annual review dissertation

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

January 2019
Annual Review of Psychology 70(1)

University of Glasgow

The London School of Economics and Political Science

Northwestern University

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
Zhaoying Li

Sayoko Kawabata
Nancy Bagatell

Willy Apostel Putra
Andrea Calixta
Bruna Geovana Alves Pereira
Carlos Henrique Sales de Souza
Viviane Merêncio de Oliveira
Ronny R. Forney
Mary Peacock

Asaah Sumaila Mohammed
Matthew C Carey

Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

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 Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Affiliations.

1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected].
2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected].
PMID: 30089228
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Keywords: evidence; guide; meta-analysis; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; theory.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ingenta plc
Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
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.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

Collections
Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

Biomedical Databases
Global (Public Health) Databases
Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
Grey Literature
Trials Registers
Data and Statistics
Public Policy
Google Tips
Recommended Books
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

Explains the background of research on a topic.
Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?

This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search.

Where to find databases:

use the tabs on this guide
Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
More on the Medical Library web page
... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
Ask your librarian for help at any time.
Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips:

Review the abstracts carefully.
Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
<< Previous: Recommended Books
Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

University Libraries

Research Guides
Blackboard Learn
Interlibrary Loan
Study Rooms
University of Arkansas

Dissertations and Theses: Some Tools to Support Your Progress

Annual Reviews
Finding Dissertations or Theses, Local, Regional, National and International
How-to books on writing a thesis or dissertation
Systematic Reviews
Review Articles
Finding Articles
Citing Your Sources
Open Access Journals

Annual Review of ....?

The Libraries subscribe to a series called Annual Review of _______ with the blank filled by a number of different subjects. Each selection within a volume is a detailed essay reviewing the literature in a topic related to the field. Discipline-specific volumes contain solicited content from commissioned authors; being selected is an honor and authors are often recommended by their peers. Not all subjects are covered by the series; we don't own all of the series. If you aren't sure what to use as a topic to fill in the blank, use the link below and browse the list.

"Who Should Read This Series?"

This is a description from a comment on the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, but the principle holds for most disciplines: the series serves people in the field, graduate students, students and the interested public who wish to keep up in an area of interest without trying to cover multiple journals and other sources at all times. The volumes can be used to amplify textbooks, and are a reliable source of much information.

"The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is a useful resource for researchers and practitioners working on nature-society interactions who want and ought to know the current state of affairs on the topics reviewed, but who do not have the time to cover the individual articles in each of the dozen or so high-impact journals that would need to be read to keep up to date.... The review articles provide updates and the most recent take on many of the same issues covered more generally in such texts. In effect, the Annual Review of Environment and Resources is a rolling textbook or desk reference about environment, resources, and society....These authoritative, up-to-date reviews provide key background information at the intersections of science and policy."

Many of them are online; some are on the shelves in the various libraries on campus. They are often indexed in the databases related to the field.

<< Previous: Finding Articles
Next: Citing Your Sources >>
Last Updated: Sep 12, 2024 8:47 AM
URL: https://uark.libguides.com/dissertationsandtheses
See us on Instagram
Follow us on Twitter
Phone: 479-575-4104

A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Biochemistry

Navigate this Journal
Early Publication
Previous Volumes
Editorial Committee

AIMS AND SCOPE OF JOURNAL: The Annual Review of Biochemistry sets the standard for review articles in biological chemistry and molecular biology. Since its inception, these volumes have served as an indispensable resource for both the practicing biochemist and students of biochemistry.

Published Since	1932
Journal Status	Active

Impact Factor

Latest Articles Lasest articles RSS feed

Soluble human lectins at the host–microbe interface, reading and writing the human glycocode, lipid quality control and ferroptosis: from concept to mechanism, structure and mechanisms of assembly-line polyketide synthases, the bis(monoacylglycero)-phosphate hypothesis: from lysosomal function to therapeutic avenues, triumphs and challenges of natural product discovery in the postgenomic era, the art and science of molecular docking, the endo-lysosomal damage response, the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and its pentameric homologs: toward an allosteric mechanism of signal transduction at the atomic level, inositol pyrophosphates as versatile metabolic messengers, most read this month, most cited most cited rss feed, the ubiquitin system, protein misfolding, functional amyloid, and human disease, glutathione, the green fluorescent protein, g proteins: transducers of receptor-generated signals, assembly of asparagine-linked oligosaccharides, tgf-β signal transduction, lipopolysaccharide endotoxins, the heat-shock response.

A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review

Annual reviews are deemed important points of progression during the PhD journey.

In addition to being a progression review, the annual review helps to support students to successfully conti nue and complete their PhD journey. F or first – year PhD students, annual reviews may be considered one of the most important points in their year, more so than subsequent annual reviews. They are one of the two major points of review for a first – year doctoral candidate , the first being 10-week report. Possible outcomes of the review mainly include: (1) confirmation of registration for PhD and progression to year 2 , (2) repeating the review within 3 months , or (3) registration to a different programme like an MScR or discontinuation of registration entirely.

With Annual Review frenzy right around the corner and most first – year PhD students eagerly waiting for their assessments , here is a pocket guide to ‘ survive ’ the first-year annual review.

1. Keep the timeline of your review in mind-

Annual reviews typically occur between 9 to 12 months of the programme starting date. Hence, it is advisable to keep in mind the timeline for the first year and plan accordingly.

2. Follow the proper procedure of the Annual Review-

Each subject area within the School might have slightly different procedures when it comes to conducting the annual review ; h owever, it generally consists of finalizing the date of the review, filling out a form on EUCLID (in the Student Record section in MyEd ), submitting a paper before the said date , and giving a short presentation on the day of the review (although not required, but most reviews involve some form of presentation) .

For more details about the procedure of the Annual Review, please visit: https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/copsupervisorsresearchstudents.pdf

3. Ensure open channels of communication with the supervisors-

All PhD students are , at a minimum, allotted two supervisors — both a primary and secondary super visor or co-supervisors . The supervisory team is one of the most important support structures throughout one’s PhD progression . It is imperative (and cannot be stressed enough) to maintain honest and open communication with one’ s supervisory team at all times . If you are facing a ny problem or feeling overwhelmed, they should be the first people to know about it.

I think you can’t help but compare yourself to other PGRs, but it is really important to remember that every supervisor and critical friend has different expectations and preferences. Definitely talk to your supervisory t eam and your critical friend about how to organize the review process! For some it might be more formal, but my Annual Review was very ca sual and more of a conversation with colleagues. -Anonymous 1

4. Maintain consistency-

Now, we all know that we never end our PhD’s with the same research topic that we start with, rather, it is a whole process of evolution and deliberation of thoughts and ideas. However, in cases where we wish to make a radical change from one research interest to another, it is advisable to consult o n e ’ s supervisory team before doing so because , in some cases, they might not specialize in the changed/ suggested research topic or they would want to include other supervisors on the team to better assist with the new research topic ; thus, it ’s always best to keep them in the loop.

I was very surprised, and pleased, when by the time I had to present my annual review, I realized my project had slightly changed from what I initially proposed. This process was a bit scary, but my supervisors told me that it was natural and even expected to have a change in thoughts during the whole process of the PhD. The first year wasn’t an exception, as they expected refinement of the project and a more critical development of it. In my case the core topic was the same, but the intricacies of it and the methodology is what changed. -Anonymous 2

5. Critical Friend-

As part of the annual review process, each PhD student gets a ‘ critical friend ’ allotted to their research . The Critical Friend will be involved with the supervision team in reviewing the annual progress and might offer occasional advice to the student regarding the project during the following years. One of the most important roles of the critical friend is to provide feedback following the first-year annual review and subsequent annual reviews. The critical friend is someone the student can speak with if they are facing difficulties in supervision that they would like support with.

In my particular case, having a critical friend provided a sense of stress as you are showing your project to an external person for the first time, but also, when I knew her expertise in both the topic and the methodology, I felt relieved as I knew her feedback was going to make my project more rigorous and rich. -Anonymous 2

6. Keep in constant touch with the PGR community-

The PhD journey can become quite isolated, especially when o n e’s colleagues are also consumed by their own research projects ; however, it is important, especially during unpre c e dented uncertain times , to consistently interact with other PhD students to know that you are most definitely not alone! The school has appointed ‘PGR Reps’ who are designated to address concerns of the rest of the PGR community — while they cannot actively help your concerns or change your situation, they can definitely provide a signpost in the right direction.

I did a peer-presentation for my 1st year review and attended a couple. The PhD students who had been through the process gave some feedback and asked a few questions. I asked some people to read my first-year review draft, give me their comments and I also asked a couple of them to share their first-year review documents. -Anonymous 3 One of the best advices I got from my peers and supervisors was to write small pieces of thoughts, paper summaries and rationales for decision making processes since the very beginning of my PhD as this would be material you can always refer to when you present your annual review. It will give structure to your thoughts and will bring more material to your PhD. Keeping a journal of your activities and small pieces of writing is a good practice whilst doing a PhD. – Anonymous 2

7. Be realistic in your approach-

While it is easy to get carried away with your project — because let’s be real, it is our baby in the making — it is essential to be realistic. Keeping in mind both p roject feasibility and situational circumstances is important . It is highly important to be pragmatic about timelines and , if you tend to get overwhelmed, do not hesitate to apply for extensions and special circumstances . The school provides a lot of resources for the same.

When I was in my first year, my supervisors asked m e how many PhDs I was in tending to do. You probably can’t change the whole world with your project, but you can do it in a way that it changes you – use your PhD to learn new skills and to challenge yourself ! I had to learn that a well-designed project about a small topic area is better than a big superficial project. -Anonymous 1

8. Maintain a healthy work-life balance-

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy! Getting a PhD is a long journey; hence, it is highly important to maintain a life outside your PhD and research. Indulging in other activities and hobbies will not only relax you but also help instill some transferable skills which can prove to be important both for personal and professional development. So, it is imperative for you to have a life outside the office, something which doesn’t involv e your research and help you unwind.

Very often you hear stories (I know I did) that most of the first annual review ends up being your first chapter, but this puts a lot of pressure to produce something that is ‘PhD Thesis’ quality. The reality is that PhDs are dynamic, literature is dynamic, so there is no way you can just copy paste your 1st annual review in your first chapter 3 years later, and that’s ok. Don’t see your annual review as a PhD chapter. See it as a work in progress! -Anonymous 4

Remember, the above list is quite explorative , and there is no ‘One Size Fits All’ formula. The University has an Advice Place ( https://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/support_and_advice/the_advice_place/ ) to help students address both academic and non-academic concerns. While e veryone has different plans of action or support which might work for them , this small list of simple ‘ do’s and don’t s ’ might come in handy for those who are going to appear for their annual review in the coming months. Although the first year review may seem quite daunting and stressful, it acts as an important reality check for the students to plan out the subsequent years; getting feedback from both the supervisory team and the critical friend, proves quite useful for the rest of the years to come.

To learn more about the Annual Review Process, please click on the link below (EASE Login Required) : https://www.learn.ed.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_17186_1&content_id=_617596_1

One comment

Many thanx for sharing this!

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner .

Public Lectures
Faculty & Staff Site >>

The Literature Review

From seminar paper to master of arts degree thesis to dissertation, the literature review provides both the foundation and the frame for your own research. Its preparation requires careful planning and a well-crafted presentation.

The purpose of the literature review

A literature review tells us what is known by sharing the results of prior studies related to your own.

A literature review places your study within a larger body of work. It shows how your study seeks to fill a gap in, or extend, our knowledge in this area.

A literature review offers a benchmark for assessing your own results. In the conclusion to your study you will revisit the literature review armed with your new findings.

Organizing the literature review

A good literature review is a synthesis of prior research presented in a way that adds value to our understanding of that work. So, it’s important to organize your review in a way that is coherent, relevant to your own study, and useful to other researchers. For example, you might cluster prior research by media type, communication situation, similar findings, key themes, respondent type, or other useful distinction.

Whatever organizing scheme you choose, it is typical to present the most important, relevant, or strongest collection of existing research first, and go from there. If not, there should be a narrative logic to the review presentation.

Another way to add value is to identify conceptual linkages among ideas and authors. Researchers often talk about the same processes — just in somewhat different ways.

It’s tempting to want to include every study that appeared in the key word search of your topic. Don’t. The challenge is to find the right balance between giving the reader confidence in your familiarity with literature and focusing on what’s most relevant for the study at hand.

Writing the literature review

Your synthesis of prior research should focus on key findings or conclusions with just enough information for the reader to discern the question and approach: “In her ethnographic study of Muslim immigrants’ perception of mainstream British media, Gillespie concluded…” The exception being if the study cited is significant because of its methodology — only then would you offer more methodological detail.

Not all ideas in the literature review are used to construct your study’s conceptual framework. So, at the end of each section, tell readers what key concept, finding, definition, or theme is most critical to “carry forward” into their reading of your study.

Don’t over-quote. It slows down your narrative. Direct quotations should only appear if the author said something in a unique, powerful, or precise way (e.g., a definition) that demands repeating in its exact form. Otherwise, use your own words.

Since a good review is a coherent, value-added organization of the literature, provide the reader with clear “signposts” through the instructive use of headings, introductions, transition phrases, and summary statements.

Finally, because people reading your paper or dissertation may not be familiar with your area of research, be careful not to weigh down your literature review in field-specific jargon. It is important that you write in clear and active prose.

by Nancy Rivenburgh, professor, Communication

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

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

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "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”

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.

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

What (exactly) is a literature review
What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
How to find high-quality resources
How to structure your literature review chapter
Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and read through the existing research that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then summarise and catalogue these for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter.

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an overview of the key literature that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an integrated review of the state of knowledge around your research topic.

Starting point for the literature review

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be more than just a summary of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next).

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to show what’s currently missing from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review.

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut!

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework.

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to inform the choice of methodology for your own research. As we’ve discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales.

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is built on credible research .

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the most popular pieces of research are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites.

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research.

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer.

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

A good literature review should synthesise the existing research in relation to the research aims, not simply summarise it.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review .

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Print Friendly

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

Brainstorming
Explore Google This link opens in a new window
Explore Web Resources
Explore Background Information
Explore Books
Explore Scholarly Articles
Narrowing a Topic
Primary and Secondary Resources
Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
Grey Literature
Clinical Trials
Evidence Based Treatment
Scholarly Research
Database Research Log
Search Limits
Keyword Searching
Boolean Operators
Phrase Searching
Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
Proximity Searching
Field Codes
Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
Reading a Scientific Article
Website Evaluation
Article Keywords and Subject Terms
Cited References
Citing Articles
Related Results
Search Within Publication
Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
Personal Database Accounts
Persistent URLs
Literature Gap and Future Research
Web of Knowledge

Annual Reviews

Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
Finding Seminal Works
Exhausting the Literature
Finding Dissertations
Researching Theoretical Frameworks
Research Methodology & Design
Tests and Measurements
Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
Picking Where to Publish
Bibliometrics
Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Research Tip

Annual Reviews and Web of Knowledge are two great databases to start with when you need to complete a literature review or an annotated bibliography, but you should not stop there!

Search other Library databases that contain primary, scholarly information related to your topic to ensure that you are including the most valuable research in your review.

How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles?

Content: Literature review database covering psychology, sociology, anthropology, environment and resources, law and social science, political science, and public health.

Purpose: Provides articles that synthesize primary research and discuss the topic in historical context. Discover seminal works and literature gaps.

Special Features: Multimedia and supplemental materials.

Annual Reviews is another Library database that is especially useful to find resources for a literature review or an annotated bibliography. The Annual Reviews publications' reprint and comment on the most influential articles that were published in a particular subject during a particular year. By searching Annual Reviews you will ensure that you are referencing and building upon the most influential research that has gone before.

For additional information, review the following:

Annual Reviews Tutorial Videos

Steps to Search Annual Reviews

Screenshot of the Annual Reviews search screen.

Was this resource helpful?

<< Previous: Web of Knowledge
Next: Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses >>
Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 7:35 AM
URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

Schools & departments

What is the annual review?

Postgraduate research students [PhD, MPhil] are required to complete an annual progression review.

Annual progression reviews provide a formal record of how the research project and thesis are developing and recognition of the student's achievements.
They also offer a structured opportunity to discuss students’ professional development and career aims, and identify any training needs.
The annual review process takes place in the EUCLID system which students and staff can access from the MyEd portal.
The University's Guidance for Research Students provides information on how the annual review should be conducted.

What does the annual review look like?

This article was published on 2024-07-29

About Stanford GSB

The Leadership
Dean’s Updates
School News & History
Commencement
Business, Government & Society
Centers & Institutes
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
Center for Social Innovation
Stanford Seed

About the Experience

Learning at Stanford GSB
Experiential Learning
Guest Speakers
Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation
Communication
Life at Stanford GSB
Collaborative Environment
Activities & Organizations
Student Services
Housing Options
International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

Why Stanford MBA
Academic Experience
Financial Aid
Why Stanford MSx
Research Fellows Program
See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

Executive Education
Stanford Executive Program
Programs for Organizations
The Difference
Online Programs
Stanford LEAD
Seed Transformation Program
Aspire Program
Seed Spark Program
Faculty Profiles
Academic Areas
Awards & Honors
Conferences

Faculty Research

Publications
Working Papers
Case Studies

Research Hub

Research Labs & Initiatives
Business Library
Data, Analytics & Research Computing
Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

Cities, Housing & Society Lab
Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Corporations and Society Initiative
Policy and Innovation Initiative
Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
Value Chain Innovation Initiative
Venture Capital Initiative
Career & Success
Climate & Sustainability
Corporate Governance
Culture & Society
Finance & Investing
Government & Politics
Leadership & Management
Markets and Trade
Operations & Logistics
Opportunity & Access
Technology & AI
Opinion & Analysis
Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

Communities
Digital Communities & Tools
Regional Chapters
Women’s Programs
Identity Chapters
Find Your Reunion
Career Resources
Job Search Resources
Career & Life Transitions
Programs & Webinars
Career Video Library
Alumni Education
Research Resources
Volunteering
Alumni News
Class Notes
Alumni Voices
Contact Alumni Relations
Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

MBA Program
MSx Program
PhD Program
Alumni Events
All Other Events
Requirements
Requirements: Behavioral
Requirements: Quantitative
Requirements: Macro
Requirements: Micro
Annual Evaluations
Field Examination
Research Activities
Research Papers
Dissertation
Oral Examination
Current Students
Entering Class Profile
Education & CV
GMAT & GRE
International Applicants
Statement of Purpose
Letters of Recommendation
Reapplicants
Application Fee Waiver
Deadline & Decisions
Job Market Candidates
Academic Placements
Stay in Touch
Fields of Study
Student Life

Each spring, faculty gather to evaluate students’ performance through the course of the last year.

The purpose of the annual evaluation process is to ensure that each student has made satisfactory progress toward completion of the degree and is fulfilling a proposed study plan. The ultimate goal of the faculty and program throughout this process is to provide the encouragement and direction that will best serve students’ objectives.

Discussion of each student’s progress culminates in a narrative letter for each student that comments on past progress, outlines areas of accomplishment and concern, and, if necessary, lists steps for remediation. Students meet with their faculty advisors in preparation for the annual review, and following the annual review.

This annual review process provides students with consistent feedback and guidance throughout their PhD Program. Students complete the program in four to five years.

See the Current DEI Report
Supporting Data
Research & Insights
Share Your Thoughts
Search Fund Primer
Teaching & Curriculum
Affiliated Faculty
Faculty Advisors
Louis W. Foster Resource Center
Defining Social Innovation
Impact Compass
Global Health Innovation Insights
Faculty Affiliates
Student Awards & Certificates
Changemakers
Dean Jonathan Levin
Dean Garth Saloner
Dean Robert Joss
Dean Michael Spence
Dean Robert Jaedicke
Dean Rene McPherson
Dean Arjay Miller
Dean Ernest Arbuckle
Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
Dean Willard Hotchkiss
Faculty in Memoriam
Stanford GSB Firsts
Annual Alumni Dinner
Class of 2024 Candidates
Certificate & Award Recipients
Dean’s Remarks
Keynote Address
Teaching Approach
Analysis and Measurement of Impact
The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
Data-Driven Impact
Designing Experiments for Impact
Digital Marketing
The Founder’s Right Hand
Marketing for Measurable Change
Product Management
Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
Lab Features
Curricular Integration
View From The Top
Formation of New Ventures
Managing Growing Enterprises
Startup Garage
Explore Beyond the Classroom
Stanford Venture Studio
Summer Program
Workshops & Events
The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
Leadership Labs
Executive Challenge
Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
Selection Process
Training Schedule
Time Commitment
Learning Expectations
Post-Training Opportunities
Who Should Apply
Introductory T-Groups
Leadership for Society Program
Certificate
2024 Awardees
2023 Awardees
2022 Awardees
2021 Awardees
2020 Awardees
2019 Awardees
2018 Awardees
Social Management Immersion Fund
Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
Social Entrepreneurship
Stanford GSB Impact Fund
Economic Development
Energy & Environment
Stanford GSB Residences
Environmental Leadership
Stanford GSB Artwork
A Closer Look
California & the Bay Area
Voices of Stanford GSB
Business & Beneficial Technology
Business & Sustainability
Business & Free Markets
Business, Government, and Society Forum
Get Involved
Second Year
Global Experiences
JD/MBA Joint Degree
MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
MD/MBA Dual Degree
MPP/MBA Joint Degree
MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
Academic Calendar
Clubs & Activities
LGBTQ+ Students
Military Veterans
Minorities & People of Color
Partners & Families
Students with Disabilities
Student Support
Residential Life
Student Voices
MBA Alumni Voices
A Week in the Life
Career Support
Employment Outcomes
Cost of Attendance
Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
Yellow Ribbon Program
BOLD Fellows Fund
Application Process
Loan Forgiveness
Contact the Financial Aid Office
Evaluation Criteria
English Language Proficiency
Personal Information, Activities & Awards
Professional Experience
Optional Short Answer Questions
Application Fee
Reapplication
Deferred Enrollment
Joint & Dual Degrees
Event Schedule
Ambassadors
New & Noteworthy
Ask a Question
See Why Stanford MSx
Is MSx Right for You?
MSx Stories
Leadership Development
How You Will Learn
Admission Events
Personal Information
GMAT, GRE & EA
English Proficiency Tests
Career Change
Career Advancement
Career Support and Resources
Daycare, Schools & Camps
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
Faculty Mentors
Current Fellows
Standard Track
Fellowship & Benefits
Group Enrollment
Program Formats
Developing a Program
Diversity & Inclusion
Strategic Transformation
Program Experience
Contact Client Services
Campus Experience
Live Online Experience
Silicon Valley & Bay Area
Digital Credentials
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Eligibility
International Participants
Stanford Ignite
Frequently Asked Questions
Operations, Information & Technology
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Classical Liberalism
The Eddie Lunch
Accounting Summer Camp
California Econometrics Conference
California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
California School Conference
China India Insights Conference
Homo economicus, Evolving
Political Economics (2023–24)
Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
Adaptation and Innovation
Changing Climate
Civil Society
Climate Impact Summit
Climate Science
Corporate Carbon Disclosures
Earth’s Seafloor
Environmental Justice
Operations and Information Technology
Organizations
Sustainability Reporting and Control
Taking the Pulse of the Planet
Urban Infrastructure
Watershed Restoration
Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
Ken Singleton Celebration
Marketing Camp
Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
Presentations
Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
Stanford Closer Look Series
Quick Guides
Core Concepts
Journal Articles
Glossary of Terms
Faculty & Staff
Subscribe to Corporate Governance Emails
Researchers & Students
Research Approach
Charitable Giving
Financial Health
Government Services
Workers & Careers
Short Course
Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
Incentive Design
Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
Bandit Experiment Application
Conferences & Events
Reading Materials
Energy Entrepreneurship
Faculty & Affiliates
SOLE Report
Responsible Supply Chains
Current Study Usage
Pre-Registration Information
Participate in a Study
Founding Donors
Program Contacts
Location Information
Participant Profile
Network Membership
Program Impact
Collaborators
Entrepreneur Profiles
Company Spotlights
Seed Transformation Network
Responsibilities
Current Coaches
How to Apply
Meet the Consultants
Meet the Interns
Intern Profiles
Collaborate
Research Library
News & Insights
Databases & Datasets
Research Guides
Consultations
Research Workshops
Career Research
Research Data Services
Course Reserves
Course Research Guides
Material Loan Periods
Fines & Other Charges
Document Delivery
Interlibrary Loan
Equipment Checkout
Print & Scan
MBA & MSx Students
PhD Students
Other Stanford Students
Faculty Assistants
Research Assistants
Stanford GSB Alumni
Telling Our Story
Staff Directory
Site Registration
Alumni Directory
Alumni Email
Privacy Settings & My Profile
Event Registration Help
Success Stories
The Story of Circles
Support Women’s Circles
Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
Alumnae Spotlights
Insights & Research
Industry & Professional
Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
Recent Alumni
Half-Century Club
Fall Reunions
Spring Reunions
MBA 25th Reunion
Half-Century Club Reunion
Faculty Lectures
Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
ENCORE Award
Excellence in Leadership Award
John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
Tapestry Award
Student & Alumni Events
Executive Recruiters
Interviewing
Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
Negotiating
Elevator Pitch
Email Best Practices
Resumes & Cover Letters
Self-Assessment
Whitney Birdwell Ball
Margaret Brooks
Bryn Panee Burkhart
Margaret Chan
Ricki Frankel
Peter Gandolfo
Cindy W. Greig
Natalie Guillen
Carly Janson
Sloan Klein
Sherri Appel Lassila
Stuart Meyer
Tanisha Parrish
Virginia Roberson
Philippe Taieb
Michael Takagawa
Terra Winston
Johanna Wise
Debbie Wolter
Rebecca Zucker
Complimentary Coaching
Changing Careers
Work-Life Integration
Career Breaks
Flexible Work
Encore Careers
Join a Board
D&B Hoovers
Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
EBSCO Business Source
Global Newsstream
Market Share Reporter
ProQuest One Business
RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
Student Clubs
Entrepreneurial Students
Stanford GSB Trust
Alumni Community
How to Volunteer
Springboard Sessions
Consulting Projects
2020 – 2029
2010 – 2019
2000 – 2009
1990 – 1999
1980 – 1989
1970 – 1979
1960 – 1969
1950 – 1959
1940 – 1949
Service Areas
ACT History
ACT Awards Celebration
ACT Governance Structure
Building Leadership for ACT
Individual Leadership Positions
Leadership Role Overview
Purpose of the ACT Management Board
Contact ACT
Business & Nonprofit Communities
Reunion Volunteers
Ways to Give
Fiscal Year Report
Business School Fund Leadership Council
Planned Giving Options
Planned Giving Benefits
Planned Gifts and Reunions
Legacy Partners
Giving News & Stories
Giving Deadlines
Development Staff
Submit Class Notes
Class Secretaries
Board of Directors
Health Care
Sustainability
Class Takeaways
All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
Grit & Growth
Think Fast, Talk Smart
Spring 2022
Spring 2021
Autumn 2020
Summer 2020
Winter 2020
In the Media
For Journalists
DCI Fellows
Other Auditors
Academic Calendar & Deadlines
Course Materials
Entrepreneurial Resources
Campus Drive Grove
Campus Drive Lawn
CEMEX Auditorium
King Community Court
Seawell Family Boardroom
Stanford GSB Bowl
Stanford Investors Common
Town Square
Vidalakis Courtyard
Vidalakis Dining Hall
Catering Services
Policies & Guidelines
Reservations
Contact Faculty Recruiting
Lecturer Positions
Postdoctoral Positions
Accommodations
CMC-Managed Interviews
Recruiter-Managed Interviews
Virtual Interviews
Campus & Virtual
Search for Candidates
Think Globally
Recruiting Calendar
Recruiting Policies
Full-Time Employment
Summer Employment
Entrepreneurial Summer Program
Global Management Immersion Experience
Social-Purpose Summer Internships
Process Overview
Project Types
Client Eligibility Criteria
Client Screening
ACT Leadership
Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
Develop Your Organization’s Talent
Centers & Initiatives
Student Fellowships

Coming soon
Recent changes
Academic regulations
Programme and module design and approval
Assessment, awards and degree classification
Personal tutoring, student support and development
Concerns, complaints and appeals
Registration and attendance
Research degree policies and guidance
Progression
Supervision
Research programme regulations
Regulations for programmes which are not currently running
Student engagement and representation
Studies away from the University
Professional Work Based Learning
Contingency classification and progression regulations
Exceptional classification and progression regulations
Exceptional regulations: Covid-19

Progression Review of research students

This page sets out the Progression Review process which applies to research degree students in all years of their programme, including basic elements, possible outcomes and appeals. Its content is relevant to staff and postgraduate researchers registered for level 7 (masters) and level 8 (doctoral) degrees across all of the UK, China and Malaysia campuses.

Search the manual

1. introduction.

Includes: basic principles; Progression Review activities throughout the year; progression monitoring; Internal Assessors; maximum time for completion of thesis examination

All postgraduate researchers (PGRs) registered on research degrees lasting more than 1 year full-time or 2 years part-time (e.g. MPhil or Professional Doctorates but not MRes etc.) are subject to progression monitoring and formal review.

The basic principles of Progression Review are common to all postgraduate researchers (PGRs) and all years of programmes who go through such a review.

In all cases, the purpose of Progression Monitoring and formal review is to ensure that the progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each Stage is sufficient to ensure achievement of the doctoral (level 8) or masters (level 7) outcomes to the required standard, and completion of the thesis examination (including any viva voce examination) within the period of registered study.

For more information about the UNQF, please consult the following:

University of Nottingham Qualifications Framework

Relevant adjustments may need to be made for PGRs studying away from the University or following programmes that involve a significant taught element.

Part-time students

For part-time PGRs, all the processes for the Progression Review will happen every other year rather than yearly and periods of time quoted should be doubled.

Basic principles of PGR progression monitoring and review

Progress monitoring begins through regular supervisory meetings when the PGR first registers on the programme. These recorded meetings continue throughout the period of registered study and thesis completion period, until thesis submission. Formal records of these meetings should be made, agreed and held securely in the PGR’s supervision records. Progression Review information should be given to the PGR at Induction and then reinforced throughout their registered study.

For more information about responsibilities of the supervisor, please consult the following:

Responsibilities of the Supervisor

In-year progress meetings with supervisory teams can be formal or informal, one-to-one or in a group, as is appropriate for the timing and progress of the PGR.

For the recommended steps and process in planning for PGR Progression Review, please consult the following:

PGR Progression Review consists of formal assessment of progress against the doctoral or other relevant published outcomes through several components.

Records of progress recorded in the required minimum number of regular supervisory meetings conducted regularly throughout the period of registered study, including information on: agreed research plans and milestones; progress made; any problems encountered and solutions proposed; and any other pertinent information. As these records form part of the formal assessment of PGR progression at Progression Review, they should contain a record of, for example, any extenuating circumstances, or any concerns about progress, or reasons for congratulation on success. Records of progress meetings should be available to all the team members, including the PGR and all supervisors.
Formal Progression Review is assessed against progress towards meeting the required outcomes at each Stage of study in the programme, usually through a written report;
Completion of mandatory elements such as training and development, taught modules, laboratory rotations, career planning, engagement with professional development opportunities, and career planning are also reviewed.

The published criteria for Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 progression are badged against the outcomes in the University of Nottingham Qualification Framework and the QAA doctoral outcomes. They are designed to enable Assessors to take a consistent and transparent approach in determining the progress of PGRs.

For more information about Assessment criteria for Progression Reviews, please consult the following:

Formal assessment of progression at Stages 1 and 2 requires a meeting involving an Internal Assessor and should be held as an in-person or virtual event. The School may appoint more than one Internal Assessor if appropriate, for example if the research is inter/transdisciplinary in nature. In such instances all Internal Assessors should be actively engaged in all aspects of the formal Progression Review.

The appointment of the Internal Assessor(s) should be initiated within 3 months of registration and the PGR made aware of this, and the appointment should be confirmed at least 3 months before the formal Progression Review begins. It is strongly recommended that where possible the Internal Assessor(s) are involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes. The Stage 3 Progression Review can be conducted by the supervisory team but should not be conducted by a single supervisor.

For more information on the role, responsibilities and appointment of the Internal Assessor, please consult the following:

Role and responsibilities of the Internal Assessor

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below, and may include additional methods of assessment deemed necessary by Schools, to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria. When including additional elements Schools must pay due regard to PGR and Assessor assessment load.

If progress is not sufficient to meet the necessary outcomes within the period of registered study, the aim must be to meet these, and complete the research and thesis examination within a maximum of three years (for MPhil) or four years from first registration (for PhD, MVM, MD, MVS, and professional doctorate) irrespective of programme duration. This maximum duration can only be changed in individual cases if the PGR holds an award with terms and conditions that vary this maximum period and the School approves the arrangement. Note that some awards may have a maximum duration of less than 4 years.

2. Timing of formal Progression Review and stages of PGR study

Includes: for all PGRs; different stages of study; purpose and timing of formal Progression Reviews; 4 year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1; recommended latest timings for Stage 3 Progression Review.

Progression review - Stages


Year 1	Confirmation of sufficient progress towards level 7 outcomes, meeting outcome within 12 months	Year 1/Year 2 [depending on length and structure of programme]	Confirmation of sufficient progress and PhD registration
Year 2	Confirmation of sufficient progress for thesis submission within 6 months	Year 2/Year 3 [depending on length and structure of programme]	Confirmation of sufficient progress to meet doctoral outcomes within 12-18 months
		Year 3/Year 4	Confirmation of sufficient progress for thesis submission within 6 months

The latest time at which Stage 3 Progression Review (confirmation that doctoral outcomes can be achieved within 6 months) can take place are in the table below.


PhD: 3 years (36 months)	30 months after initial registration, normally 18 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
PhD: 3 years, 6 months (42 months)	36 months after initial registration, normally 24 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
PhD: 4 years	42 months after initial registration, normally 30 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
Integrated PhD	42 months after initial registration, normally 30 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
1 year + 3 years (MRes/MSc + PhD)	30 months after initial registration, normally 18 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
PhD: 4 years + 1 year extended training opportunities	42 months after initial registration, normally 30 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.
MPhil (normal expected period of study 2 years)	6 months after Stage 1 Progression Review.

3. Minimum elements of Stage 1 and 2 Progression Review

Includes: for all PGRs; for doctoral PGRs undergoing confirmation of registration; 4 year PhD programmes with a substantial taught, training and development or laboratory rotation element in Stage 1

Progression Reviews at Stages 1 and 2 should use the core Review elements below to assess progress to date against the Stage appropriate published criteria, to enable the PGR to demonstrate that they have achieved the required outcomes at each Stage.

When including any additional assessment methods, Schools must pay due consideration to assessment load and the balance of PGR workload for Progression Review against their ongoing research progress. It should not be expected that PGRs stop research / thesis writing in order to devote time to the Progression Review.

Schools must ensure that the following elements are included in their formal Progression Review process:

For PGRs undergoing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Progression Review:

A formal summative assessment of PGR progress to date. This is assessed against published criteria/outcomes by:

a) a written report by the PGR on their progress to date and

b) through questioning at a meeting between the PGR and the Internal Assessor and (if the School wishes, other staff who have not previously been closely associated with the PGR's work).

The meeting should have a clear agenda. It should begin with a reinforcement of what the meeting will cover and include opportunities to discuss progress to date, the PGR’s future research plans, and the extent of progress towards the doctoral outcomes, the wider research environment and its suitability to support the planned research, and the supervision the PGR receives.

Plans for completion and submission of the thesis within the period of registered study, and completion of thesis examination in a maximum of 4 years, bearing in mind that PGRs do not have a dedicated ‘writing up’ period, and thesis writing should be integrated alongside the research.
Independent written assessments from the Internal Assessor and supervisory team* on the PGR’s performance to date. The Internal Assessor’s report should include information on PGR performance, progress, attendance and engagement throughout the period of study. Any problems encountered or required support identified by the PGR in discussion or in their written report should be noted in the Internal Assessor’s report, where appropriate. The report from the supervisory team should include any concerns with PGR progress to date, successes or problems encountered or necessary mitigations required to maintain progress.
Formative feedback on how improvements might be made on both the written report and the meeting from the Internal Assessor. This can be verbal feedback at the end of the meeting.
Confirmation that the required minimum number of supervision sessions has taken place, that the records of supervision meetings are available, and that these record the progress made to date and highlight any problems encountered.
The Internal Assessor should be able to access evidence that the PGR has attended any modules and passed any assessments that form a compulsory part of their research programme.
The content of any report submitted to a PGR’s sponsor, if they have one, should also be considered as part of the review.

Note that the Progression Reviews should also consider and take into account any significant research and/or personal impacts that have /may have significant disruptive impacts on research progress. Consideration of this should include information about how the PGR has managed to progress their research in light of any impacts, the extent to which they have mitigated these impacts and how they have had to change their research plans, activities, and goals/milestones accordingly.

After the meeting with the PGR, the Internal Assessor and supervisors should share their independent reports with the PGR for their comment and response. If the likely recommendation is for reassessment, or if there is disagreement in outcome, the reports should be shared in a meeting with the Independent Assessor and/or the supervisors so the PGR has support when this is communicated. This can be during the verbal feedback after the meeting.

In light of the meeting, and discussion of the independent reports and the PGR response, the Internal Assessor and the principal supervisor should agree a joint recommendation on the outcome to the Head of School. The agreed joint recommendation will be recorded in the PGR’s record.

4. Elements of Stage 3 Progression Review

Includes: consideration of progress to thesis submission; minimum elements

The Stage 3 Progression Review should determine whether the PGR is likely to meet the doctoral outcomes within the next 6 months. It should include a detailed consideration of progress, including the progress made with writing the thesis, and a plan to ensure that the thesis is submitted within the period of registered study. If this is thought to be unachievable at Stage 3 Progression Review (for PGRs on 36 or 42 month programmes), plans must be made for degree completion, including thesis examination, within a maximum of 4 years from initial registration.

It is strongly recommended that the Internal Assessor is also involved in the Stage 3 Progression Review for continuity and quality assurance purposes.

In addition to the minimum elements of Stages 1 and 2 Progression Review, Stage 3 Progression Review should include the following elements:

a detailed evaluation of how the work to date shows that the PGR has already or will meet /achieve the doctoral outcomes.
plans for the PGR to achieve any doctoral outcomes that are not yet met, showing how these will be met within 6 months;
detailed information on the progress made on writing the thesis, and plans for its completion (noting that the thesis is expected to be completed within the period of registered study, and a detailed plan for thesis completion and submission).
discussion of any exceptional circumstances, unforeseen problems and mitigations that have been necessary to ensure progression and timely completion

Note that if the required outcomes relating to the generation of empirical novel research contributions are unlikely to be met within 6 months, the PGR is unlikely to be able to progress to thesis submission and examination within 6 months. In this case, the Internal Assessor and supervisors should consider the recommendation that the PGR does not progress and whether an exceptional extension to the period of registered study is required.

5. The possible outcomes of formal Progression Review

Includes: outcomes where assessors agree; recommendations on progression; circumstances and outcomes when progression is not recommended

Outcomes where the Internal Assessor and supervisory teams agree:

1. Progression to the next stage of study is recommended.

In order to make this recommendation there should be records that the PGR has been progressing according to plans throughout the year. Progress must be confirmed as satisfactory in the meeting through assessment against the stage-specific criteria, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study and structure. The supervisors and assessors should agree that the PGR will be able to meet the doctoral outcomes in the required time.

Outcomes of approved progression to the next stage of study are:

a) For Stage 1 PhD PGRs, confirmation of their status as PhD candidates.

b) For Stage 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For all stages, provided the PGR agrees, the assessors can recommend a transfer of registration to another, usually higher, degree (e.g. from MPhil to PhD). In this instance, a transfer form must be completed. If a transfer is recommended at Stage 3, and the review did not involve an Internal Assessor, then an interview with the Internal Assessor is required to confirm the transfer to the new degree.

d) For Stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis pending.

e) For PGRs in Stage 3 who are achieving the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, the recommendation will be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study.

For recommendations d) and e), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the empirical research and not exceeded 4 years of study.

2. Progression is not recommended and progress is required to be reassessed.

For this recommendation there will be information in the supervision records that the PGR and supervisory teams have discussed the reasons for unsatisfactory progress, and that attempts have been made to support the PGR to improve. The progress to date should have been assessed in the meeting with the Internal Assessor against the stage-specific criteria and found to be insufficient, taking into account discipline / field specific differences in doctoral study structure. The Internal Assessor and supervisory teams’ independent reports should agree that the PGR requires additional time and support to be able to demonstrate their ability to progress to the next stage at reassessment. In these cases, supervisory records must be kept, and should be available for the re-assessment.

a) Stage 1 PGRs on a supportive or corrective plan of action remain on probationary status until confirmation of Stage 1 progression.

b) At all Stages PGRs are registered/re-registered for PhD in the following academic session with an agreed plan of supportive or corrective action in place for a limited time.

c) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in research and writing to allow them to meet the doctoral outcomes within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend a reassessment after a period of up to 3 months. There should be a plan for supportive corrective action during this time to support the PGR to meet the doctoral outcomes by the end of the period of registered study.

d) For Stage 3 PGRs who have made insufficient progress in research to allow them to meet the doctoral outcomes and submit the thesis for examination within the following 6 months, the assessors may recommend an exceptional extension to the PGR’s period of registration for up to one further year. Reassessment for ability to progress to thesis should be done after no more than 6 months. Thesis completion and examination are still expected within the 4 year maximum period.

e) The maximum number of Progression Reviews for a PGR at any stage is limited to 2. If an Exceptional Circumstances claim is submitted and upheld, the Progression Review may be repeated as a First Sit.

3. Progression is not recommended - suggested change to registration status.

All Stages: With the agreement of the PGR and on recommendation in the joint report, transfer of registration to another degree (e.g. from PhD to MPhil, or MPhil to MRes). In this instance, re-assessment of progress is not required and a transfer form must be completed.

The reasons for a recommendation for reassessment or registration on another degree must be explained to the PGR as soon as possible.

In cases of referral for re-assessment, the PGR must have the opportunity to discuss the decision with the Internal Assessor and the supervisory team. If necessary, the PGR should be referred to the School Postgraduate Student Advisor (SPSA), Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer. The supervisory team should offer the PGR support in addressing the outcome of the review, and if necessary, in producing their response to the assessment in the reports.

6. Resolution of disagreement on Progression Review recommendations

Includes: process to be followed to reach resolution on the recommendation for progression; timeline for resolution.

If the independent reports from the supervisory team and the Independent Assessor(s) disagree on the recommended outcome of the Progression Review, the following process should be followed.

The PGR should be referred to the supervisors, SPSA, Senior Tutor or other appropriate welfare support officer for support in addressing the outcome of the review, depending on where disagreement lies, and the required support. They should have the opportunity to discuss the Review with the supervisory team and / or Internal Assessor(s). They should have support in producing their response to the assessment either from the supervisors or from other members of the PGR support team. The PGR should receive the feedback from the review and be given an appropriate time to produce their response.

1. If the Internal Assessor recommends progression but the supervisory team does not.

The independent and joint reports, and the PGR’s response, should be shared with the Head of School or delegate. The Head of School may call a meeting of the Internal Assessor, supervisors and PGR to discuss the case. The Head of School will then make a decision based on the information in the reports and from the discussion as to whether the PGR should progress, or be referred for reassessment.

2. If the supervisory team recommends progression but the Internal Assessor does not.

The supervisory team should set up a meeting for discussion of the proposed outcome to which the Internal Assessor; the PGR should also be invited and have made their response to the independent reports. The group should attempt to resolve the outcome by discussion. If there is information that is relevant to the discussion that was not available to the Internal Assessor in the Progression Review documentation and/or meeting and that might affect the judgement of progress, such as extenuating circumstances, this should be made available in the discussions. If agreement can be reached, then the recommendation will follow the process in Section 5.

If agreement on the outcome cannot be resolved through discussion, the case should be referred to the Head of School as in 1 above.

Such discussions should be held in a timely manner, aiming to reach a resolution and recommended outcome within 1 month of the Progression Review meeting.

7. Requirements for Progression Review re-assessment and outcomes

Includes: reassessment of progress; support for PGRs

If progress needs to be reassessed at any stage, the PGR must be given detailed information on the goals and requirements for improved performance, an appropriate and defined timeframe in which to meet these, and support in achieving the required improvement. They should also be made aware of the possible outcomes of the reassessment process.

The format for re-assessment will be the same as for the initial Progression Review. The PGR should update their written report, focussing specifically on how they have met the agreed objectives. A plan for maintained progress should also be produced and considered at the re-assessment meeting.

Stage 1 PGRs are re-registered on a continued probationary basis until re-assessment. PGRs at stages 2 and 3 are re-registered/continue to be registered for the PhD until re-assessment.

When a PGR is referred for reassessment, the following information must be provided to the PGR as soon as possible:

Feedback on the performance in all aspects of the Progression Review, including clear detailed guidance on the requirements for improvement, with SMART objectives/goals and/or milestones;
Explicit information on the potential outcomes of re-assessment;
An explicit time/date for the re-assessment of progress, which should give sufficient time for the required progress to be made. Normally this would not be more than 3 months after the original Progression Review. In exceptional circumstances and with the approval of QSC, the time given for improvement for PGRs at stages 1 and 2 may be up to 6 months;
The PGR must receive appropriate academic support and guidance to support them to achieve the required improvements. Academic support is particularly important for PGRs in progressing to Stage 3, to ensure that PGRs get on track to meet the required outcomes, and are prepared for the completion and examination of the thesis;
If necessary and appropriate, the PGR should be referred for support outside the supervisory team, e.g. welfare or disability support teams.

8. Outcomes of Progression Review re-assessment

Includes: the possible outcomes from re-assessment following satisfactory progress; outcomes on unsatisfactory progress; required evidence of progress.

If the Internal Assessor and the supervisors disagree on the recommendation after reassessment, they should follow the process for resolution. This should include the Head of School irrespective of where the disagreement in recommendation lies.

a) For Stage 1 doctoral PGRs, confirmation of their status as doctoral candidates.

b) For Stages 1 and 2 progression, re-registration on the same degree in the following academic session.

c) For Stage 3 PGRs whose progress is satisfactory but who are likely to submit the thesis after the end of their period of registered study, the recommendation will be that on completion of the period of registered study they enter Thesis pending.

d) For Stage 3 PGRs who are on track to achieve the necessary progress to meet the doctoral outcomes by the planned date, and move to thesis submission, the recommendation would be maintenance of current status up to the end of their period of registered study at which point they would, if necessary, enter Thesis pending until thesis submission.

For recommendations c) and d), the PGR must have met the requirements for the minimum period of registered study, completed the research and have not exceeded 4 years of study. A recommendation for registration for a higher degree cannot be made as a result of progression re-assessment.

If performance in the re-assessment does not meet the criteria and the required progress / improvement has not been achieved as agreed by the supervisory team and Internal Assessor, the recommendation by the School to the University should be that, for all PGRs at all stages

Either

a) the PGR is required to re-register on another, usually lower degree (e.g. PhD to MPhil, MPhil to MRes).

b) the PGR’s registration is terminated.

Termination of registration can only be recommended when supported by evidence that the PGR has received written warnings on lack of progress during the period of study, and the period of supported improvement.

In these cases, all supervisory records and Progression Review paper work must be submitted to QSC for approval.

9. Considerations of Covid-19 or other major impacts

Where the recommendations to extend the PGR's registration status relate to research or personal impacts resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, the PGR can confirm the need for an extension to the 4 year maximum period, by either following the extension to the registered period of study, or the extension to Thesis pending procedure, depending on whether further research is deemed necessary or not.

Other significant impacts on PGR progression, either personal or research-related, such as major disruption in access to facilities, should also be taken into account in Progression Review. When circumstances are out of the PGRs control, these should be considered fairly, with respect and consideration for the impact on the PGR.

Forms and documentation

Includes: flowchart for progression review and submission; progression review forms; request to register for an additional period of study; request to transfer student

UK campus only

Registration during thesis pending period form

* this includes a section for Visa and Immigration team approval

UNM campus only

Unnc campus only .

School PGR Progression Review Form (Probationary PhD students)
School PGR Progression Review Form (excluding Probationary PhD students)

UNUK students

Student services, unnc students .

UNM students

Staff , related content.

Portland Building, University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Legal information

Terms and conditions
Posting rules
Accessibility
Freedom of information
Charity gateway
Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Browser does not support script.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

< Back to search results
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

Announcements

Information
Journal home
Journal information
Open access articles
FirstView articles
Latest volume
Get access Subscribe Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register
Contains open access

ISSN: 0267-1905 (Print) , 1471-6356 (Online)
Editor: Alison Mackey Georgetown University, USA
Editorial board

A methodological proposal for conlang evaluation

David Peterson , Jessie Peterson

Extramural English as an individual difference variable in L2 research: Methodology matters

Pia Sundqvist

Reflecting on the use of response times to index linguistic knowledge in SLA

Bronson Hui , Ruirui Jia

Complex adaptive interventions: The challenge ahead for instructed second language acquisition research

Phil Hiver , Charlie Nagle

Transformative justice as a method in applied linguistics

Ian Cushing

The future of replication in applied linguistics: Toward a standard for replication studies

Kevin McManus

Promises and perils of positionality statements

Kendall A. King

Discussion on recent special issue of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), (Volume 42):“Social justice in applied linguistics: Making space for new approaches and new voices.”

Other applied linguistics journals from Cambridge

Language Teaching

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

English Today

Journal of French Language Studies

Language anxiety and achievement

Elaine Horwitz
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 21

Department of English

Annual review for doctoral students.

During your first year of study, you will complete courses in technical communication and rhetoric, your minor, and research methods. You also must complete the first-year review and doctoral degree plan.

The first-year review, along with your admission materials and coursework, assesses your ability to complete requirements for the PhD. It takes the place of a preliminary exam in the TCR program, and it offers an opportunity for mentoring.

This review, in your second semester in the program, is the first of the annual reviews of your progress toward the PhD conducted initially by your advisory committee and later by your dissertation committee.

The review is based on a portfolio composed of a revised paper from a course in your first semester; your report of achievements and plans; evaluations by your first-semester instructors; and an interview with your advisory committee.

The first-year review provides both the student and faculty members a means by which success in the program can be predicted and needs and goals can be determined. The review will indicate your ability to read professional texts critically, to extract important data and to analyze thematic content in professional texts, and to articulate research problems and methods of solving them. The interview provides an opportunity for you and the committee to discuss course choices and possible dissertation topics. The chair of the advisory committee prepares a written report of the review for the Director of Graduate Studies in Technical Communication and Rhetoric (DGS TCR) including recommendations of the committee. The DGS TCR forwards a report to the Graduate School Dean, per the graduate school rules .

The doctoral degree plan specifies your plans for meeting the requirements of coursework, including research methods courses, and residence. It defines your dissertation area in general terms. You must prepare the doctoral degree plan, in consultation with the DGS TCR and your advisory committee, upon completion of the first-year review but within one year of your initial enrollment. The DGS TCR forwards the degree plan to the Dean of the Graduate School for approval.

The DGS TCR completes the paperwork for all graduate students in the Technical Communication and Rhetoric program, including the doctoral degree plan and annual reviews. In addition, this person advises students in the early stages of their doctoral program.

During your first year of study, you will be assigned an advisory committee consisting of two graduate faculty members in TCR. This committee will help you navigate the choices early in your doctoral studies, possibly helping you decide on a minor, research methods courses, courses in technical communication and rhetoric, and even dissertation projects.

Your advisory committee will also conduct your first-year review and subsequent annual reviews of your academic progress until you have selected a dissertation committee. You will meet with your advisory committee at least once a year, and it is recommended that you meet with individual members of your advisory committee more frequently.

By the end of your second year you will be required to select a dissertation committee of three faculty members. This committee may consist of some or all of your advisory committee, or it may comprise an entirely new group.

The dissertation committee will assume the duties of the advisory committee, including an annual review of your academic progress. It will also compose and grade your qualifying examination, advise you regarding your dissertation, and conduct your final oral presentation. The chair and other members should have expertise in the area of your dissertation research.

Each year (early in the spring semester for on-campus students and during the May Workshop for online students) either your advisory committee or your dissertation committee will provide the DGS TCR with a written review of your academic progress. This review will consider your accomplishments in the past year and includes a personal interview conducted by your committee. The purpose of the annual review is to provide you and the technical communication and rhetoric faculty a clear assessment of your strengths, to identify opportunities for professional development, and to support timely and effective completion of the program.

Like Department of English on Facebook Like Department of English on Facebook
Follow Department of English on X (twitter) Follow Department of English on X (twitter)
Subscribe to Department of English on YouTube Subscribe to Department of English on YouTube
Follow Department of English on Instagram Follow Department of English on Instagram

Facts & Figures
Accreditations
Maps and Directions
Faculty Distinctions, Awards and Honors
Engineering Honors
Computer Engineering
Global Programs
Student Organizations
Peer Teachers
Fast Track: Optimizing the transition from Undergraduate to Graduate Studies
Admissions and Aid
Entry to a Major Process
Research Areas
Undergraduate Research
Seminars and Distinguished Lectures
Industry Capstone Program
Industrial Affiliates Program

Student Annual Review Procedure

The purpose of the Ph.D. student annual review procedure is to encourage and motivate Ph.D. student research, and provide additional mentoring for graduate study. The external doctoral program review committee that visited in spring 2004 charged us to institute a department-wide review of Ph.D. students to provide department-wide quality control that does not depend on just the advisory committee members. The first Ph.D. student annual review took place in May 2004.

The Ph.D. review procedure consists of the following main steps:

Annual progress report and other materials completed by the Ph.D. student. Dates vary by year, but the deadline is typically near the end of the spring semester.
Annual evaluation form completed by advisor (if one exists) and other faculty (dates vary by year, but typically near the end of the spring semester).
Review of the students by the entire faculty in mid-May.
Notification letter to the student and advisor by early June.
Improvement Process: Initiated for students who receive Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory ratings.
Dismissal Procedure: Initiated for students who receive two consecutive Unsatisfactory ratings.

Review Criteria

Minimum requirements are that the student must comply with all academic rules, regulations and timelines set forth by the Graduate and Professional School and the Department of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE). These include, but are not limited to, maintaining acceptable degree plan and cumulative grade point ratios, formation of an advisory committee and filing a degree plan, completing required course work, passing the preliminary exam, and submitting a dissertation proposal and passing the final exam (dissertation defense), all within allowable time limits. A student who has committed academic misconduct must complete the remedial actions required of the misconduct review process. These are all required actions.

In addition to meeting minimum requirements, students must demonstrate Satisfactory performance, based on faculty expectations. To provide guidance to students and faculty, descriptions of ranges of Satisfactory progress for students entering with a bachelor's degree or with a related master's degree are provided below.

A student will likely be rated Needs Improvement if they fall below these ranges, and they will likely be rated Unsatisfactory if they fall significantly below these ranges. It is important to note, however, that the ranges provided are only guidelines and they should be adjusted accordingly based on each student's individual circumstances. For example, a student may join in mid-year, a student may come with a different background and need additional foundation courses, a student may initially focus on research and defer course work, or a student may go on an internship. The actual evaluation will take into account all the information available to the faculty.

The department will collect and distribute overall performance statistics to students. These statistics will be used to refine our guidelines.

Student and Advisor Reports

The student is required to prepare and file the materials listed below by the announced deadline, typically near the end of the spring semester. Failure to submit the required materials will result in a rating of Unsatisfactory for that year. Reports must be submitted in the Ph.D. review system.

An annual report describing in detail the student's progress towards their Ph.D. degree in the last year or since the date the student entered the Ph.D. program, whichever is more recent. This report must include a list of the papers the student has had published, accepted or submitted to conferences or journals limited to the period covered by the annual report. Acceptance ratios or percentages should be included for conference papers. (The report must be in PDF or plain text format.)
A current vitae (CV). The CV must include a complete listing (all years) of all the student's published, accepted or submitted conference and journal papers. Acceptance ratios or percentages should be included for conference papers. Examples of CVs can be found by searching the web using the term "curriculum vitae," or by asking your advisor. (The CV must be in PDF format.)
Students need to have their advisor, if they have one, review the annual report and CV prior to submission.

Complete and accurate documents are critical for a successful Ph.D. review. The student's advisor, if they have one, will provide their evaluation of the student's performance as Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory and will provide written comments. Additionally, other faculty will have an opportunity to provide input on the student.

The materials submitted by the student, their advisor and other faculty will be available for review by the entire faculty.

Faculty Review

All Ph.D. students will be evaluated by the faculty at their annual retreat, typically held in mid-May. The evaluation by the faculty is based on the following information:

Student's academic record. This includes courses, preliminary exam, Ph.D. proposal, etc.
The materials submitted by the student as part of the annual review process (e.g., academic progress form, annual report and CV).
Evaluations submitted by the student's advisor (if the student has an advisor) and other faculty.
Faculty discussion. The discussion will presumably include direct knowledge of the faculty about the student; and the student's performance as compared to faculty expectations.

Notification and Student Response Processes

After the faculty evaluation, each student will receive a rating (Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory) and additional feedback regarding their degree progress and the criteria used for evaluation. Results will be available in the Ph.D. review system. Notification that results are available will be distributed electronically to the student's departmental email account. It is the student's responsibility to read their email regularly.

In the case of a rating of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory (that is not a second consecutive Unsatisfactory rating), the notification letter will include specific feedback explaining the evaluation and what actions the student must take to improve to Satisfactory performance before the next Ph.D. student annual review.

If a student disagrees with their rating, they may provide a written response that will be placed in their departmental record. This statement may include whatever justification or explanation of extenuating circumstances that the student may wish to provide. This statement will be available during future annual Ph.D. reviews and in any future dismissal proceedings.

Improvement Process

Students who are rated as Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory (that is not a second consecutive Unsatisfactory rating) must complete the following improvement process (IP) within four weeks of the date when notification of Ph.D. review results was sent to their departmental email account. This deadline applies even if the student is away from campus, e.g., on an internship, or if they are not registered for the summer.

Students will complete the improvement process with a mentor. If the student has filed a degree plan, then their mentor will be their advisor. The graduate advisor will be the mentor for students that have not yet identified an advisor. Students that have identified an advisor (including students changing advisors), but who have not yet filed a degree plan with that advisor, have the option of going through the process with their identified advisor (preferred) or with the graduate advisor (or when changing advisors, their previous advisor).

The improvement process includes the following steps. This process can be completed remotely using email and/or conference calls as necessary if the student or their advisor is out of town. All improvement process materials should be submitted in the Ph.D. review system.

The student should develop a performance improvement plan with their identified IP mentor (normally the Ph.D. advisor) This plan must include steps and a time line for achieving Satisfactory progress over the next year. Students completing the process with the graduate advisor as their mentor should format their improvement plans according to this template (PDF).
The performance improvement plan should be submitted by the student to the Ph.D. review system after it is approved by the student's identified IP mentor.
After the performance improvement plan is approved by the IP mentor, the advising office will schedule an appointment for the student and their IP mentor to meet with the department head, or designate, to discuss the student's performance and the plans for improving it.
The department head will decide whether and when all tasks in the improvement plan of a student are successfully completed. The recommendation by the IP mentor will be taken into account for this decision.

Consequence of an Unsatisfactory Rating

A student with an Unsatisfactory rating will in general not be eligible for departmental support until all tasks specified in the improvement plan have been successfully completed.

Dismissal Procedure

Two consecutive Unsatisfactory ratings from the annual Ph.D. review constitute unsatisfactory progress toward the Ph.D. degree and lead to the dismissal procedure. All materials relating to the dismissal procedure should be submitted to the graduate advising office by email ( [email protected] ).

The procedure is as follows:

A student who receives two consecutive Unsatisfactory ratings will be informed in the annual review notification letter (available in the Ph.D. review system as described above) that the dismissal procedure has been initiated. The student's advisory committee, if it exists, will also be notified.
The student can submit a written statement and supportive materials arguing why they should not be dismissed. The student may include written statements and materials from the advisory committee.
The statements and materials must be submitted via email to [email protected] within four weeks of notification.
The graduate advisory committee (GAC) will then consider the case, taking the student's record, statements and materials into consideration, and will submit a written recommendation to the department head. Normally, the GAC will make the recommendation within two weeks after receiving the statements and materials.
If an advisory committee exists, its members may submit written recommendations to the department head within four weeks of the notification of the student.
The department head will make the final decision about the dismissal of the student from the graduate program. Normally, the department head will make the decision within two weeks after receiving the recommendations of the GAC and advisory committee.
If the student is dismissed, they may appeal to the Graduate Appeals Panel per university rules .

B.S. to Ph.D. Satisfactory Progress Guidelines

Below are recommended guidelines for judging the progress of a full-time Ph.D. student admitted directly to the Ph.D. program with a B.S. Note that there may be significant variation from these depending on the student's individual circumstances, and in this case the schedule below should be adjusted accordingly. For example, a student may join in mid-year, a student may come with a different background and need additional foundation courses, a student may initially focus on research and defer course work, or a student may go on an internship. The expectations for part-time Ph.D. students are scaled appropriately.

The notation "B+i" means the i-th year after the B.S. degree.

Year B+1 - The student is expected to find an advisor and complete several core courses (or foundational courses in the case of computer engineering majors) to start their research. The student may file a degree plan.
Year B+2 - The student is required to file a degree plan (by the end of their third semester). The student is expected to complete most of their course requirements. Some progress in research should be documented (for instance, submission of a paper to a conference or journal).
Year B+3 - The student is expected to complete their course work. The student is expected to complete their preliminary exam. The student should have tangible research results, such as refereed publications in recognized outlets. The student is expected to complete their Ph.D. proposal.
Year B+4 - The student is strongly expected to complete their Ph.D. proposal. The student must have made substantial progress towards the completion of the Ph.D. dissertation. There should be evidence that the candidate has produced original, significant research contributions. Lack of publications will be an indicator of inadequate progress.
Year B+5 - The student should complete and defend the dissertation.
Year B+6 - The student is strongly expected to complete and defend the dissertation.

Related M.S. to Ph.D. Satisfactory Progress Guidelines

Students may enter the full-time Ph.D. program with widely varying master's degree backgrounds. The assumption made here is that the student completed a broad Masters degree (often from another school) and is not already in a specific research activity. These are the suggested goals for each year for Satisfactory progress for a full-time Ph.D. student. Note there may be significant variation from these depending on the student's individual circumstances, and in this case the schedule below should be adjusted accordingly. For example, a student may join in mid-year, a student may come with a different background and need additional foundation courses, a student may initially focus on research and defer course work, or a student may go on an internship. The expectations for part-time Ph.D. students are scaled appropriately.

The notation "M+i" means the i-th year after completing the master's degree.

Year M+1 - The student should be familiar with the CSE faculty and their research activities such that agreement with an advisor can be finalized quickly. The student should (nearly) complete course work, start their research and is expected to file a degree plan. Progress in research should be documented (for instance, submission of a paper to a conference or journal). A student may engage in more research and correspondingly less course work.
Year M+2 - The student must file a degree plan (by the end of the third semester). The student should complete all course work. The student is expected to complete their preliminary exam. The student must have tangible research results, such as refereed publications in recognized outlets. The student should submit their dissertation proposal.
Year M+3 - The student must have made substantial progress towards completion of the Ph.D. dissertation. There should be evidence that the candidate has produced original, significant research contributions. Lack of publications will be an indicator of inadequate progress.
Year M+4 - Expected to complete and defend dissertation.
Year M+5 - Strongly expected to complete and defend dissertation.

IMAGES

How to Write a Systematic Review Dissertation: With Examples
A Guide to Writing a Great Dissertation Literature Review
Sample Dissertation Timeline
How to Run Your Own Annual Review
Dissertation Review Sample
20 Annual Review Templates & Examples for Year-End Reviews

VIDEO

Lessons I learnt from my LITERATURE REVIEW (Msc edition)
How to write a review article " Educational Series". Speaker 1: Dr. Yasser Hassan
M.Sc. Dissertation Day 3
M.Sc. Dissertation
How to Write a Law Dissertation?
How to Narrow Down your Literature Review Dissertation Question

COMMENTS

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide ...
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to ...
(PDF) How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology Volume 70 is January 4, 2019. ... • Google and Google Scholar are reasonably effective in locating dissertations and ...
How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question.
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
PDF The Thesis Writing Process and Literature Review
Look at more recent work citing these works (e.g., Web of Science). In writing the review, chronology is often important. Capture the. essence of the works you draw on. See Turco's "Token Theory" section. Provide supporting quotes when necessary. Avoid citing aspects of the works that aren't central (common mistake!).
Annual Reviews
This is a description from a comment on the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, but the principle holds for most disciplines: the series serves people in the field, graduate students, students and the interested public who wish to keep up in an area of interest without trying to cover multiple journals and other sources at all times. The volumes can be used to amplify textbooks, and ...
Dissertation Literature Review: Key Steps and Best Practices
A literature review is a comprehensive and critically assessed summary of existing research focused on a specific topic or question.Unlike other types of literature reviews, the dissertation literature review requires depth and context, serving as an extensive examination of scholarly works, including articles, books, theses, and other authoritative sources.
Annual Review of Biochemistry
Editorial Committee. ISSN: 0066-4154. eISSN: 1545-4509. AIMS AND SCOPE OF JOURNAL: The Annual Review of Biochemistry sets the standard for review articles in biological chemistry and molecular biology. Since its inception, these volumes have served as an indispensable resource for both the practicing biochemist and students of biochemistry.
A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review
With Annual Review frenzy right around the corner and most first-year PhD students eagerly waiting for their assessments, here is a pocket guide to 'survive' the first-year annual review. 1. Keep the timeline of your review in mind-. Annual reviews typically occur between 9 to 12 months of the programme starting date.
The Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review. A literature review tells us what is known by sharing the results of prior studies related to your own. A literature review places your study within a larger body of work. It shows how your study seeks to fill a gap in, or extend, our knowledge in this area. A literature review offers a benchmark for ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Tip If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasize the timeliness of the topic ("many recent studies have focused on the problem of x") or highlight a gap in the literature ("while ...
PDF Writing an Effective Literature Review
at each of these in turn.IntroductionThe first part of any literature review is a way of inviting your read. into the topic and orientating them. A good introduction tells the reader what the review is about - its s. pe—and what you are going to cover. It may also specifically tell you.
Writing a Literature Review
Writing a Literature Review. 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 ...
What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis ...
The word "literature review" can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of reviewing the literature - i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the actual chapter that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or ...
Annual Reviews
Annual Reviews. Content: Literature review database covering psychology, sociology, anthropology, environment and resources, law and social science, political science, and public health. Purpose: Provides articles that synthesize primary research and discuss the topic in historical context. Discover seminal works and literature gaps.
PDF Reviewing the Review: An Assessment of Dissertation Reviewer ...
Abstract. Throughout the dissertation process, the chair and commitee members provide feedback regarding quality to help the doctoral candidate to produce the highest-quality document and become an independent scholar. Nevertheless, results of previous research suggest that overall dissertation quality generally is poor.
What is the annual review?
Annual progression reviews provide a formal record of how the research project and thesis are developing and recognition of the student's achievements. They also offer a structured opportunity to discuss students' professional development and career aims, and identify any training needs. The annual review process takes place in the EUCLID ...
Annual Evaluations
Annual Evaluations. Each spring, faculty gather to evaluate students' performance through the course of the last year. The purpose of the annual evaluation process is to ensure that each student has made satisfactory progress toward completion of the degree and is fulfilling a proposed study plan. The ultimate goal of the faculty and program ...
Progression Review of research students
4. Elements of Stage 3 Progression Review. Includes: consideration of progress to thesis submission; minimum elements. 5. The possible outcomes of formal Progression Review. Includes: outcomes where assessors agree; recommendations on progression; circumstances and outcomes when progression is not recommended. 6.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
ISSN: 0267-1905 (Print), 1471-6356 (Online) Editor: Alison Mackey Georgetown University, USA. Editorial board. The Annual Review of Applied Linguistics publishes research on key topics in the broad field of applied linguistics. Each issue is thematic, providing a variety of perspectives on the topic through research summaries, critical ...
Annual Review for Doctoral Students
This review, in your second semester in the program, is the first of the annual reviews of your progress toward the PhD conducted initially by your advisory committee and later by your dissertation committee. The review is based on a portfolio composed of a revised paper from a course in your first semester; your report of achievements and ...
Student Annual Review Procedure
The Ph.D. review procedure consists of the following main steps: Annual progress report and other materials completed by the Ph.D. student. Dates vary by year, but the deadline is typically near the end of the spring semester. Annual evaluation form completed by advisor (if one exists) and other faculty (dates vary by year, but typically near ...
Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the
The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2022 dental literature to briefly touch on several topics of interest to modern restorative dentistry. Each committee member brings discipline-specific expertise in their subject areas that include (in order of the appearance in this report): prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar ...

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Other Literature Sources

Miscellaneous

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

APA7 Style resources

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Review the literature

University Libraries

Dissertations and Theses: Some Tools to Support Your Progress

Annual Review of ....?

"Who Should Read This Series?"

Annual Review of Biochemistry

Latest Articles Lasest articles RSS feed

A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review

1. Keep the timeline of your review in mind-

2. Follow the proper procedure of the Annual Review-

3. Ensure open channels of communication with the supervisors-

4. Maintain consistency-

5. Critical Friend-

6. Keep in constant touch with the PGR community-

7. Be realistic in your approach-

8. Maintain a healthy work-life balance-

One comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Report this page

The Literature Review

The purpose of the literature review

Organizing the literature review

Writing the literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

How should I organize my lit review?

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

What Is A Literature Review?

Literature Review 101

What is a literature review?

Reviewing the literature

The literature review chapter

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Example of a literature review

Wrapping Up

Psst… there’s more!

16 Comments

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Research Process

Annual Reviews

Research Tip