Advantages and disadvantages of literature review
This comprehensive article explores some of the advantages and disadvantages of literature review in research. Reviewing relevant literature is a key area in research, and indeed, it is a research activity in itself. It helps researchers investigate a particular topic in detail. However, it has some limitations as well.
What is literature review?
In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of literature review, it is important to understand what a literature review is and how it differs from other methods of research. According to Jones and Gratton (2009) a literature review essentially consists of critically reading, evaluating, and organising existing literature on a topic to assess the state of knowledge in the area. It is sometimes called critical review.
A literature review is a select analysis of existing research which is relevant to a researcher’s selected topic, showing how it relates to their investigation. It explains and justifies how their investigation may help answer some of the questions or gaps in the chosen area of study (University of Reading, 2022).
A literature review is a term used in the field of research to describe a systematic and methodical investigation of the relevant literature on a particular topic. In other words, it is an analysis of existing research on a topic in order to identify any relevant studies and draw conclusions about the topic.
A literature review is not the same as a bibliography or a database search. Rather than simply listing references to sources of information, a literature review involves critically evaluating and summarizing existing research on a topic. As such, it is a much more detailed and complex process than simply searching databases and websites, and it requires a lot of effort and skills.
Advantages of literature review
Information synthesis
A literature review is a very thorough and methodical exercise. It can be used to synthesize information and draw conclusions about a particular topic. Through a careful evaluation and critical summarization, researchers can draw a clear and comprehensive picture of the chosen topic.
Familiarity with the current knowledge
According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.
Creation of new body of knowledge
One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge. Through careful evaluation and critical summarisation, researchers can create a new body of knowledge and enrich the field of study.
Answers to a range of questions
Literature reviews help researchers analyse the existing body of knowledge to determine the answers to a range of questions concerning a particular subject.
Disadvantages of literature review
Time consuming
As a literature review involves collecting and evaluating research and summarizing the findings, it requires a significant amount of time. To conduct a comprehensive review, researchers need to read many different articles and analyse a lot of data. This means that their review will take a long time to complete.
Lack of quality sources
Researchers are expected to use a wide variety of sources of information to present a comprehensive review. However, it may sometimes be challenging for them to identify the quality sources because of the availability of huge numbers in their chosen field. It may also happen because of the lack of past empirical work, particularly if the selected topic is an unpopular one.
Descriptive writing
One of the major disadvantages of literature review is that instead of critical appreciation, some researchers end up developing reviews that are mostly descriptive. Their reviews are often more like summaries of the work of other writers and lack in criticality. It is worth noting that they must go beyond describing the literature.
Key features of literature review
Clear organisation
A literature review is typically a very critical and thorough process. Universities usually recommend students a particular structure to develop their reviews. Like all other academic writings, a review starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion. Between the beginning and the end, researchers present the main body of the review containing the critical discussion of sources.
No obvious bias
A key feature of a literature review is that it should be very unbiased and objective. However, it should be mentioned that researchers may sometimes be influenced by their own opinions of the world.
Proper citation
One of the key features of literature review is that it must be properly cited. Researchers should include all the sources that they have used for information. They must do citations and provide a reference list by the end in line with a recognized referencing system such as Harvard.
To conclude this article, it can be said that a literature review is a type of research that seeks to examine and summarise existing research on a particular topic. It is an essential part of a dissertation/thesis. However, it is not an easy thing to handle by an inexperienced person. It also requires a lot of time and patience.
Hope you like this ‘Advantages and disadvantages of literature review’. Please share this with others to support our research work.
Other useful articles:
How to evaluate website content
Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research
Advantages and disadvantages of simple random sampling
Last update: 08 May 2022
References:
Jones, I., & Gratton, C. (2009) Research Methods for Sports Shttps://www.howandwhat.net/new/evaluate-website-content/tudies, 2 nd edition, London: Routledge
University of Illinois (2022) Literature review, available at: https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/literature-review (accessed 08 May 2022)
University of Reading (2022) Literature reviews, available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/starting (accessed 07 May 2022)
Author: M Rahman
M Rahman writes extensively online and offline with an emphasis on business management, marketing, and tourism. He is a lecturer in Management and Marketing. He holds an MSc in Tourism & Hospitality from the University of Sunderland. Also, graduated from Leeds Metropolitan University with a BA in Business & Management Studies and completed a DTLLS (Diploma in Teaching in the Life-Long Learning Sector) from London South Bank University.
Related Posts
How to be a good team player, competitive advantage for tourist destinations, advantages and disadvantages of snowball sampling.
- Become Involved |
- Give to the Library |
- Staff Directory |
- UNF Library
- Thomas G. Carpenter Library
Conducting a Literature Review
Benefits of conducting a literature review.
- Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
- Summary of the Process
- Additional Resources
- Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
- The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
- Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library
While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.
Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.
Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.
Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.
Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics. It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.
Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.
- << Previous: Home
- Next: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review >>
- Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
- URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview
- Resources Home 🏠
- Try SciSpace Copilot
- Search research papers
- Add Copilot Extension
- Try AI Detector
- Try Paraphraser
- Try Citation Generator
- April Papers
- June Papers
- July Papers
Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers
Table of Contents
Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:
What is the right type of literature review my study demands?
- How do we gather the data?
- How to conduct one?
- How reliable are the review findings?
- How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.
If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.
Heading from scratch!
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.
What is the importance of a Literature review in research?
Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:
- Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
- Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
- Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
- Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
- Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.
Types of Literature Review
Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.
However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.
1. Narrative Literature Review
A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.
Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.
Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review
Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408
Define the research question or topic:
The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.
Conduct a thorough literature search
Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.
Select relevant studies
Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?
*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)
Critically analyze the literature
Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.
Synthesize and integrate the findings
Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.
Discussion and conclusion
This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?
Write a cohesive narrative review
Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.
Structure of Narrative Literature Review
A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:
- Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
- Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
- Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
- Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
- Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.
Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review
- Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
- Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
- Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
- Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
- Potential for bias in the review process
- Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews
Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews
Paper title: Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review
Source: SciSpace
While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.
2. Systematic Review
A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.
It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.
Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews
Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320
Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review
Formulate a clear and focused research question
Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.
Develop a thorough literature search strategy
Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.
Screening and selecting studies
Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.
Data extraction
Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.
Critical appraisal
Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .
Data synthesis
Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.
Interpretation and conclusion
Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.
The final step — Report writing
Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.
By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.
Structure of a systematic literature review
A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:
- Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
- Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
- Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
- Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
- Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.
*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.
Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review
- Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
- Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
- Provides evidence-based insights
- Time and resource-intensive
- High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
- Potential for publication bias
Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review
Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.
Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!
3. Scoping Literature Review
A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.
The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.
Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —
- Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
- Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
- Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.
Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review
While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:
Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.
Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.
Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.
Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches. However, it varies depending on the research question.
Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .
Structure of a Scoping Literature Review
A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:
- Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
- Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
- Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
- Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
- Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.
Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review
- Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
- Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
- Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
- Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
- Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
- Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.
In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.
Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review
Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review
Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
4. Integrative Literature Review
Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.
Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.
Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review
- Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
- Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
- Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
- Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
- Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
- Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
- Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.
Structure of an Integrative Literature Review
- Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
- Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
- Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
- Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
- Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.
Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review
- Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
- Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
- Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
- Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
- Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
- Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
- The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review
Example of Integrative Literature Reviews
Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers
5. Rapid Literature Review
A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.
When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?
- When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
- For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
- To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review
Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review
- Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
- Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
- Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
- Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
- Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
- Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.
Structure of a Rapid Literature Review
An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:
- Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
- Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
- Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
- Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
- Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research
Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review
- RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
- RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
- Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
- RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
- RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
- Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
- Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.
Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review
Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
A Summary of Literature Review Types
Tools and resources for conducting different types of literature reviews, online scientific databases.
Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.
Reference management software
Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.
Automate Literature Review with AI tools
Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.
Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.
If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!
There you go!
Frequently Asked Questions
Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.
A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.
A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.
A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.
A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
You might also like
AI for Meta-Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide
How To Write An Argumentative Essay
Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative
- About the LSE Impact Blog
- Comments Policy
- Popular Posts
- Recent Posts
- Subscribe to the Impact Blog
- Write for us
- LSE comment
Neal Haddaway
October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.
3 comments | 315 shares
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.
Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our mailing list and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.
Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.
So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).
Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.
These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.
In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.
There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below
Image credit: Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang via unsplash
About the author
Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway
Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.
- Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences
#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.
Leave a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Related Posts
“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them
November 16th, 2020.
“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles
January 18th, 2017.
A simple guide to ethical co-authorship
March 29th, 2021.
How common is academic plagiarism?
February 8th, 2024.
Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books
Dissertations - Skills Guide
- Where to start
- Research Proposal
- Ethics Form
- Primary Research
Literature Review
- Methodology
- Downloadable Resources
- Further Reading
What is it?
Literature reviews involve collecting information from literature that is already available, similar to a long essay. It is a written argument that builds a case from previous research (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). Every dissertation should include a literature review, but a dissertation as a whole can be a literature review. In this section we discuss literature reviews for the whole dissertation.
What are the benefits of a literature review?
There are advantages and disadvantages to any approach. The advantages of conducting a literature review include accessibility, deeper understanding of your chosen topic, identifying experts and current research within that area, and answering key questions about current research. The disadvantages might include not providing new information on the subject and, depending on the subject area, you may have to include information that is out of date.
How do I write it?
A literature review is often split into chapters, you can choose if these chapters have titles that represent the information within them, or call them chapter 1, chapter 2, ect. A regular format for a literature review is:
Introduction (including methodology)
This particular example is split into 6 sections, however it may be more or less depending on your topic.
Literature Reviews Further Reading
- << Previous: Primary Research
- Next: Methodology >>
- Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 9:32 AM
- URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=690330
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
- Perspective
- Published: 12 October 2020
Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them
- Neal R. Haddaway ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-2234 1 , 2 , 3 ,
- Alison Bethel 4 ,
- Lynn V. Dicks 5 , 6 ,
- Julia Koricheva ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-0171 7 ,
- Biljana Macura ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4253-1390 2 ,
- Gillian Petrokofsky 8 ,
- Andrew S. Pullin 9 ,
- Sini Savilaakso ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-8105 10 , 11 &
- Gavin B. Stewart ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-1544 12
Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 4 , pages 1582–1589 ( 2020 ) Cite this article
12k Accesses
84 Citations
387 Altmetric
Metrics details
- Conservation biology
- Environmental impact
An Author Correction to this article was published on 19 October 2020
This article has been updated
Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
24,99 € / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
111,21 € per year
only 9,27 € per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health
Whitney D. Arroyave, Suril S. Mehta, … Ruth M. Lunn
Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence
Mark Rickinson, Connie Cirkony, … Annette Boaz
The past, present and future of Registered Reports
Christopher D. Chambers & Loukia Tzavella
Change history
19 october 2020.
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.
Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26 , 91–108 (2009).
PubMed Google Scholar
Haddaway, N. R. & Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 444–447 (2018).
Google Scholar
Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Science informing policy–a health warning for the environment. Environ. Evid. 1 , 15 (2012).
Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29 , 1596–1605 (2015).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018).
White, H. The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 47 (2019).
O’Leary, B. C. et al. The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 64 , 75–82 (2016).
Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S. & Kaiser, M. J. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol. Conserv. 176 , 54–62 (2014).
Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines (Campbell Collaboration, 2014).
Higgins, J. P. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).
Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358 , j4008 (2017).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. “A little learning is a dangerous thing”: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environ. Int. 99 , 356–360 (2017).
Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).
Haddaway, N. R. et al. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 6 , 11 (2017).
Land, M., Macura, B., Bernes, C. & Johansson, S. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ. Evid. 6 , 25 (2017).
Oliver, S. & Dickson, K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid. Policy 12 , 235–259 (2016).
Savilaakso, S. et al. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environ. Evid. 3 , 4 (2014).
Savilaakso, S., Laumonier, Y., Guariguata, M. R. & Nasi, R. Does production of oil palm, soybean, or jatropha change biodiversity and ecosystem functions in tropical forests. Environ. Evid. 2 , 17 (2013).
Haddaway, N. R. & Crowe, S. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environ. Evid. 7 , 11 (2018).
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 8–27 (2019).
Agarwala, M. & Ginsberg, J. R. Untangling outcomes of de jure and de facto community-based management of natural resources. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 1232–1246 (2017).
Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S. & Jones, M. H. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res. 32 , 199–247 (2001).
CAS Google Scholar
Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7 , 7 (2018).
Lwasa, S. et al. A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 13 , 68–73 (2015).
Pacifici, M. et al. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 205–208 (2017).
Owen-Smith, N. Ramifying effects of the risk of predation on African multi-predator, multi-prey large-mammal assemblages and the conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 51–58 (2019).
Prugh, L. R. et al. Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 194–207 (2019).
Li, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: a review. J. Soil Sediment. 18 , 546–563 (2018).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 , e1000097 (2009).
Bernes, C. et al. What is the influence of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 4 , 7 (2015).
McDonagh, M., Peterson, K., Raina, P., Chang, S. & Shekelle, P. Avoiding bias in selecting studies. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet] (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013).
Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh, L. P., Garcia, C. & Putz, F. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 4–14 (2017).
Min-Venditti, A. A., Moore, G. W. & Fleischman, F. What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Glob. Environ. Change 47 , 21–27 (2017).
Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D. & Kramer, B. M. R. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 , 39 (2016).
Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M. R. & Anderson, P. F. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2 , 115 (2013).
Gusenbauer, M. & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 11 , 181–217 (2020).
Livoreil, B. et al. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ. Evid. 6 , 23 (2017).
Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. & Šupak Smolčić, V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. 27 , 447–452 (2017).
Lin, L. & Chu, H. Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 74 , 785–794 (2018).
Haddaway, N. R. & Bayliss, H. R. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 191 , 827–829 (2015).
Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 , 1–48 (2010).
Bilotta, G. S., Milner, A. M. & Boyd, I. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 42 , 67–77 (2014).
Englund, G., Sarnelle, O. & Cooper, S. D. The importance of data‐selection criteria: meta‐analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80 , 1132–1141 (1999).
Burivalova, Z., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Koh, L. P. Thresholds of logging intensity to maintain tropical forest biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 24 , 1893–1898 (2014).
Bicknell, J. E., Struebig, M. J., Edwards, D. P. & Davies, Z. G. Improved timber harvest techniques maintain biodiversity in tropical forests. Curr. Biol. 24 , R1119–R1120 (2014).
Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 1211–1219 (2011).
Blomley, T. et al. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42 , 380–391 (2008).
Haddaway, N. R. et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 6 , 30 (2017).
Higgins, J. P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343 , d5928 (2011).
Stewart, G. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6 , 78–81 (2010).
Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102 , 828–844 (2014).
Vetter, D., Ruecker, G. & Storch, I. Meta‐analysis: a need for well‐defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4 , 1–24 (2013).
Stewart, G. B. & Schmid, C. H. Lessons from meta-analysis in ecology and evolution: the need for trans-disciplinary evidence synthesis methodologies. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 109–110 (2015).
Macura, B. et al. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8 , 24 (2019).
Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) Ch. 1 (Princeton Scholarship Online, 2013).
Britt, M., Haworth, S. E., Johnson, J. B., Martchenko, D. & Shafer, A. B. The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap. Biol. Conserv. 218 , 118–123 (2018).
Graham, L., Gaulton, R., Gerard, F. & Staley, J. T. The influence of hedgerow structural condition on wildlife habitat provision in farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 220 , 122–131 (2018).
Delaquis, E., de Haan, S. & Wyckhuys, K. A. On-farm diversity offsets environmental pressures in tropical agro-ecosystems: a synthetic review for cassava-based systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251 , 226–235 (2018).
Popay, J. et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version 1 (Lancaster Univ., 2006).
Pullin, A. S. et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2 , 19 (2013).
Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S. & Pieper, D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 , 132 (2019).
Rallo, A. & García-Arberas, L. Differences in abiotic water conditions between fluvial reaches and crayfish fauna in some northern rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Aquat. Living Resour. 15 , 119–128 (2002).
Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 363 , k4645 (2018).
Haddaway, N. R. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environ. Evid. 7 , 26 (2018).
Download references
Acknowledgements
We thank C. Shortall from Rothamstead Research for useful discussions on the topic.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany
Neal R. Haddaway
Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Neal R. Haddaway & Biljana Macura
Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK
Alison Bethel
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Lynn V. Dicks
School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK
Julia Koricheva
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Gillian Petrokofsky
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
- Andrew S. Pullin
Liljus ltd, London, UK
Sini Savilaakso
Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Gavin B. Stewart
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
N.R.H. developed the manuscript idea and a first draft. All authors contributed to examples and edited the text. All authors have read and approve of the final submission.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Neal R. Haddaway .
Ethics declarations
Competing interests.
S.S. is a co-founder of Liljus ltd, a firm that provides research services in sustainable finance as well as forest conservation and management. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary table.
Examples of literature reviews and common problems identified.
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Haddaway, N.R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L.V. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 4 , 1582–1589 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x
Download citation
Received : 24 March 2020
Accepted : 31 July 2020
Published : 12 October 2020
Issue Date : December 2020
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
This article is cited by
A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning.
- Hashem Dadashpoor
- Leyla Ghasempour
Landscape and Ecological Engineering (2024)
Synthesizing the relationships between environmental DNA concentration and freshwater macrophyte abundance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Toshiaki S. Jo
Hydrobiologia (2024)
A Systematic Review of the Effects of Multi-purpose Forest Management Practices on the Breeding Success of Forest Birds
- João M. Cordeiro Pereira
- Grzegorz Mikusiński
- Ilse Storch
Current Forestry Reports (2024)
Parasitism in viviparous vertebrates: an overview
- Juan J. Palacios-Marquez
- Palestina Guevara-Fiore
Parasitology Research (2024)
Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making
- Steven J. Cooke
- Carly N. Cook
Environmental Evidence (2023)
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.
Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly
Affiliation.
- 1 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University Health Science Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
- PMID: 19417748
- DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118
Systematic reviews systematically evaluate and summarize current knowledge and have many advantages over narrative reviews. Meta-analyses provide a more reliable and enhanced precision of effect estimate than do individual studies. Systematic reviews are invaluable for defining the methods used in subsequent studies, but, as retrospective research projects, they are subject to bias. Rigorous research methods are essential, and the quality depends on the extent to which scientific review methods are used. Systematic reviews can be misleading, unhelpful, or even harmful when data are inappropriately handled; meta-analyses can be misused when the difference between a patient seen in the clinic and those included in the meta-analysis is not considered. Furthermore, systematic reviews cannot answer all clinically relevant questions, and their conclusions may be difficult to incorporate into practice. They should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. As clinicians, we need proper methodological training to perform good systematic reviews and must ask the appropriate questions before we can properly interpret such a review and apply its conclusions to our patients. This paper aims to assist in the reading of a systematic review.
Publication types
- Comparative Study
- Systematic Review
- Evidence-Based Medicine / standards*
- Evidence-Based Medicine / trends
- Gastroenterology*
- Meta-Analysis as Topic*
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- Reproducibility of Results
- Research Design
- Review Literature as Topic*
- Sensitivity and Specificity
IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
INTERACT 2023: Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023 pp 373–379 Cite as
A Literature Review on Positive and Negative Effects of Interruptions and Implications for Design
- Tom Gross ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8353-7388 12 &
- Michael von Kalben 12
- Conference paper
- First Online: 26 August 2023
1043 Accesses
Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14145))
The relevance of interruptions in human-computer interaction has increased over the last decades in both private and working life. Research from a multitude of disciplines has addressed interruptions. However, the literature is dispersed. In particular, no balanced collection of literature on interruptions looking at the negative as well as at the positive effect is lacking. In this paper, we present a literature review on the positive as well as negative effects of interruptions. We analysed studies on how interruptions affect individuals, collaborative work, and social relationships. We derive implications for design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .
Buying options
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Adamczyk, P., Bailey, B.: If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In CHI 2004, pp. 271–278 (2004)
Google Scholar
Addas, S., Pinsonneault, A.: The many faces of information technology interruptions: a taxonomy and preliminary investigation of their performance effects. Inf. Syst. J. 25 (3), 231–273 (2015)
Article Google Scholar
Afergan, D., Hincks, S., Shibata, T., Jacob, R.: Phylter: a system for modulating notifications in wearables using physiological sensing. In AC 2015, pp. 167–177 (2015)
Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G.: Task interruption: resumption lag and the role of cues. In CogSci 2004, pp. 43–48 (2004)
Anderson, C., Hübener, I., Seipp, A.-K., Ohly, S., David, K., Pejovic, V.: A survey of attention management systems in ubiquitous computing environments. IMWUT 2 (2), 1–27 (2018)
Bernstein, A., Vorburger, P., Egger, P.: A scenario-based approach for direct interruptability prediction on wearable devices. Int. J. Perv. Comput. Commun. 3 (4), 426–438 (2007)
Birnholtz, J., Gutwin, C., Ramos, G., Watson, M.: OpenMessenger: gradual initiation of interaction for distributed workgroups. In CHI 2008, pp. 1661–1664
Carroll, J.M., Neale, D.C., Isenhour, P.L., Rosson, M.B., McCrickard, D.S.: Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 58 (5), 605–632 (2003)
Chen, D., Vertegaal, R.: Using mental load for managing interruptions in physiologically attentive user interfaces. In CHI 2004, pp. 1513–1516
Couffe, C., Michael, G.: Failures due to interruptions or distractions: a review and a new framework. Am. J. Psychol. 130 (2), 163–181 (2017)
Daniel, C., Venkatesh, B.: Literature survey and comparison of consumer interruption costs in North America and Europe. In CCECE 2014, pp. 1–7 (2014)
Darmoul, S., Ahmad, A., Ghaleb, M., Alkahtani, M.: Interruption management in human multitasking environments. In INCOM 2015, pp. 1179–1185 (2015)
Feldman, E., Greenway, D.: It’s a matter of time: the role of temporal perceptions in emotional experiences of work interruptions. Group Organ. Manag. 46 (1), 70–104 (2020)
Grundgeiger, T., Liu, D., Sanderson, P.M., Jenkins, S.A., Leane, T.A.: Effects of interruptions on prospective memory performance in anesthesiology. In: HFES, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 808–812 (2008)
Grundgeiger, T., Sanderson, P.: Interruptions in healthcare: theoretical views. Int. J. Med. Inf. 78 (5), 293–307 (2009)
Harr, R., Kaptelinin, V.: Unpacking the social dimension of external interruptions. In: GROUP 2007, pp. 399–408 (2007)
Harr, R., Kaptelinin, V.: Interrupting or not: exploring the effect of social context on interrupters’ decision making. In: NordiCHI 2012, pp. 707–710 (2012)
Hopkinson, S.G., Jennings, B.M.: Interruptions during nurses’ work: a state-of-the-science review. Res. Nurs. Health 36 (1), 38–53 (2013)
Hornbæk, K., Hertzum, M.: Technology acceptance and user experience: a review of the experiential component in HCI. ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interact. 24 (5), 1–30 (2017)
Horvitz, E., Apacible, J., Subramani, M.: Balancing awareness and interruption: investigation of notification deferral policies. In UM 2005, pp. 433–437 (2005)
Iqbal, S., Horvitz, E.: Notifications and awareness: a field study of alert usage and preferences. In: CSCW 2010, pp. 27–30 (2010)
Jett, Q., George, J.: Work interrupted: a closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (3), 494–507 (2003)
Katidioti, I., Borst, J.P., Bierens de Haan, D.J., Pepping, T., van Vugt, M.K., Taatgen, N.A.: Interrupted by your pupil: an interruption management system based on pupil dilation. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 32 (10), 791–801 (2016)
Koelle, M., Ananthanarayan, S., Boll, S.: Social acceptability in HCI: a survey of methods, measures, and design strategies. In: CHI 2020, pp. 1–19 (2020)
Leroy, S., Schmidt, A.M., Madjar, N.: Interruptions and task transitions: understanding their characteristics, processes, and consequences. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14 (2), 661–694 (2020)
Li, S.Y.W., Magrabi, F., Coiera, E.: A Systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 19 (1), 6–12 (2012)
Liebowitz, J.: Interruption management: a review and implications for IT professionals. IT Prof. 13 (2), 44–48 (2011)
Lopez, G., Guerrero, L.A.: Awareness supporting technologies used in collaborative systems: a systematic literature review. In: CSCW 2017, pp. 808–820 (2017)
Magrabi, F., Li, S.Y.W., Dunn, A.G., Coiera, E.: Challenges in measuring the impact of interruption on patient safety and workflow outcomes. Methods Inf. Med. 50 (5), 447–453 (2011)
Mark, G., Gudith, D., Klocke, U.: The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In: CHI 2008, pp. 107–110 (2008)
Marti, S., Schmandt, C.: Giving the caller the finger: collaborative responsibility for cellphone interruptions. In: CHI 2005, pp. 1633–1636 (2005)
McFarlane, D., Latorella, K.: The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Comput. Interact. 17 (1), 1–61 (2002)
Monteiro, C., Avelar, A.F.M., Pedreira, M.D.L.G.: Interruptions of nurses’ activities and patient safety: an integrative literature review. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem 23 (1), 169–179 (2015)
Osmers, N., Prilla, M., Blunk, O., Brown, G.G., Janßen, M., Kahrl, N.: The role of social presence for cooperation in augmented reality on head mounted devices: a literature review. In: CHI 2021, Article 457 (2021)
Oulasvirta, A., Ericsson, K.A.: Effects of repetitive practice on interruption costs: an empirical review and theoretical implications. In: ECCE 2009, Article No. 28, pp. 1–9 (2009)
Pater, J., Coupe, A., Pfafman, R., Phelan, C., Toscos, T., Jacobs, M.: Standardizing reporting of participant compensation in HCI: a systematic literature review and recommendations for the field. In: CHI 2021, Article 141, pp. 1–16 (2021)
Pielot, M., Church, K., De Oliveira, R.: An in-situ study of mobile phone notifications. In: MobileHCI 2014, pp. 233–242 (2014)
Pielot, M., Rello, L.: Productive, anxious, lonely - 24 Hours without push notifications. In: MobileHCI 2017 (2017)
Puranik, H., Koopman, J., Vough, H.C.: Pardon the interruption: an integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. J. Manag. 46 (6), 806–842 (2020)
Rivera, A.J., Karsh, B.-T.: Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: review and reappraisal. Qual. Saf. Health Care 19 (4), 304–312 (2010)
Sasangohar, F., Scott, S.D., Donmez, B.: Interruption management and recovery in time-critical supervisory-level tasks: a literature review. In: HFES 2013, pp. 1745–1749 (2013)
Schaule, F., Johanssen, J.O., Bruegge, B., Loftness, V.: Employing consumer wearables to detect office workers’ cognitive load for interruption management. In: Proceedings of ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–20 (2018)
Trafton, G., Monk, C.: Task interruptions. Rev. Human Fact. Ergon. 3 (1), 111–126 (2007)
Trafton, J.G., Altmann, E.M., Brock, D.P., Mintz, F.E.: Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 58 , 583–603 (2003)
Uozumi, M., et al.: Interruption of enteral nutrition in the intensive care unit: a single-center survey. J. Intensive Care 5 (52), 1–6 (2017)
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R.: Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37 (9), 205–224 (2015)
Wang, Y., Gräther, W., Prinz, W.: Suitable notification intensity: the dynamic awareness system. In: GROUP 2007, pp. 99–106 (2007)
Wei, R., Lo, V.-H.: Staying connected while on the move: cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media Soc. 8 (1), 53–72 (2006)
Wiberg, M., Whittaker, S.: Managing availability: supporting lightweight negotiations to handle interruptions. ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interact. 12 (4), 356–387 (2005)
Zhao, S.: Do internet users have more social ties? A call for differentiated analyses of internet use. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 11 (3), 844–862 (2006)
Züger, M., et al.: Reducing interruptions at work: a large-scale field study of FlowLight. In: CHI 2017, pp. 61–72 (2017)
Download references
Acknowledgements
We thank the members of the Cooperative Media Lab at the University of Bamberg.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Human-Computer Interaction Group, University of Bamberg, 96045, Bamberg, Germany
Tom Gross & Michael von Kalben
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Tom Gross .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
University of West London, London, UK
José Abdelnour Nocera
Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland
Marta Kristín Lárusdóttir
University of York, York, UK
Helen Petrie
University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy
Antonio Piccinno
Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Marco Winckler
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper.
Gross, T., von Kalben, M. (2023). A Literature Review on Positive and Negative Effects of Interruptions and Implications for Design. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Kristín Lárusdóttir, M., Petrie, H., Piccinno, A., Winckler, M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023. INTERACT 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14145. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42293-5_38
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42293-5_38
Published : 26 August 2023
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-031-42292-8
Online ISBN : 978-3-031-42293-5
eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)
Share this paper
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
Societies and partnerships
- Find a journal
- Track your research
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field. Creation of new body of knowledge. One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge.
CONCLUSION. Siddaway 16 noted that, "The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what the literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory" (p. 747). To that end, high quality systematic reviews are explicit, rigorous, and reproducible. It is these three criteria that should guide authors seeking to write a systematic review or editors ...
Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions. ...
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.
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review. Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review. Pros. Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research. Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution, we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them. Problem. Solution. Lack of relevance - limited stakeholder engagement can ...
A literature review reporting strategies to prevent type 2 diabetes among youth ( Brackney & Cutshall, 2015) is included and addresses the second priority to address obesity. The National Association of School Nurses (NASN) research priorities focus on the impact of school nursing in a number of areas. NASN also recommends systematic reviews as ...
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
A literature review is a systematic way of collecting and synthesizing previous research (Snyder, 2019).An integrative literature review provides an integration of the current state of knowledge as a way of generating new knowledge (Holton, 2002).HRDR is labeling Integrative Literature Review as one of the journal's four non-empirical research article types as in theory and conceptual ...
A literature review is often split into chapters, you can choose if these chapters have titles that represent the information within them, or call them chapter 1, chapter 2, ect. A regular format for a literature review is: Introduction (including methodology) Chapter 1. Chapter 2. Chapter 3. Chapter 4. Conclusion
For example, Easterby-Smith has published a review of Management Learning from the perspective of fi ve different disciplines (Easterby-Smith, 1997) and a systematic review of knowledge in SMEs can be seen in Thorpe et. al. (2005). Both can be used as starting points for more specifi c investigations in these areas.
Environment. Policy*. Research Design. Systematic Reviews as Topic*. Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to ...
The authors also excluded/ignored grey literature (see point 5, below). In a review of tropical forest management impacts 32 and in a review of forest conservation policies 33, searches for ...
opment research. It is concluded that although using systematic review principles can help researchers improve the rigour and breadth of literature reviews, conducting a full systematic review is a resource-intensive process which involves a number of practi-cal challenges. Further, it raises a series of fundamental concerns for those working in
(Citation 2011) review, only 16 out of 37 studies included information on statistical significance. This renders meta-analysis or other robust forms of synthesis unfeasible. However, a meta-analysis is not impossible in the international development field. A forthcoming systematic review on microcredit impact and women's empowerment by Vaessen ...
Pros of systematic literature reviews: Cons of systematic literature reviews: Bias is reduced by the use of a systematic method for selecting studies for the review. Often more time-consuming than other types of review. Transparency of the methodology and search strategy enhance the replicability of the review.
Systematic reviews are invaluable for defining the methods used in subsequent studies, but, as retrospective research projects, they are subject to bias. Rigorous research methods are essential, and the quality depends on the extent to which scientific review methods are used. Systematic reviews can be misleading, unhelpful, or even harmful ...
Narrative reviews have many strengths. They are flexible and practical, and ideally provide a readable, relevant synthesis of a diverse literature. Narrative reviews are often helpful for teaching or learning about a topic because they deliver a general overview. They are also useful for setting the stage for future research, as they offer an ...
Our systematic literature review process is grounded in general recommendations on doing literature reviews as well as specific methods of literature reviews on interruptions (e.g. [19, 24, 34, 36]).Since we aimed to collect relevant literature from multifarious disciplines, a multi-level, multi-step approach (cf. []) was required.Multi-level approach: (1) we searched for literature reviews on ...
Purpose of the present review. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to identify, summarize, and explore current critiques and criticisms of positive psychology and provide a consolidated view of the main challenges facing what Lomas et al. (Citation 2021) designated as the third wave of positive psychology.Recognizing that the number of individual critiques would likely be ...
Our literature review showed five categories of negative findings: negative health or well-being effects among the target group, redistributional effects within the target groups (i.e. better outcomes for part of the group to the detriment of others within the same group), negative aspects for family members because of increasing care ...
Literature Review on Pros and Cons of ChatGPT. Implications in Education. Prof. Dr. C. Karthikeyan. Principal TIMS & Director IQAC, TJC, Affiliated to Bangalore University, Bangalore, Karnataka ...