inorganic carbon flux from land to global rivers and demonstrates that the carbon balance can be influenced by a changing world.

Tom J. Battin
Ronny Lauerwald
Pierre Regnier

Topological kagome magnets and superconductors

Recent key developments in the exploration of kagome materials are reviewed, including fundamental concepts of a kagome lattice, realizations of Chern and Weyl topological magnetism, flat-band many-body correlations, and unconventional charge-density waves and superconductivity.

Jia-Xin Yin
M. Zahid Hasan

Brain borders at the central stage of neuroimmunology

Anatomical, cellular and molecular immune interactions at the borders of the central nervous system control homeostatic brain function and can lead to neurological or psychiatric diseases, representing potential therapeutic targets.

Justin Rustenhoven
Jonathan Kipnis

Origin of life-forming volatile elements in the inner Solar System

The processes that distributed life-forming volatile elements throughout the early Solar System and how they then became incorporated into planetary building blocks are reviewed.

Michael W. Broadley
David V. Bekaert
Bernard Marty

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
PMID: 35792782
DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

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

< Previous

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

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

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

Permissions Icon Permissions

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

narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

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

Institutional access

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

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

IP based access

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

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

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

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

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

Society Members

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

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

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

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

Sign in using a personal account

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

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

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

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

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

Signed in but can't access content

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

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

Short-term Access

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

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Month:	Total Views:
May 2023	171
June 2023	115
July 2023	113
August 2023	5,013
September 2023	1,500
October 2023	1,810
November 2023	3,849
December 2023	308
January 2024	401
February 2024	312
March 2024	415
April 2024	361
May 2024	306
June 2024	283
July 2024	309
August 2024	243
September 2024	52

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Librarian
Journals Career Network

Affiliations

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

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

Published: 02 October 2017
Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
Mark B. Houston 2 &
John Hulland 3

241k Accesses

487 Citations

64 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article Google Scholar

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

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

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

How to Review a Journal Article

For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

Insights blog

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know?

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the aims and scope of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field.

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.”

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.”

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences, read advice from NCBI .

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative.

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title and our researcher’s guide to search engine optimization .

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact.

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission.

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Differences in...
	Presents the viewpoint of the author	Critiques the viewpoint of other authors on a particular topic
	New content	Assessing already published content
	Depends on the word limit provided by the journal you submit to	Tends to be shorter than a research article, but will still need to adhere to words limit

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
Happiness Hub
This Or That Game
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: August 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,136,142 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.

Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

What does the article set out to do?
What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
Are the central concepts clearly defined?
How adequate is the evidence?
How does the article fit into the literature and field?
Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

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.

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

Planning the Review
The Research Question
Choosing Where to Search
Organizing the Review
Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read.

Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

Next: Planning the Review >>
Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

Single-blind review
Double-blind review
Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

Easy to understand
Constructive

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

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

Normal distribution
Measures of central tendency
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles
Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Thematic analysis
Discourse analysis
Cohort study
Ethnography

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Conformity bias
Hawthorne effect
Availability heuristic
Attrition bias
Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test and follow these guidelines:

The information should be up to date and current.
The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Yale Environment Review (YER) is a student-run review that provides weekly updates on environmental research findings.

Changing waters: significant climate change impacts to the american great lakes region.

America’s Great Lakes region is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. What can recent science tell us about the future?

By Cypull Ethan • September 6, 2024

Lake Superior, dubbed “Gitche Gumee” or “Great Sea” by the Indigenous Ojibwe people, extends beyond the horizon with a vastness that has fascinated me since childhood. As I grew older, I learned about the interconnectedness of Lake Superior to the other four American Great Lakes: Huron, Erie, Michigan, and Ontario. These Great Lakes form the most extensive freshwater system in the world. Eight states and two Canadian provinces border them and are home to 23 million people. The region remains vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, from rising water levels and changes in ice formation patterns to increased occurrences of algae blooms – all consequences of society’s continued use of fossil fuels.

In a recent article published in the Journal of Hydrology , a group of researchers from Michigan Technological University determined that water levels of the Great Lakes are projected to rise under future climate conditions . The study reports that the average annual water levels of Lake Superior, Michigan-Huron, and Erie are projected to increase +0.19, +0.44, and +0.28 meters, respectively, by 2040-2049, relative to 2010–2019 levels. The MTU researchers concluded by running a climate model that combines relevant variables to predict future climate conditions.

The rising water levels will escalate the risk of flooding and alter shorelines for surrounding communities. Consider Sugarloaf Cove, situated on Lake Superior’s North Shore near Schroeder. Sugarloaf Cove is home to a nature center, hiking opportunities, and an iconic cobblestone beach, offering visitors a place to learn about the cultural and geological history of the area. With an added .19 meters (over half a foot) of water, the beach stands to shrink in size, potentially altering recreational opportunities for visitors and affecting the local ecosystem.

Shoreline changes are not the only way climate change is predicted to impact the Great Lakes region. Increased temperatures are also expected to make conditions more suitable for algal blooms in the Great Lakes.

Algal blooms are dangerous because they deplete the water’s overall oxygen content. When water quality drops to less than 2-3 milligrams of oxygen, the conditions are deemed hypoxic. Hypoxic water conditions are unsuitable for many fish species, including the beloved walleye, a favorite among anglers in Minnesota. In another scientific journal, Purdue University scientists found that future climate conditions are expected to exacerbate three out of four hypoxia scenarios in the Great Lakes . Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus levels are two main drivers of hypoxic conditions because they promote algal growth. Since many people depend on the stability of Great Lakes ecosystems for their livelihoods and recreation, climate resilience planning must include nutrient input monitoring as a preventative measure to counteract rising hypoxic conditions.

Another impact of climate change on the Great Lakes’ livelihoods and recreation involves shifting dynamics in lake ice formation. York University researchers published an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, which found that climate change is attributable to an increasing rate of lake ice loss in Northern Hemisphere lakes, including Lake Superior and Lake Michigan . The researchers reached this conclusion by statistically analyzing historical ice data and climate variables. Declining lake ice cover causes a positive feedback loop: lower amounts of lake ice mean lower amounts of reflected sunlight into space. Thus, The Earth absorbs more energy from the sun, causing warmer overall temperatures and further lake ice losses. This feedback loop threatens activities such as ice fishing, as years when Lake Superior freezes over are famous for catching lake trout.

However, not all effects of reduced ice coverage are adverse: shipping routes on the Great Lakes may become more efficient because of more open space on the water. Shipping season has the potential to grow in length due to the same reason. Researchers have yet to determine the full extent of how much ice cover will decrease as global warming continues and worldwide emissions remain staggeringly high and continue to rise.

As a resident of the region, I worry about how effective the institutional response to these impacts of climate change will be. A review of Great Lakes coastal resilience policies, as documented in Climate Policy , uncovered significant diversity in how resilience is defined and the degree of focus these plans place on justice and equity. This consistency in defining resilience can lead to adequate planning if stakeholders are unfamiliar with how climate change might affect them. This scenario underscores the need for a standard to enhance the resilience policies of communities that are currently lacking adequate measures. Public apathy towards climate change may contribute to variable definitions of resilience. According to a 2023 Yale Program on Climate Change Communication survey, the regional average for Americans who believe climate change will personally harm them is roughly 43%. This belief is backdropped with se lect cities in the region being attributed the name “climate havens” due to the more minor impacts that climate change is projected to cause them relative to other parts of the world. I believe that this rhetoric can cause the public to develop a sense of false confidence and misjudge their communities’ risk from the impacts of climate change.

Despite these concerns, I’m confident the region will rise to the challenge and grow to address these issues adequately. The recent establishment of the Climate Governance Variability in the Great Lakes Research Coordination Network (CGVG-RCN) to help solve questions related to the community response to climate change-related issues and provide tangible insights for communities gives me hope for the future. Further scientific endeavors, such as the University of Minnesota Climate Adaptation Partnership (MCAP), are doing valuable work to address these challenges. MCAP contributed to Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework, which outlines the state’s strategy for addressing various climate change impacts. The insights produced by this effort continue to be useful for communities bordering Lake Superior, helping to preserve their culture and livelihoods.

My experience growing up in Minnesota is a testament to the significance of Lake Superior to the state’s identity. Exploring Duluth’s Canal Park, driving up the North Shore alongside fall foliage, and watching “tall ships” crawl into Duluth harbor have long held cultural significance to generations of Minnesotans. All other communities around the Great Lakes have similar traditions and cultural connections. I worry about the potential impact of climate change on these traditions. I contemplate whether, in sixty years, I’ll find myself on the rocky shores of Lake Superior near my grandparents’ cabin, either regretting our failure to preserve these activities for future generations or drawing pride in the work done to protect our collective future. I remain hopeful that emerging scientific networks will help the Great Lakes region avoid the worst impacts of rising water, algae blooms, and changing ice formation patterns for a better future.

You might like these articles that share the same topics

Nearly 2.4 billion people (about 40 percent of the world’s population) live within 100 kilometers of the coast. As coastal cities continue to grow, so too will their influence as actors in shaping sustainable development. A new paper highlights the largely overlooked role of ocean cities in international legal frameworks to address environmental degradation in marine and coastal environments.

A long-term study of bison grazing in tallgrass prairie shows that bison create richer, more resilient grasslands. Bison enhance biodiversity, support native plants and help prairies withstand severe drought.

The emerging offshore wind industry presents a significant opportunity for the United States to achieve its decarbonization goals. However, the nation lags considerably in offshore installations compared to the rest of the world. A recent study explains how connection to the electricity grid, technology, and policy have hindered offshore wind development.

While many toys still offer benefits after normal wear and tear, 80 percent end up in landfills. Often controversial for the direct risks posed to humans, toys also pose a risk to the environment in their design, production, and life cycle.

Arnold School of Public Health
Location Location
Contact Contact
Colleges and Schools
Centers, Institutes and More
Rural and Minority Health Research Center
Peer Reviewed Publications

Gates at the entrance of the horseshoe at the University of South Carolina

Peer Reviewed Publications, Posters and Presentations

Reports and briefs are aimed at community and policy audiences. Listed here are research products we have placed within the scientific literature in the past five years. In addition, presentations and posters from recent conferences are highlighted.

Peer Reviewed Publications 2024

Benavidez G, Zahnd WE, Hung P, Eberth JM. Chronic Disease Prevalence in the US: Sociodemographic and Geographic Variations by Zip Code Tabulation Area. Preventing Chronic Disease Volume 21 E14 February 2024 ; 21:230267. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd21.230267 View Journal Article

Kilpatrick DJ , Hung P , Crouch E , Self S , Cothran J , Porter DE & Eberth JM ( 2024 ). Geographic variations in urban-rural particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations in the United States, 2010–2019 . GeoHealth , 8 ,e2023GH000920. View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Hung P, Crouch EL, Ranganathan R, Eberth JM. Health care access barriers among metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations of eight geographically diverse states, 2018 . J Rural Health. 2024;1-10. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2023

Bell N, Hung P, Lòpez-De Fede A, Adams SA. Broadband access within Medically Underserved Areas and its implication for telehealth utilization. Journal of Rural Health. 2023 Jan 4. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12738. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36599620. IF: 5.667 View Journal Article

Boswell, E., Richard, C., Crouch, E., Jones, A., Dugger, R., Cordan, K. (2023). Home Visiting Program Participation and Healthcare Utilization amongst Children Enrolled in South Carolina Medicaid, 2017-2021. Journal of Health Visiting. View Journal Article

Brown, M., Amoatika, D., Addo, P., Kaur, A., Haider, M., Merrell, M., Crouch, E. (2023). Childhood Sexual Trauma and Subjective Cognitive Decline: An Assessment of Racial/Ethnic and Sexual Orientation Disparities. Journal of Applied Gerontology. P. 07334648231175299. View Journal Article

Chang W, Lo Y, Mazzotti VL, Rowe DA, Hung P. Perceptions of parents of youth with disabilities toward school-based parent engagement. Journal of Family Studies. 2023; 4(29): 1847-1867. Doi: 10.1080/13229400.2022.2098805. IF: 2.267 View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Abshire, D., Wirth, M., Hung, P., Benavidez, G. (2023). Rural-Urban Differences in Overweight and obesity, physical activity, and food security among children and adolescents. Preventing Chronic Disease. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Andersen, T., Smith, H. (2023). Adverse Childhood Experiences and Positive Childhood Experiences among United States Children: A National Security Concern. Military Medicine. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Figas, K., Radcliff, E., Hunt, E. (2023). Examining bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, and positive childhood experiences. Journal of School Health. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Hung, P., Benavidez, G., Giannouchos, T., Brown, M. (2023). Rural-Urban Differences in Access to Care among children and adolescents in the United States. The Journal of Rural Health. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Nelson, D., Radcliff, E., Workman, L, Browder, J., McClam, M. (2023). Factors Influencing Home Visiting Client Attrition in a Southern State. Journal of Health Visiting. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Probst, J., Radcliff, E. (2023). Changes in Positive Childhood Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic Pediatrics. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Bennett, K., Brown, M., Hung, P. (2023). Child and Adolescent Health in the United States: the Role of Adverse and Positive Childhood Experiences. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Brown, M., and Hung, M. (2023). Association between positive childhood experiences and childhood flourishing among US children. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 44(4), e255-e262.

Elmore, A., Crouch, E. (2023). Anxiety, Depression, and Adverse Childhood Experience: An Update on Risks and Protective Factors Among Children and Youth. Academic Pediatrics. 23 (4), 720-721.

Figas*, K., Giannouchos, T, Crouch, E. (2023). Child and Adolescent Anxiety and Depression Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 1-11

Giannouchos TV, Li Z, Hung P, Li X, Olatosi B. Rural-Urban Disparities in Hospital Admissions and Mortality Among Patients with COVID-19: Evidence from South Carolina from 2021 to 2022. J Community Health. 2023 Oct;48(5):824-833. doi: 10.1007/s10900-023-01216-6. Epub 2023 May 3. PMID: 37133745; PMCID: PMC10154180. IF: 3.497 Vew Journal Article

Hung P, Granger M, Boghossian N, Yu J, Harrison S, Liu J, Campbell BA, Cai BO, Liang C, Li X. Dual Barriers: Examining Digital Access and Travel Burdens to Hospital Maternity Care Access in the United States, 2020. Milbank Quarterly. 2023 Dec;101(4):1327-1347. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12668. Epub 2023 Aug 23. PMID: 37614006. IF: 8.964 View Journal Article

Hung P, Probst JC, Shih Y, Ranganathan R, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. Rural-urban disparities in inpatient psychiatric care quality in the United States. Psychiatric Services. 2023 May 1;74(5):446-454. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.20220277. PMID: 36321319. IF: 6.157 View Journal Article

Julceus EF, Olatosi B, Hung P, Zhang J, Li X, Liu J. Racial disparities in adequacy of prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Carolina, 2018-2021. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Sep 23;23(1):686. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05983-x. PMID: 37741980; PMCID: PMC10517534.IF: 3.8 View Journal Article

Li Z, Fu Y, Wang C, Sun H, Hung P. Trends in the availability of community-based psychological counseling services for oldest-old in China, 2005 to 2018. J Affect Disord. 2023 Jun 15;331:405-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.03.035. Epub 2023 Mar 20. PMID: 36940823. IF: 6.533 View Journal Article

Li Z, Ho V, Merrell MA, Hung P. Trends in patient perceptions of care toward rural and urban hospitals in the United States: 2014-2019. Journal of Rural Health. 2023 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12813. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38031505. IF: 5.667 View Journal Article

Li Z, Hung P, Shi K, Fu Y, Qian D. Association of rurality, type of primary caregiver and place of death with end-of-life medical expenditures among the oldest-old population in China. Int J Equity Health. 2023 Jan 3;22(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01813-2. PMID: 36597134; PMCID: PMC9809123. IF: 3.192 View Journal Article

Li Z, Merrell MA, Eberth JM, Wu D, Hung P. Successes and Barriers of Health Information Exchange Participation Across Hospitals in South Carolina From 2014 to 2020: Longitudinal Observational Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2023 Sep 28;11:e40959. doi: 10.2196/40959. PMID: 37768730; PMCID: PMC10570901. IF: 3.2 View Journal Article

Li Z, Xuan M, Gao Y, He R, Qian D, Hung P. Trends in the availability of community-based home visiting services for oldest-old in China, 2005-2018. BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 5;13(4):e070121. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070121. PMID: 37019484; PMCID: PMC10083737. IF:3.007 View Journal Article

Liu J, Hung P, Zhang J, Olatosi B, Campbell B, Liang C, Shih Y, Hikmet N, Li X. Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity in South Carolina during the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Epidemiology. 2023 Dec;88:51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.11.005. Epub 2023 Nov 10. PMID: 37952778. IF: 5.6 View Journal Article

Lyu T, Liang C, Liu J, Hung P, Zhang J, Campbell B, Ghumman N, Olatosi B, Hikmet N, Zhang M, Yi H, Li X; National COVID Cohort Collaborative Consortium. Risk for Stillbirth among Pregnant Individuals with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Varied by Gestational Age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb 28:S0002-9378(23)00132-1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.022. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36858096; PMCID: PMC9970919. IF:8.661 View Journal Article

Merrell, M., Crouch, E., Harrison, S., Brown, M., Brown, T., Pearson, W. (2023). Identifying the need for and availability of evidence-based care for sexually transmitted infections in rural primary clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. View Journal Article

Momodu*, O., Horner, R., Liu, J., Crouch, E., Chen, B. (2023). Participation in the Centering Pregnancy Program and Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. View Journal Article

Momodu, O., Horner, R., Liu, J., Crouch, E., Chen, B. (2023). Validation of Gestational Weight Gain Records on South Carolina Birth Certificate Data. Discover Health Systems. View Journal Article

Negaro SND, Hantman RM, Probst JC, Crouch E, Odahowski C, Andrews CM, Hung P. (2023). Geographic Variations in Driving Time to U.S. Mental Health Care, Digital Access to Technology, and Household Crowdedness. Health Affairs Scholar. View Journal Article

Probst, J., Crouch, E., and Hung, P. (2023). Increasing all-cause mortality in US children and adolescents.JAMA. View Journal Article

Shalowitz DI, Hung P, Zahnd WE, Eberth J. Pre-pandemic geographic access to hospital-based telehealth for cancer care in the United States. PLoS One. 2023 Jan 31;18(1):e0281071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281071. PMID: 36719889; PMCID: PMC9888704. IF: 3.752 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Hung P, Shi SK, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Probst JC, Eberth JM. Availability of hospital-based cancer services before and after rural hospital closure, 2008-2017. Journal of Rural Health. 2023 Mar;39(2):416-425. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12716. PMID: 36128753. IF: 5.667 View Journal Article

Zahnd, W., Silverman*, A., Self, S., Hung, P., Natafgi, N., Adams, S, Merrell, M., Owens, O., Crouch, E., Eberth, J. (2023). The COVID-19 Pandemic Effect on Independent and Provider-Based Rural Health Clinics’ Operations and Cancer Prevention and Screening Provision in the United States. The Journal of Rural Health. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2022

Bell N, Hung P, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. Changes in access to community health services among rural areas affected and unaffected by hospital closures between 2006 and 2018: A comparative interrupted timeseries study. J Rural Health. July 2022;1-11 View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Nelson, J., Radcliff, E., Merrell, M., and Martin, A. (2022). Safe, Supportive Neighborhoods: Are they Associated With Childhood Oral Health? Journal of Public Health Dentistry. View Journal Article

Crouch EL, Probst JC, Shi SK, McLain AC, Eberth JM,Brown MJ, Merrell M, Bennett KJ. Examining the association between rurality and positive childhood experiences among a national sample. J Rural Health, 2022:1-8. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Browder, J., Workman, L., McClam, M. (2022). Assessing Supports Provided to Home Visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Health Visiting. 10(10),428-433. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Kelly, K., Merrell, M., and Bennett, K. (2022). Examining the influence of positive childhood experiences on childhood overweight and obesity using a national sample. Preventive Medicine, 154, 106907. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Merrell, M., Brown, M., and Bennett, K. (2022). A national examination of the association between poverty and interactive caregiving practices among parents of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-9. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Smith, H., Anderson, T. (2022). An examination of caregiver incarceration, positive childhood experiences, and school success. Children and Youth Services Review,133, 106345. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Srivastav, A., Stafford, A. (2022). Examining Racial/Ethnic Differences in Positive Childhood Experiences among Respondents in a Southern States. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 1-8. View Journal Article

Culp F, Wu Y, Wu D, Ren Y, Raynor P, Hung P, Qiao S, Li X, Eichelberger K. Understanding Alcohol Use Discourse and Stigma Patterns in Perinatal Care on Twitter. Healthcare. 2022 Nov 26;10(12):2375. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10122375. PMID: 36553899. IF: 3.160 View Journal Article

Eberth JM, Hung P, Benavidez GA, Probst JC., Zahnd WE., McNatt MK., Toussaint E, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Oyesode OJ , Yell N. 2022. The Problem Of The Color Line: Spatial Access To Hospital Services For Minoritized Racial And Ethnic Groups: Study examines spatial access to hospital services for minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Health Affairs, 41(2), pp.237-246 View Journal Article

Giannouchos, T., Crouch, E., Merrell, M., Brown, M., Harrison, S., Pearson, W. (2022). Racial, ethnic, and rural/urban disparities in HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections, in South Carolina. Journal of Community Health. 48(1), 152-159. View Journal Article

Hung P,Cramer LD, Pollack CE, Gross CP, Wang SY. Primary care physician continuity, survival, and end-of-life care intensity. Health Serv Res. 2022 Aug;57(4):853-862. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13869. IF: 3.734 View Journal Article

Hung P, Liu J, Norregaard C, Shih Y, Liang C, Zhang J, Olatosi B, Campbell BA, Li X. Analysis of Residential Segregation and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Severe Maternal Morbidity Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Oct 3;5(10):e2237711. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37711. PMID: 36264572; PMCID: PMC9585430. IF: 13.37 View Journal Article

Hung P, Probst JC, Shih Y, Ranganathan R, Brown MJ, Crouch E, Eberth, JM. Rural-Urban Disparities in Quality of Inpatient Psychiatric Care. Psychiatric Services. 2 Nov 2022. View Journal Article

Hung P, Shi K, Probst JC, Zahnd WE, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch E, Eberth JM. Trends in Cancer Treatment Service Availability Across Critical Access Hospitals and Prospective Payment System Hospitals. Med Care. 2022 Mar 1;60(3):196-205. IF: 3.178 View Journal Article

Hung, P., Shih, Y., Ranganathan, R., Probst, J., Brown, M., Crouch, E., Eberth, J. (2022). Rural-urban disparities in inpatient psychiatric care quality. Psychiatric Services. View Journal Article

Liu J, Hung P, Liang C, Zhang J, Qiao S, Campbell BA, Olatosi B, Torres ME, Hikmet N, Li X. Multilevel determinants of racial/ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA: protocol for a concurrent triangulation, mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 10;12(6):e062294. IF: 2.692 View Journal Article

Mi T, Hung P, Li X, McGregor A, He J, Zhou J. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Postpartum Care in the Greater Boston Area During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2216355. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16355. PMID: 35737390; PMCID: PMC9226999. IF: 13.37 View Journal Article

Noochpoung R,Hung P, Hair NL, Putthasri W, Chen BK. Can a high-powered financial incentive programme reduce resignation rates among healthcare providers in rural areas? Evidence from Thailand's 2008 Hardship Allowance programme. Health Policy Plan. 2022 May 12;37(5):624-633. IF: 3.547 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Hung P, Shi SK, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Probst JC, Eberth JM. Availability of Hospital-Based Cancer Services Before and After Rural Hospital Closure, 2008-2017. The Journal of Rural Health. September 21, 2022. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2021

Adams SA, Zahnd WE, Ranganathan R, Hung P, Brown MJ, Truman S, Biesecker C, Kirksey VC, Eberth JM. Rural and racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in South Carolina, 1996 – 2016. J Rural Health. 2021;1-6. May 2021 View Journal Article .

Benavidez GA, Zgodic A, Zahnd WE, Eberth JM. Disparities in Women Being Up to Date With Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Analysis of 2018 BRFSS Data. Annals of Epidemiology. April 2021 View Journal Article

Crouch, E, Radcliff, E, Merrell, MA , Brown, MJ, Ingram, LA, & Probst, J (2021). Racial/ethnic differences in positive childhood experiences across a national sample. Child abuse & neglect, 115, 105012. View Journal Article

Eberth JM, Zahnd WE, Josey MJ, Schootman M, Hung P, Probst JC. Trends in spatial access to colonoscopy in South Carolina, 2000–2014. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology. 2021 Jun 1;37:100414. View Journal Article

Hung P, Cramer LD, Pollack CE, Gross CP, Wang S-Y. Primary care physician continuity, survival, and end-of-life care intensity. Health Serv Res. 2021; 1-10. View Journal Article

Hung P, Shih Y-W, Brown MJ, Crouch E. Suicide Prevention Programs Across U.S. Outpatient Mental Health Care Settings: Differences by Facility Ownership. Psychiatric Services. 2021; 72:998-1005. View Journal Article

Li Z, Harrison SE, Li X, Hung P. Telepsychiatry adoption across hospitals in the United States: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. (2021) 21:182. View Journal Article

Liu J, Hung P, Alberg AJ, Hair NL, Whitaker KM, Simons J, Taylor SK. Mental health among pregnant women with COVID-19-related stressors and worries in the United States. Wiley Periodicals LLC. 2021; 48:470-479. View Journal Article

McGregor AJ, Hung P, Garman D, Amutah-Onukagha N, Cooper JA. Obstetrical unit closures and racial and ethnic differences in severe maternal morbidity in the state of New Jersey. AM J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021; 3:100480. View Journal Article

Merrell MA, Betley C, Crouch E, Hung P, Stockwell I, Middleton A, Pearson WS. Screening and Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Infections among Medicaid Populations-A Two-State Analysis. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Jan 2021. View Journal Article

Merrell MA, Crouch E, Browder J, Workman L, Wilson M, Malbouf A, Silverman A. Home visiting caregiver satisfaction and engagement in South Carolina. Journal of Health Visiting, 9(6), 253-259. June 2021 View Journal Article

Mitchell J, Probst JC, Li X. The Association between Hospital Care Transition Planning and Timely Primary Care Follow Up. J Rural Health, epub 10 Jun 2021;1–6Mitchell J, Probst JC, Li X. The Association between Hospital Care Transition Planning and Timely Primary Care Follow Up. J Rural Health, epub 10 Jun 2021;1–6 View Journal Article

Probst JC, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. COVID-19 risk mitigation behaviors among rural and urban community-dwelling older adults in summer, 2020. J Rural Health, 2021; 37: 473-478 View Journal Article

Purser J, Harrison S, Hung P. Going the distance: Associations between adverse birth outcomes and obstetric provider distances for adolescent pregnancies in South Carolina. Journal of Rural Health. 2021; 1-9. View Journal Article

Shi K, Hung P, Wang S-Y. Associations Among Health Literacy, End-of-Life Care Expenditures, and Rurality. The Journal of Rural Health. 37(2021) 517-525. View Journal Article

White AL, Merrell MA. Exploring contraceptive care practices at Rural Health Clinics in the southern United States. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare Volume 29, September 2021, 100629, ISSN 1877-5756, View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Bell N, Larson AE. Geographic, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in broadband access. The Journal of Rural Health November 18, 2021. View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Murphy C, Knoll M, Benavidez GA, Day KR, Ranganathan R, Luke P, Zgodic A, Shi K, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Brandt HM, Eberth JM. The Intersection of Rural Residence and Minority Race/Ethnicity in Cancer Disparities in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):1384. View Journal Article

Zgodic A, Eberth JM, Breneman C, Wende ME, Kaczynski AT, Liese AD, McLain AC. Estimates of Childhood Overweight and Obesity at the Region, State, and County Levels: A Multilevel Small Area Estimation Approach. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 16:kwab176. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab176. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34132329. View Journal Article

Zgodic A. Eberth JM, Smith BD, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, McKinley BP, Horner RD, O'Rourke MA, Blackhurst DW, Hudson MF. Multilevel predictors of guideline concordant needle biopsy use for non-metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. August 2021. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2020

Biesecker C, Zahnd WE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Eberth JM. A Bivariate Mapping Tutorial for Cancer Control Resource Allocation Decisions and Interventions. Preventing Chronic Disease. January 2020 View Journal Article .

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Merrell, M. A., & Bennett, K. J. (2020). Rural‐urban differences in positive childhood experiences across a national sample. The Journal of Rural Health, 37(3), 495-503. View Journal Article

Haynes E, Crouch E, Probst J, Radcliff E, Bennett K, & Glover S. (2020). Exploring the association between a parent’s exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and outcomes of depression and anxiety among their children. Children and Youth Services Review, 105013. June 2020 View Journal Article

Hung P, Zahnd WE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Wang S, Eberth JM. Cervical cancer treatment initiation and survival: The role of residential proximity to cancer care. Gynecologic Oncology. October 2020 View Journal Article

Kaczynski AT, Eberth JM, Stowe EW, Wende ME, Liese AD, McLain AC, Breneman CB, Josey MJ. Development of a national childhood obesogenic environment index in the United States: differences by region and rurality. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity . July 2020 View Journal Article .

Merrell MA, Probst JC, Crouch E, Abshire DA, McKinney SH, Haynes EE. A National Survey of RN-to-BSN Programs: Are They Reaching Rural Students? Journal of Nursing Education. October 2020 View Journal Article

Odahowski CL, Crouch EL, Zahnd WE, Probst JC, McKinney SH, Abshire DA. Rural-urban differences in educational attainment among registered nurses: Implications for achieving an 80% BSN workforce. Journal of Professional Nursing. May 2020 View Journal Article

Ranganathan R, Zahnd WE, Harrison SE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Eberth JM. Spatial Access to Vaccines for Children Providers in South Carolina: Implications for HPV Vaccination. Preventing Chronic Disease December 2020;17:200300. View Journal Article

Wende ME, Stowe EW, Eberth JM, McLain AC, Liese AD, Breneman CB, Josey MJ, Hughey SM, Kaczynski AT. Spatial clustering patterns and regional variations for food and physical activity environments across the United States. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. January 2020 View Journal Article

Zahnd, WE, Gomez, SL; Steck, SE; Brown, MJ; Ganai, S; Zhang, J; Adams, SA; Berger, FG; Eberth JM. Rural Urban and Racial/Ethnic Trends and Disparities in Early-Onset and Average-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Cancer. October 2020 View Journal Article

Zahnd, WE, Josey, MJ, Schootman, M, Eberth, JM. Spatial accessibility to colonoscopy and its role in predicting late‐stage colorectal cancer. Health Serv Res. 2020; 00: 1– 11. View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Harrison SE, Stephens HC, Messersmith AR, Brandt HM, Hastings TJ, Eberth JM. Expanding access to HPV vaccination in South Carolina through community pharmacies: A geospatial analysis. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. June 2020 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Crouch EL, Probst JC, Hunt McKinney S, Abshire DA, Eberth JM. Factors Associated With Perceived Job Preparedness Among RNs, JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration. May 2020 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE. Appropriate considerations of "rural" in National Cancer Data Base analyses, Cancer. April 2020 View Letter to the Editor

Peer Reviewed Publications 2019

Breneman C*, Probst JC, Crouch E, Eberth JM. (2019) Assessing change in physician practice organization profile in South Carolina: a longitudinal study. Journal of Rural Health. Epub ahead of print on April 15, 2019. DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12367

Crouch E, Nelson J, Radcliff E, Martin A (2019) Exploring associations between adverse childhood experiences and oral health among children and adolescents. The Journal of Public Health Dentistry 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12341. [Epub ahead of print]

Crouch E, Probst JC, Radcliff E, Bennett KJ, McKinney SH (2019) Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among US children. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2019 Jun;92:209-218. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.010. Epub 2019 Apr 16.

Crouch E, Radcliff E, Hung P, Bennett KJ (2019) Challenges to School Success and the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences. Academic Pediatrics. 2019 19(8):899-907

Hung P, Deng S*, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, Olatosi B, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. Geographic disparities in residential proximity to colorectal and cervical cancer care providers. Cancer. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32594. [Epub ahead of print]PMID: 31702829 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Hung P, Wang S, Hsu SH. Associations between end-of-life expenditures and hospice stay length vary by clinical condition and expenditure duration. Value in Health (2019). In Press

Hung P, Wang S, Killelea BK, Mougalian SS, Evans SB, Sedghi T, and Gross CP. Long term outcomes of sentinel lymph node biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 3, no 4 (2019). View Journal Article

Eberth JM, Crouch E, Josey MJ*, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, Stiles B, Schootman M. (2019) Rural-urban differences in access to thoracic surgery in the United States, 2010-2014. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. June 22, 2019. pii: S0003-4975(19)30879-3. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.113. [Epub ahead of print]

Liese AD, Ma X, Reid L, Sutherland M, Bell BA, Eberth JM, Probst JC, Turley CB, Mayer-Davis EJ. (2019) Health Care Access and Glycemic Control in Youth and Young Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in South Carolina. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019 Jan 22. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12822. [Epub ahead of print]

Odahowski CL, Zahnd WE, Eberth JM. (2019) Challenges and Opportunities for Lung Cancer Screening in Rural America. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2019-04-01, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 590-595

Odahowski CL, Zahnd WE, Zgodic A*, Edward JS, Hill LN, Davis MM, Perry CK, Shannon J, Wheeler SB, Vanderpool RC, Eberth JM. Financial hardship among rural cancer survivors: An analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Preventive Medicine. 2019 Nov 11:105881. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105881. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 31727380 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Probst J, Zahnd W, Breneman C. Declines in pediatric mortality fall short for rural US children. Health Affairs, 2019 November. 10-1377.

Probst J, Eberth JM, Crouch E. Structural Urbanism Contributes To Poorer Health Outcomes For Rural America. Health Affairs, 2019 Dec 38(12), 1976-1984.

Radcliff E, Crouch E, Strompolis M, Srivastav A. (2019) Homelessness in Childhood and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2019 Jun;23(6):811-820. doi: 10.1007/s10995-018-02698-w

Spencer, J.C., Rotter, J.S., Eberth, J.M., Zahnd, W.E., Vanderpool, R.C., Ko, L.K., Davis, M.M., Troester, M.A., Olshan, A.F. and Wheeler, S.B., Employment changes following breast cancer diagnosis: the effects of race and place. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2019 Oct.

Srivastav A, Spencer M, Thrasher JF, Strompolis M, Crouch E, Davis RE. Addressing Health and Well-Being Through State Policy: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities for Policy-Making to Prevent Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in South Carolina. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2019 Oct 9:890117119878068. doi: 10.1177/0890117119878068. [Epub ahead of print]

Zahnd WE, Askelson N, Vanderpool RC, Stradtman L, Edward J, Farris PE,... & Eberth, J. M. (2019). Challenges of using nationally representative, population-based surveys to assess rural cancer disparities. Preventive medicine, 105812.

Zahnd WE*, David MM, Rotter JS, Vanderpool RC, Perry CK, Shannon J, Ko LK, Wheeler SB, Odahowski C*, Farris PE, Eberth JM+. (2019) Rural-urban differences in financial burden among cancer survivors: an analysis of a nationally representative survey. Supportive Care in Cancer. (2019) 27: 4779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04742-z

Zahnd WE*, Eberth JM+. (2019) Lung cancer screening utilization with low-dose computed tomography: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2017. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Epub ahead of print on June 24, 2019

Zahnd WE, McLafferty SL, Eberth JM (2019). Multilevel analysis in rural cancer control: A conceptual framework and methodological implications. Preventive medicine, 105835.

Posters 2022

COVID-19's Impact on Telehealth Usage in Rural Health Clinics Across the United States (April 2022)

Disparities in Chronic Disease Burden: Understanding Community Context (April 2022)

Examining the Influence of Positive Childhood Experiences on Childhood Overweight and Obesity (April 2022)

Rural-Urban Differences in Access to Mental Health Care Facilities in the United States (April 2022)

Rural-Urban and Racial Disparities in HIV and STIs in South Carolina from 2019 to 2021 (April 2022)

Posters 2021

Application of Spatial Methods to Examine Spatial Access to Vaccine for Children Providers in South Carolina - Big Data Health Science Center Conference

Home Visiting Client Satisfaction and Engagement: Findings from a South Carolina MIECHV Evaluation

Job Satisfaction Among Nurses and Healthcare Quality (October 2021)

Post-Stratification in Contexts where Strata Population Counts are Unavailable - American Statistical Association Conference on Statistical Practice

Posters 2020

Disparities in cancer screening among women in the United States [PDF] - ACE Annual Meeting

Impact of Patient Metropolitan Status and Facility Region on Disparities in Needle Biopsy Receipt for Breast Cancer Diagnosis [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Rural and Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in South Carolina, 1996-2016 [PDF] - ACE Annual Meeting

Posters 2019

The Association of a Rural Hospital Closure with 30-Day Post Hospital Discharge Mortality from Selected Conditions [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Development of a County-Level Childhood Obesogenic Environment Index across the United States [PDF] - International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity Annual Meeting

Educational Gaps a Barrier to Rural Nursing Practice [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Financial Hardship among Rural Cancer Survivors in the United States [PDF] - Annual ASPO Conference

Financial Problems among Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Geographic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening in the U.S. [PDF] - Annual APSO Conference

Home & Guns: Rural-Urban Differences in Firearm Storage [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Mapping Cervical Cancer Access and Prevention in SC [PDF] - NRHA Health Equity Conference

Temporal Trends in Spatial Access to Colonoscopy in South Carolina [On-line Only] - Annual ASPO Conference

Urban-Rural Disparities in Residential Access to Colorectal and Cervical Cancer Care Specialists [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Presentations

Presentations 2022.

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Reversing 20 years of rural mortality improvement (April 2022)

Geographic and Ethnic Disparities Among U.S. - Mexico Border Residents (April 2022)

A Quality Improvement Initiative Addressing STI Services Provided in Rural South Carolina Primary Care Clinics (October 2022)

Roles of Race and Residence on the Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Infections in South Carolina Improving STD Prevention and Care Through Partnerships (December 2022)

Rural Cancer Prevention and Control Activities in S.C. (April 2022)

Rural-Urban Differences in Adverse and Positive Childhood Experiences (March 2022)

Rural Urban Disparities in Inpatient Psychiatric Care Quality (April and June 2022)

Presentations 2021

Access to Vaccine for Children Providers and HPV Vaccination in Rural Children and Adolescents (June 2021)

Everyday Discrimination: Residential Displacement and Mental Health (October 2021)

Examining Racial and Ethnic Group Composition and Availability of Grocery Store Outlets by Geography in South Carolina (April 2021)

Impact Data System FAQs and MIECHV Performance Measure Tips - Virtual Performance Measures Workshop for MIECHV

Midlands Healthy Start Program: Assisting At-Risk and Diverse Pregnant and Postpartum Women, Infants, and Fathers

Multilevel Influences of Cancer Inequities at the Intersection of Rurality and Race/Ethnicity

Nutrition Symposium Presentation (April 2021)

Practice Based Experience: Looking at How Grocery Store Locations Impact Food Insecurity (April 2021)

Responding To Addiction In Rural Communities (August 2021)

The Role of Rural Health Clinics in Cancer Care across the Continuum (December 2021)

Understanding the South Carolina Home Visiting Needs Assessment (April 2021)

Presentations 2020

Cancer Surveillance and Access to Care in Rural America [PDF]

Disproportionate Burden of Cervical Cancer Survival By Race and Rurality in South Carolina, 2001 - 2016 [PDF] - AACR Virtual Conference

Factors Associated With Lung Cancer Screening In Urban Vs. Rural Individuals At Risk For Lung Cancer [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Rural urban and racial disparities in colorectal cancer survival among the residents of South Carolina, 2001 - 2016 [PDF] - AACR Virtual Conference

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.

Hi, what are you looking for?

ecoustics.com

New Products 42
Ask an Expert
Gift Guides 2
Best Right Now
System Builder
Vintage Audio
Audio Cables
Integrated Amps & Stereo Receivers
Music Streamers
Preamplifiers
Turntables & Phono

Bookshelf Speakers

Floorstanding speakers.

In-Wall Speakers
Outdoor Speakers
Sound Bars & Speaker Systems
Wireless Speakers

A/V Receivers & Preamp/Processors

Hdtv 4k & 8k tv.

Projectors & Screens
Video Players & Streamers
A/V Furniture & Accessories
Audiophile Headphones
Wireless Earbuds
Wireless Headphones
Headphone Amps
Dongle DACs

Hi-Fi For The Next 50: Unison Research Simply 845

At $9,999, the Unison Research Simply 845 Integrated Tube Amplifier makes a strong case to be the last amp you’ll ever buy.

Unison Research Simply 845

Why this one?

Unison Research Triode 25 Integrated Amplifier Angle

New Products

New svs 17-inch subwoofer will rock your world: cedia 2024.

Exclusive Videos

Unboxing sony’s soundbar killer: the bravia theatre quad.

Those who want to fill a large living room or home theater with deep gut-wrenching bass will rejoice at the news of a new...

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
Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is cln-74-e1403-g001.jpg

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
To determine the context of the problem;
To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
To identify significant aspects of the topic;
To elucidate the implications of the topic;
To offer an alternative perspective;
To discern how the studied subject is structured;
To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is cln-74-e1403-g002.jpg

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is cln-74-e1403-g003.jpg

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

IMAGES

(PDF) How To Write A Scientific Article For A Medical Journal?
(PDF) HOW TO WRITE RESEARCH ARTICLE FOR A JOURNAL: TECHNIQUES AND RULES
(PDF) Components of Writing a Review Article
Review vs. research articles
😀 How to do a review article. Tips for writing your first scientific
How to Publish Your Article in a Peer-Reviewed Journal: Survival Guide

VIDEO

Difference between Research paper and a review. Which one is more important?
Writing a Review Paper
Review Articles
How to Review a Journal Article (Grayson)
Reading Peer Reviewed Research
Choosing important articles for your literature review

COMMENTS

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for
Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary.
Basics of Writing Review Articles
Basics of Writing Review Articles - PMC
How to write a review article?
How to write a review article? - PMC
How to write a superb literature review
Learn from experts and editors how to write a focused, accessible and timely review article. Get tips on choosing topics, forming teams, using figures and staying updated.
Review Articles
Review Articles
How to write a good scientific review article
With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up-to-date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and ...
How to write a good scientific review article
How to write a good scientific review article
A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article
Learn the steps and tips for writing a scientific review article, a comprehensive and focused review of the literature by experts. This article covers topic selection, literature search, analysis, and writing, with examples and references.
Writing a good review article
A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Learn about the types of review articles, tips for writing them, and how to check your journal's guidelines before submitting.
Review articles: purpose, process, and structure
This editorial outlines the importance and benefits of review papers in marketing research, and describes the editorial initiative of Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS) to increase their publication. It also provides a process and structure for systematic review papers, referring to Grewal et al. (2018) insights.
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
This paper discusses different types of literature reviews, such as systematic, semi-systematic and integrative reviews, and how to conduct and evaluate them in business research. It also provides practical tips and examples for choosing the appropriate review methodology, selecting articles, extracting data and making contributions.
Writing an impactful review article: What do we know and what do we
This editorial discusses the types and methodology of review articles and suggests that framework-based reviews are more likely to be impactful than other types. It also provides examples of review articles published in premier journals and suggests research gaps and agenda for future studies.
How to Review a Journal Article
Learn how to critique and evaluate a journal article for various writing contexts, such as literature reviews. Find questions to consider, tips for reading and annotating, and an example of a summary and evaluation.
What is a review article?
A review article is a survey of previously published research on a topic that gives an overview of current thinking and identifies gaps for future research. Learn the key steps to write a review article, such as defining the scope, finding sources, writing the introduction and conclusion, and using a critical friend.
Writing a literature review
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
How to Write an Article Review (With Samples)
How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)
Writing a Literature Review
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects and discusses key sources on a topic in conversation with each other. Learn about the purposes, parts, and strategies of writing a lit review in different disciplines and situations.
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review - PMC
How to Write a Literature Review
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic that provides an overview of current knowledge. Learn the five key steps to write a literature review, with examples, templates, and tips.
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the ...
What Is Peer Review?
Peer review is the process of evaluating academic submissions by experts in the same field. It enhances the credibility and quality of the manuscripts, but also has different types and methods. Learn about single-blind, double-blind, collaborative, and open review.
Effect of Everolimus on Prognosis of Neurofibromatosis Type 1 Lesions
Introduction. Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant multisystem genetic disorder that is caused by germline mutations in the NF1 tumor suppressor gene that encodes the neurofibromin protein. 1 NF1 is one of the most common autosomal dominant diseases. According to a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Lee et al., the pooled prevalence of the disease was 1 in ...
Randomized clinical trials and related concepts in clinical research
Clinical research is a key factor in healthcare progress, as it contributes toward improving our knowledge on the prevention, etiology, and treatment of different conditions. ... Review article. First published online July 29, 2024. Randomized clinical trials and related concepts in clinical research. Rita Nogueiras-Álvarez ...
Changing Waters: Significant climate change impacts to the American
In a recent article published in the Journal of Hydrology, a group of researchers from Michigan Technological University determined that water levels of the Great Lakes are projected to rise under future climate conditions. The study reports that the average annual water levels of Lake Superior, Michigan-Huron, and Erie are projected to ...
Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews
In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article. ... Reclaiming a theoretical orientation to reflection in medical education research: a critical narrative review. Medical Education ...
Models of instructional design in gamification: A systematic review of
Gamification allows for the implementation of experiences that simulate the design of (video) games, giving individuals the opportunity to be the protagonists in them. Its inclusion in the educational environment responds to the need to adapt teaching-learning processes to the characteristics of homo videoludens, placing value once again on the role of playful action in the personal ...
Peer Reviewed Publications, Posters and Presentations
Multilevel predictors of guideline concordant needle biopsy use for non-metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. August 2021. View Journal Article Peer Reviewed Publications 2020. Biesecker C, Zahnd WE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Eberth JM.
Mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer, according to a ...
A systematic review into the potential health effects from radio wave exposure has shown mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer. The review was commissioned by the World Health Organization ...
Hi-Fi For The Next 50: Unison Research Simply 845
Not that audiophiles, or people such as myself can ever be totally happy. Unison Research Simply 845 Unison Research Simply 845. Having owned 7 tube amplifiers over the past 30 years, my affection for them remains rather strong but is also tempered by the reality that they require a different level of maintenance and that one must always have some replacement tubes handy.
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.