thesis review report

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

How to Structure a Review Report

How-to-structure-a-review-report.

Helen Eassom, Copywriter, Wiley

January 18, 2018

If you’re new to peer reviewing, deciding how to put together a review report can be tricky. We’ve put together the following tips and advice to help you get started. Remember, if you’ve been given a formal report format to follow, you should do so. A formal report format will often contain a variety of questions, followed by sections where you can enter your comments. Try to answer as many of these questions as you can.

But what if you haven’t received a formal report format to follow? You might want to consider structuring your report around three main sections: summary, major issues, and minor issues. Let’s look at each of these sections in a little more detail:

In this section, you should make a brief summary of what the paper is about and what the main findings are.

• Begin with any positive feedback you have – if you start off on a positive note, authors will be more likely to read your review. However, if you are recommending that the paper be rejected, just be careful not to overwhelm the author with negative feedback.
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge. What is the significance of the work? Is it novel, or does it confirm existing theories or findings?
• Give an indication of the main strengths of the work, its quality, and how complete it is.
• Outline any major flaws you come across and make a note of any special considerations. For example, have any previously held theories been overlooked?

Major Issues

In this section, you’ll need to state any major flaws you find in the work, and how severe their impact is upon the paper. Major flaws might include:

• Similar work having been published already without any acknowledgment from the authors of the paper.
• If the authors’ work presents findings that challenge current thinking, is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all of the work that contradicts their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• Any major presentational problems – any figures and tables, the language used, and the manuscript structure should all be clear enough for you to accurately assess the work.
• Ethical issues – you might want to consider disclosing these in a confidential comments section if you are unsure.

If any major revisions are required to the paper, make sure you clearly outline what these are.

Minor Issues

Finally, you should state any other minor issues that you’ve come across when reviewing the paper. These might include:

• Any instances where meaning is ambiguous. Could these be corrected?
• Incorrect references – should other references be cited instead, or in addition? State if you think references are excessive, limited, or biased in any way.
• Any factual, numerical or unit errors – indicate clearly what these are.
• Incorrect, inappropriate or insufficient labelling of tables and figures.

Don’t forget the purpose of your report; your aim should ultimately be to help the authors improve their work. Be polite and clear throughout, and remember to be both constructive and objective.

For further tips on putting together a review report, or to find out more about peer review in general, take a look at our reviewer resources pages.

Do you have any further advice on structuring a review report? Let us know in the comments below!

Image credit: mrmohock/Shutterstock

How peer review makes you a better researcher – takeaways from a Wiley webinar

Introducing Wiley’s Better Peer Review Self-Assessment

Wiley's Better Peer Review Assessment: 5 Essential Standards

Integrity: An Essential Area for Better Peer Review

Finding new, robust and practical ways to add transparency to peer review: The Clinical Genetics story

Why We Launched Wiley's CME for Peer Reviewers Program

Recognition for Review: Wiley's Partnership with Publons, One Year Later

Over 1.5 Million Wiley Reviews on Publons! How Peer Reviewers are Getting Recognition

Celebrating 1 Million Wiley Reviews on Publons

6 Tips for Surviving Peer Review

Related articles.

Recently our colleagues hosted a webinar on how peer review makes you a better researcher.

Discover the Wiley Better Peer Review Self-Assessment - designed for you if you’re a member of a journal team as an editor, a managing editor or a publisher 

What is Better Peer Review?

The purpose of scientific and scholarly literature is the communication and curation of a definitive report of conducted research.

What does better peer review look like? We begin by considering the whole peer review publishing process, not just the act of peer review itself.

Reiner Veitia, editor-in-chief of the journal Clinical Genetics, Publons, and ScholarOne – introduces a new, more robust and automated option for researchers to choose transparent peer review

An overview of Wiley's Continuing Medical Education for Reviewers program.

Following the expansion of Wiley's partnership with Publons, we look back on some of the milestones achieved, along with a few testimonials from Publons users.

Learn about how reviewers for Wiley journals are getting recognition for their peer reviews

Wiley is excited to share that over 1,000,000 review records from Wiley journals have been added on Publons.

This infographic neatly summarizes the peer review process, the types of decision and reasons for rejection, as well as six top tips for surviving peer review!

Watch our Webinar on Trust in Peer Review

Watch our webinar hosted by Wiley and Sense about Science - Trust in Peer Review: What It Means and Why it Matters.

Transparent Review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: Experiences One Year on

Paul Bolam and John Foxe, Editors of the European Journal of Neuroscience, reflect on the decision to institute a transparent peer review system for the journal.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Main navigation

• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff
• General requirements
• Preparation of a thesis
• Initial Thesis Submission
• Thesis examiners
• Evaluation of written thesis
• Thesis examination failures
• Doctoral oral defence
• Final Thesis Submission
• Thesis Writing and Support Resources
• Letters of Completion/PGWP

Evaluation of a Written Thesis

Examiners are asked to evaluate the thesis in myThesis, according to the criteria in the respective thesis examiner report for a Master's or Doctoral thesis. For an example of the criteria, please see the forms: see: Master's Examiner report form ; Doctoral Examiner report form (note these forms are now integrated in myThesis).

Examiners provide an overall judgment of 'passed' or ‘not passed’, in addition to a written report. For Master's students, this evaluation determines whether or not the thesis is ready for final submission, even if minor changes are recommended. For Doctoral candidates, this evaluation determines whether or not the candidate is ready to proceed to the oral defence.

If the thesis meets the general criteria for the degree sought, as well as those listed on the examiner's report form it should be evaluated as 'Passed', even if some changes are recommended.

If the overall judgement is 'Passed', examiners are asked to provide:

• A report that includes any recommendations for minor revisions to the thesis (i.e., stylistic or editorial changes that can be completed in three weeks or less).
• For doctoral theses, External Examiners who will not be at the oral defence must also provide a list of questions to be asked of the candidate at the oral defence.

An evaluation of 'Not Passed' should be given if:

• the need for a new study, experimentation, or significant additional research or reformulation.
• the need to address major problems with the presentation of the work. Stylistic or editorial changes are not normally considered to be major revisions, but if the quality of the presentation is so poor that extensive rewriting is required, the thesis should not be passed.
• At least one of the Criteria for the Evaluation of the Thesis (see Master's Examiner report form ; Doctoral Examiner report form ) is judged as unsatisfactory.

Examiners are asked to identify required changes clearly in their reports. The supervisor or another designated person will ensure that the student corrects the thesis and that it appropriately reflects the examiners' suggestions for revisions prior to re-submission of the thesis.

The candidate will normally revise and re-submit the thesis for re-assessment, usually by the same examiner. If/when review of the revised thesis is required, the Thesis Unit will contact the initial examiner to determine their availability. In rare cases, a revised thesis may be sent to a new examiner if the first examiner is not available to re-examine the thesis. For more, please see Thesis examination failures.

If the revised thesis is again ‘not passed’, the student will be withdrawn from the University unless the decision is reversed through an appeal to the Hearing Committee (Bias, Error, or Misrepresentation ).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License . Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, McGill University .

Department and University Information

Graduate and postdoctoral studies.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

What is a literature review?

How to write a literature review, 1. determine the purpose of your literature review, 2. do an extensive search, 3. evaluate and select literature, 4. analyze the literature, 5. plan the structure of your literature review, 6. write your literature review, other resources to help you write a successful literature review, frequently asked questions about writing a literature review, related articles.

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

A good literature review does not just summarize sources. It analyzes the state of the field on a given topic and creates a scholarly foundation for you to make your own intervention. It demonstrates to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.

In a thesis, a literature review is part of the introduction, but it can also be a separate section. In research papers, a literature review may have its own section or it may be integrated into the introduction, depending on the field.

➡️ Our guide on what is a literature review covers additional basics about literature reviews.

• Identify the main purpose of the literature review.
• Do extensive research.
• Evaluate and select relevant sources.
• Analyze the sources.
• Plan a structure.
• Write the review.

In this section, we review each step of the process of creating a literature review.

In the first step, make sure you know specifically what the assignment is and what form your literature review should take. Read your assignment carefully and seek clarification from your professor or instructor if needed. You should be able to answer the following questions:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What types of sources should I review?
• Should I evaluate the sources?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or critique sources?
• Do I need to provide any definitions or background information?

In addition to that, be aware that the narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good overview of the topic.

Now you need to find out what has been written on the topic and search for literature related to your research topic. Make sure to select appropriate source material, which means using academic or scholarly sources , including books, reports, journal articles , government documents and web resources.

➡️ If you’re unsure about how to tell if a source is scholarly, take a look at our guide on how to identify a scholarly source .

Come up with a list of relevant keywords and then start your search with your institution's library catalog, and extend it to other useful databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Science.gov

➡️ Our guide on how to collect data for your thesis might be helpful at this stage of your research as well as the top list of academic search engines .

Once you find a useful article, check out the reference list. It should provide you with even more relevant sources. Also, keep a note of the:

• authors' names
• page numbers

Keeping track of the bibliographic information for each source will save you time when you’re ready to create citations. You could also use a reference manager like Paperpile to automatically save, manage, and cite your references.

Read the literature. You will most likely not be able to read absolutely everything that is out there on the topic. Therefore, read the abstract first to determine whether the rest of the source is worth your time. If the source is relevant for your topic:

• Read it critically.
• Look for the main arguments.
• Take notes as you read.
• Organize your notes using a table, mind map, or other technique.

Now you are ready to analyze the literature you have gathered. While your are working on your analysis, you should ask the following questions:

• What are the key terms, concepts and problems addressed by the author?
• How is this source relevant for my specific topic?
• How is the article structured? What are the major trends and findings?
• What are the conclusions of the study?
• How are the results presented? Is the source credible?
• When comparing different sources, how do they relate to each other? What are the similarities, what are the differences?
• Does the study help me understand the topic better?
• Are there any gaps in the research that need to be filled? How can I further my research as a result of the review?

Tip: Decide on the structure of your literature review before you start writing.

There are various ways to organize your literature review:

• Chronological method : Writing in the chronological method means you are presenting the materials according to when they were published. Follow this approach only if a clear path of research can be identified.
• Thematic review : A thematic review of literature is organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time.
• Publication-based : You can order your sources by publication, if the way you present the order of your sources demonstrates a more important trend. This is the case when a progression revealed from study to study and the practices of researchers have changed and adapted due to the new revelations.
• Methodological approach : A methodological approach focuses on the methods used by the researcher. If you have used sources from different disciplines that use a variety of research methods, you might want to compare the results in light of the different methods and discuss how the topic has been approached from different sides.

Regardless of the structure you chose, a review should always include the following three sections:

• An introduction, which should give the reader an outline of why you are writing the review and explain the relevance of the topic.
• A body, which divides your literature review into different sections. Write in well-structured paragraphs, use transitions and topic sentences and critically analyze each source for how it contributes to the themes you are researching.
• A conclusion , which summarizes the key findings, the main agreements and disagreements in the literature, your overall perspective, and any gaps or areas for further research.

➡️ If your literature review is part of a longer paper, visit our guide on what is a research paper for additional tips.

➡️ UNC writing center: Literature reviews

➡️ How to write a literature review in 3 steps

➡️ How to write a literature review in 30 minutes or less

The goal of a literature review is to asses the state of the field on a given topic in preparation for making an intervention.

A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where it can be found, and address this section as “Literature Review.”

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

Most research papers include a literature review. By assessing the available sources in your field of research, you will be able to make a more confident argument about the topic.

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

New change to library operations

All Main Library and Weaver Library doors lock 15 minutes before closing.

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

• What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
• Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

• Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
• Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

• methodology
• theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

• Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

• Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
• Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
• Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
• Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
• Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

Free Download

Dissertation/Thesis Template

The fastest (and smartest) way to craft a winning dissertation that showcases your study and earns you marks. 

Available in Google Doc, Word & PDF format 4.9 star rating, 5000 + downloads

Step-by-step instructions

Tried & tested academic format

Fill-in-the-blanks simplicity

Pro tips, tricks and resources

What’s Covered In The Template?

This dissertation template is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research projects. The template structure reflects the overall research process, ensuring your document has a smooth, logical flow. Here’s how it’s structured:

• The title page/cover page
• Abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary)
• Table of contents
• List of figures /list of tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Research findings /results 
• Chapter 5: Discussion /analysis of findings
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover within each section. We’ve also included practical examples to help you understand exactly what’s required in each section.

Download The Template

100% Free. Instant Access.

I agree to receive the free template and other useful resources.

Download Now (Instant Access)

FAQs: Dissertation & Thesis Template

Faqs: dissertation template, what format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The dissertation template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of dissertations/theses can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard best-practice structure for formal academic research projects such as dissertations or theses, so it is suitable for the vast majority of degrees, particularly those within the sciences.

Some universities may have some additional requirements, but these are typically minor, with the core structure remaining the same. Therefore, it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalise your structure.

Will this work for a research paper?

A research paper follows a similar format, but there are a few differences. You can find our research paper template here .

Is this template for an undergrad, Masters or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a dissertation, thesis or research project at any level of study. It may be slight overkill for an undergraduate-level study, but it certainly won’t be missing anything.

How long should my dissertation/thesis be?

This depends entirely on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, Masters-level projects are usually 15,000 – 20,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects are often in excess of 60,000 words.

What about the research proposal?

If you’re still working on your research proposal, we’ve got a template for that here .

We’ve also got loads of proposal-related guides and videos over on the Grad Coach blog .

How do I write a literature review?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack how to write a literature review from scratch. You can check out the literature review section of the blog here.

How do I create a research methodology?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack research methodology, both qualitative and quantitative. You can check out the methodology section of the blog here.

Can I share this dissertation template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template. If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Can Grad Coach help me with my dissertation/thesis?

Within the template, you’ll find plain-language explanations of each section, which should give you a fair amount of guidance. However, you’re also welcome to consider our dissertation and thesis coaching services .

Additional Resources

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis, be sure to also check these resources out…

1-On-1 Private Coaching

The Grad Coach Resource Center

The Grad Coach YouTube Channel

The Grad Coach Podcast

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Chemistry and Chemical Biology Resources

Literature review.

• Getting Started
• Chemistry journals and databases
• Find Dissertations and Theses
• Find Conference Proceedings
• Find Technical Reports
• Managing Citations
• Research Data Management
• Managing Your Academic Identity  
• Helpful Tools

Reviewing the Literature: Why do it?

• Personal: To familiarize yourself with a new area of research, to get an overview of a topic, so you don't want to miss something important, etc.
• Required writing for a journal article, thesis or dissertation, grant application, etc.

Literature reviews vary; there are many ways to write a literature review based on discipline, material type, and other factors.

Background:

• Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  - What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? - NCSU Video

Where to get help (there are lots of websites, blogs , articles,  and books on this topic) :

• The Center for writing and Communicating Ideas (CWCI)
• (these are non-STEM examples: dissertation guidance , journal guidelines )
• How to prepare a scientific doctoral dissertation based on research articles (2012)
• Writing a graduate thesis or dissertation (2016)
• The good paper : a handbook for writing papers in higher education (2015)
• Proposals that work : a guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (2014)
• Theses and dissertations : a guide to planning, research, and writing (2008)
• Talk to your professors, advisors, mentors, peers, etc. for advice

READ related material and pay attention to how others write their literature reviews:

• Dissertations
• Journal articles
• Grant proposals
• << Previous: Find Technical Reports
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2023 2:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/CCB

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Interpersonal violence victimisation of autistic adults: prevalence, correlates and impact

Research has consistently found high rates of victimisation amongst autistic children. There is emerging evidence that this disproportionate victimisation continues into adulthood, however this has not yet been thoroughly investigated. In this thesis, I aimed to examine the extent, nature and impact of interpersonal violence experiences among autistic adults and the factors that shape these experiences. In Chapter 1, I provide a brief overview of the prevalence and risk factors for interpersonal violence in the general population, theoretical approaches to understanding violence and a summary of the research that has been conducted in this area among autistic people. Chapter 2 outlines the methodological approach of this thesis, my reflections on the challenges and mitigations that occurred in the conduct of the research, a reflexivity statement and a summary of the role and impact of the autistic advisory group that I employed for the duration of this project. In Chapter 3, I conducted a systematic literature review to determine the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence and correlates of interpersonal violence experienced by autistic people during adulthood. In Chapter 4, I conducted a secondary analysis using existing data collected as part of the Australian Longitudinal Study of Autistic Adults (ALSAA) to investigate the prevalence, traumatic impact and rates of disclosure of physical and sexual violence incidents reported by autistic adults in childhood and adulthood and compared this to non-autistic adults. I also examined whether there was a relationship between autistic traits and emotion regulation difficulties and exposure to sexual and physical violence. Chapters 5 to 7 present the findings from a mixed methods study designed for this thesis. In Chapter 5, I compared autistic and non-autistic adults on rates of sexual harassment, stalking and harassment, physical violence and sexual violence, and repeated and multiple violence during adulthood. I also compared gender patterns of violence among autistic and non-autistic adults and examined contextual factors. In Chapter 6, I investigated whether any individual characteristics that are common among autistic people (lower social competence, heightened compliance, emotion regulation difficulties or more ADHD features) were associated with poly-victimisation (experiencing multiple types of violence). In Chapter 7, I examined the nature and impact of interpersonal violence experiences, and possible factors shaping these experiences based on the first-hand accounts of autistic people. Finally, in Chapter 8, I discuss how the overall findings of this thesis contribute to the emerging evidence relating to the disproportionate victimisation of autistic people in adulthood by showing that (a) victimisation extends to a broad range of serious and criminal forms of violence which often go unreported, (b) gender differences in violence patterns appear narrowed among autistic people, (c) the impact of these experiences are exacerbated when reports of autistic victims of violence are dismissed or minimised, and (d) societal attitudes towards autism may contribute to increased vulnerability to violence and abuse. A multi-faceted approach is needed that goes beyond a focus on individual-level factors to address broader structural and systemic factors responsible for the disproportionate victimisation such as stigma, discrimination and epistemic injustice and includes educational strategies, public awareness campaigns, professional training, research efforts and policy change.

Table of Contents

Awarding institution, degree type, department, centre or school, year of award, principal supervisor, additional supervisor 1, usage metrics.

• Other education not elsewhere classified