example of literature review for research paper

• 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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Green Flags in a Relationship
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Signs you're Burnt Out, Not Lazy
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Toxic Things Parents Say to their Children
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Red Flags Early in a Relationship

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 19 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

What I learnt from running a coding bootcamp

Career Column 21 AUG 24

Blow that whistle at your own risk

Career Feature 20 AUG 24

How a midwife became a neuroscientist to seek a cure for her son

Iran’s election is an opportunity for Western nations to revive science diplomacy

Correspondence 20 AUG 24

Cash for catching scientific errors

Technology Feature 19 AUG 24

The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists

News 20 AUG 24

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

Career Column 14 AUG 24

Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Regenerative Biology and Medicine, CIMR

Regenerative Biology and Medicine, including but not limited to disease immunology, ageing, biochemistry of extracellular matrix...

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Therapy, CIMR, Beijing

We're looking for outstanding scientists at all ranks interested in developing novel therapeutics in all disease areas.

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Qiushi Chair Professor

Distinguished scholars with notable achievements and extensive international influence.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Zhejiang University

ZJU 100 Young Professor

Promising young scholars who can independently establish and develop a research direction.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach

• University of Garut

• UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

• Universitas Pasundan

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Andreas Ahrens

• Anastasija Bikova
• Irina Abjalkiene

• Agnes Nofita

• Roshimah Shamsudin
• Wijianto Wijianto
• M. Furqon Hidayatullah
• Slamet Riyadi
• Bramastia Bramastia

• WENDY MATHEVULA
• SELLO MOABELO

• Harumi Iring Primastuti

• Amisha Gunderia
• Priyansh Agarwal
• V. B. Nikam
• A.N. Bambole
• Nur Holifah
• Miskan Miskan
• J CLEAN PROD

• Kira Schabram

• Steve Counsell
• Jose Galvan

• Ros Carnwell

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

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• 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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Picking your research question and searching
• Search strategies and Databases
• How to organise the review
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• Library summary

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: How to organise the review
• Next: Library summary >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 4:32 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Chapter Summary & Overview – Writing Guide...

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and...

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and...

WTO / Education / 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

A literature review is a compilation of current knowledge on a particular topic derived from the critical evaluation of different scholarly sources such as books, articles, and publications, which is then presented in an organized manner to relate to a specific research problem being investigated.

It highlights the methods, relevant theories, and gaps in existing research on a particular subject. It can be both a summary and synthesis of information on a specific topic. A summary reiterates key information from scholarly sources, while synthesis is a new interpretation or combination of new and old material. 

As a synthesis, it can outline the intellectual progression of knowledge in a particular field or topic, which might involve stating key debates throughout the advancement period.  

Literature Review Examples

Purpose of Literature Review

Literature reviews have different purposes in scholarly articles, research papers , and books, depending on the discipline at hand. First and foremost, reviews are generally meant to showcase the extensive research carried out by an author on a particular topic and their findings, which will form the foundation of the research. It then summarizes the information to show the author’s familiarity with the topic in question.

The review also demonstrates the relationship between the topic being investigated and other topics that were under consideration. Finally, it outlines the gaps in the previous works of other scholars, which create areas of research.

Literature reviews provide a new interpretation of previous scholarly publications and aim to resolve conflicting studies done in the past. In addition, identifying existing gaps in a particular research area illustrates the starting point of the research.

Literature Review vs. Academic Research Paper

A research paper presents new ideas, arguments, and approaches toward a particular topic. The conclusions of a research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of raw data collected by the author and an original study. On the other hand, a literature review is based on the findings of other publications. Thus, the review highlights the author’s understanding of a topic based on the previously conducted research. It is part of a research paper.

Where, When, and Why

The need for a literature review in a publication will vary from one situation to the other and the field/discipline of research. These two factors determine what is expected from the lit review. For example, a scientific review will be more analytical on the methods and results of previous research. In contrast, a philosophical review will be more argumentative, highlighting the discrepancies and correspondences between scholars.

It can either be part of a publication or a stand-alone document. As part of a research publication, it is often placed after the introduction to the topic outlining knowledge about a particular topic and critical sources that formed the foundation of the research. As an individual document, it is prepared by students as part of course study to aid the students in familiarizing themselves with different topics in their field of study.

Lit reviews also guide students to help them synthesize theoretical methodologies and frameworks to adopt in academic research . As a publication, literature reviews are used to document existing information about a topic for readers (other scholars) to go through for whatever reasons they may have. Published studies are essentially helpful to new scholars getting into any field of research.

Types of Literature Review

Before looking into how to write a literature review, it is vital to understand the different types. The type will usually depend on the objective approach of the author.

Common types are:  

Argumentative review

An argumentative review is adopted when the research paper or publication is meant to take a contrarian viewpoint on a particular subject. The review analyses an existing argument, philosophical problem, assumption, or conclusion outlined in different studies with an objective to either support or oppose the argument. 

Integrative review

An integrative review integrates secondary data to develop new perspectives and frameworks on a topic. This is more prevalent in research that does not involve primary data. In addition, integrative reviews are more familiar with social sciences.       

Historical review

Historical reviews are used when scholars or authors place a particular idea, concept, theory, or research in a historical context. It examines the idea, theory, or issue from the first time it was discussed and outlines its evolution throughout a given period.  

Methodological review

Methodological reviews look at how a specific theory, concept, results, or findings were developed. Therefore, methodological reviews will analyze the different methods used by different scholars to arrive at conclusions or knowledge about the topic being investigated.

Some of the methods scholars use in different disciplines to obtain information are interviewing, sampling, practical experiments/data collection, research approaches, critical thinking, social experiments, etc.

Methodological reviews are hence used to discuss tested methods of research and ethics that a researcher should be aware of before undertaking their investigations.  

Systematic review

A systematic review is a more detailed and comprehensive review compared to other types of lit reviews. It highlights any existing research evidence associated with a clearly defined research problem or question. The evidence is collected, analyzed, and reported in a summarized but detailed manner. Systematic reviews are popularly presented as a cause-and-effect structure.

Theoretical review

A theoretical review delves into the different theories regarding a particular issue, challenge, concept, or theory. It identifies their inadequacy in explaining the issue or concept at hand. The review then identifies the relationships between the identified theories, and the degree of research done and poses novel hypotheses to be investigated.

Organization of a Literature Review

How an author organizes a literature review will depend on what they aim to achieve. As a consequence, there are multiple ways of organizing it which are discussed below:

Chronological 

A chronological format outlines knowledge on a particular topic based on when the scholarly source of information was published. Starting with the earliest followed up to the most recent chronological order. This format should be used if there is a clear chronological order in the development of the information; therefore, it will not be applicable in some cases. Instead, key turning points, patterns, and events that impacted the direction of the knowledge should be outlined.  

By publication

It can be organized in the scholarly publications reviewed by the author, scholar, or student. The by-publication format should only improve the review and facilitate what the author aims to accomplish. 

Scholars or students can adopt a dominant trend in research, such as history, developmental stages, steps involved in a process, etc.

Methodological

A methodological format is based on the methods used by the researcher. Thus, the order of contents in the lit review will depend on the method they will use to carry out their research, knowledge obtained from the first method appears first, and the rest of the information follows in the same order according to the methods used by the author.  

Literature reviews organized in a thematic format revolve around the subject being investigated in no order. It is, therefore, ordinarily up to the researcher or author to determine how they intend to outline the information. A thematic format will crossover from one period and publication to another, but can sometimes incorporate a chronological order.

Theoretical

Literature reviews organized in a theoretical format have their contents organized in an abstract framework established by the author to discuss different concepts, theories, and concepts and how they relate to the research at hand.

Additional sections

Depending on the objective, other sections do not fit under conventional lit review formats that one may need to add. Below are some of the sections that authors or students can include in the lit review:

• Current situation: The review can have information about the current state of things regarding the topic at hand to facilitate further understanding.
• History: Researchers can summarize the subject under investigation, literature, or concept if the review is not already in chronological format.
• Selection methods: Lit reviews are known to outline the methods or criteria used in selecting the way to present information and scholarly sources referenced in the review.
• Standards: it can also include the standards used in choosing the format to present information in the review and the scholarly literature used in the research.
• Further questions for research: The review can include questions emanating from the review and how the researcher will further explore their research to address the queries raised.

Literature Review Samples

Considerations Before Writing a Literature Review

Preparation is essential when it comes to writing. The objective should be to come up with a review that satisfactorily explores the topic being discussed. The following considerations are steps towards that if incorporated into the writing process:

Authors should seek clarification from mentors or supervisors before commencing the writing process. First, determine what is expected from the lit review. The type and number of sources to be used, the assignment (summarize, synthesize, or critique), and the type of information provided should be clear.

Find models

You should review literature from other authors in the same discipline and evaluate how those authors presented their lit reviews. Previous lit reviews can be used as guides that point authors in the right direction when writing their lit reviews.

Narrow your topic

It is always advantageous to narrow down the research topic to a specific area of research; that way, the number of sources can also be reduced. Even though conducting research will usually involve extensive research on all available materials about a particular topic, having a well-defined topic simplifies the task at hand.

Current sources

Determine if the research project or discipline ought to be based on the most recent findings or information. It is common for knowledge to become obsolete, especially in disciplines where discoveries and new inventions are made fast. If the lit review should be based on current knowledge, limit the sources to the most recent literature. Some disciplines will typically have a limit on how old the sources should be.  

How to Write a Literature Review (Expert Guide)

Once all pre-writing considerations have been taken into account, it is time to write the document. At this point, you should already be aware of what you wish to accomplish with the literature review, and the steps to writing an exemplary lit review are mentioned below:

Problem formulation

First and foremost, clearly define the topic (research area) to be investigated. For students, this will sometimes be given as an assignment. However, the research could be an academic project, which means that the author has to come up with the problem and define it themselves.

Search for relevant studies

Once the problem is clearly expressed, you should search for studies related to the topic, concept, theory, or idea and questions surrounding the topic. Most stand-alone lit reviews will generally attempt to answer a more concentrated question. On the internet, literature can be searched using keywords related to the research area. In addition to keywords, include vital variables such as synonyms and associated terms. The inclusion of Boolean operators and, or not, is also used to narrow down results to more specific publications.

Familiar sources for publications are:

• Google Scholar
• Library catalogue
• Econ lit (economics)
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Inspec (physics, engineering, and computer science )
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)

Before selecting relevant studies, go through their abstract and determine if they fit the scope needed in the investigation. Use a list to note down any chosen works. Select landmark sources in the discipline.

Evaluation of sources/data

The next step is the evaluation stage . Evaluation involves a lot of reading. Evaluation can be done in two stages; overall skimming and thorough reading. During the second stage of this step, be critical, ask questions, and take many notes.

Some of the questions authors or researchers should ask themselves are:

• What is the author’s objective? What problem, concept, or theory are they putting across?
• What are the main concepts?
• What are the methodologies used by the author to arrive at the results and conclusions?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the results and conclusions?

Use credible sources. Most cited sources are preferred as they indicate their influence in the field. Also, keep track of the citations to be later incorporated.

Identify themes, debates, and gaps

While reading the sources, identify key patterns, themes, debates/arguments, and gaps in each literature. These elements help tie the literature to the topic under investigation. Look for consistent patterns, themes, questions, challenges, methods, and inconsistencies in the same. Consistencies present critical information for consideration, while inconsistencies present opportunities for research areas.

Outline the structure

Formatting is part and parcel of a well-written work. Selecting the structure should start by creating an outline with all the information that will go into the lit review, then consider the different types of structures and select the most suitable. Next, take the basic structure of the introduction, body, and conclusion into consideration and start work from there. 

Analysis and interpretation 

Lastly, perform an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the information obtained from the scholarly research and put it into writing. The summarized, synthesized, and critically evaluated information is then written down in well-structured paragraphs that follow the chosen structure. Transition words are used to draw comparisons, connections, and contrasts.

Format 

Ordinarily, a literature review will have three key components: introduction, body, and conclusion. These components should appear in the document in the following order:

Introduction

An introduction should inform the reader which topic is being studied. It gives the reader an overall idea of the purpose and focus of the document. The introduction lets the reader know beforehand the key things that will be highlighted in the document. Therefore, the introduction should be brief and precise.

The next item is the body, where the primary purpose of the lit review is fulfilled. The body should take critical information from all the sources used and comprehensively present them. This is where the author reports the extensive analysis and interpretation results that they gathered from all the sources they reviewed. The body should be categorized into themes, ideas, and concepts within the main topic.

Lastly, a summary of what the lit review entails should be provided as a conclusion. The critical points obtained from examining the sources should be written down and linked to the primary subject of the review. Key points are those that have the most outstanding contribution to the research.

Studies used should be screened based on provenance (author’s credentials or credibility), methodology, objectivity, persuasiveness, and value related to the topic at hand.

Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review

To improve the delivery of information, there are certain elements that authors can incorporate. They are:

Use evidence

The lit review’s findings, interpretations, and general contents should be based on actual evidence or credible literature. Using citations is evidence of authentic information.

Be selective

There will always be a lot of information available from the reviewed sources. Authors should therefore be selective and discuss the key points that focus on the topic. Not all information must be included in the review.  

Word-for-word quotes are acceptable . This is even more so if a critical point or author-specific terminology or knowledge cannot be paraphrased. Quotes should, however, be used sparingly.

Summarize and synthesize

The information obtained from the sources should be summarized, and the author should use it to synthesize new arguments, concepts, or ideas related to their research.

Keep your voice

The literature review should reflect the author’s voice as it is a review of other people’s works. This can be done by starting and ending the paragraphs with an original voice, ideas, and wordings.

Use caution while paraphrasing

Any paraphrased information should be conveyed accurately and in the author’s words. A citation must always be done, even when paraphrasing has been done.

Proofread before submitting or publishing. Go through the document a few times and make the necessary changes. The review should be within the applicable guidelines. Check for language and any other errors and edit accordingly.

Do’s and Don’ts for a Literature Review 

Every researcher wants to introduce their readers to a particular topic in an informative and engaging manner. Below are tips that can be used to this effect.

The following things should be opted by the researcher when writing a lit review:

• Find a focus: Authors should take a direction, idea, concept, or argument and stick to it. The information conveyed should then be made to align with the chosen point of focus. Thus, the review is not simply a list of analyzed sources, but a detailed summary of how different sources have a focal point (intertwined).
• Well-chosen sources: The quality of the information will, to a great extent, be determined by the quality of sources used. Therefore, take time to select suitable sources and more value will be added to the review.
• Create an annotated bibliography: Creating an annotated bibliography is recommended as one reads their sources. The bibliography keeps track of sources and takes notes. This information can be used when writing the final lit review.
• Synthesize research: Information obtained from the relevant studies should be combined to come up with new or original ideas. You should present a new domain based on previous sources’ knowledge, not just restating the information.
• Argumentative approach: Well-written literature reviews will often argue to support an author’s stance on a particular topic. The author can choose to address how the author’s work is filling a particular gap or support one of the scholar’s arguments and perception towards a particular topic. However, this argumentative approach will not work in all situations; it is usually discipline-specific. 
• Convey it to the reader: It should let the reader know the document’s main idea, concept, or argument. This can be done by including a simple statement that compels the reader to think precisely and know what to expect.
• Break out your disciplinary box: The research will often be multi-disciplinary. Literature reviews should then collect interdisciplinary information from multiple sources as they add novel dynamics to the topic under investigation. It should be noted that this does not imply that the researcher should substitute the literature from the topic’s discipline with that from other disciplines. This is usually an improvement strategy that adds substance to the review.
• Look for repeated patterns: Be attentive to pick out repeated ideas, findings, and concepts from different scholars as they will often illustrate agreed research dead-end or a scholarly conclusion.
• Don’t just review for content: When reviewing the literature, examine the content and other writing and presentation techniques. Look out for unique ways information has been presented, methods used, consistent citations, and non-textual elements such as graphs, and figures used to present information. In addition, the researcher identifies theories used to predict, explain, or understand phenomena within the discipline.
• Search Web of Science and Google Scholar: Conduct citation tracking about the leading scholars already identified in the search process. Scholars cited by multiple scholars outside the principal discipline will generally indicate that there are no new publications on the topic.

The following don’ts should be avoided:

• Do not select studies that are not directly related to the topic being investigated.
• Avoid rushing when identifying and selecting sources to use to research the problem.
• Avoid the use of secondary analytical sources. Instead, opt to use sources with primary research studies or data. Secondary analytical sources will often cite primary analytical sources; research should refer to them instead.
• Do not accept other scholarly findings, theories, or interpretations without critically examining and critiquing them.
• Researchers should not outline the search procedures used to identify scholarly sources for reviewing purposes.
• Avoid including isolated statistical findings without illustrating how they were arrived at using chi-squared or meta-analytic methods.
• Do not review studies that only validate the assumptions, stances, and concepts of your thesis; consider contradicting works with alternative and conflicting stances.

Frequently Asked Questions

It is written by researchers, authors, and students who must study literature to gather knowledge on a particular topic they are interested in.

It should be placed right after the introduction of the dissertation. It places the research in a scholarly context by summarizing existing knowledge on the particular topic.

Researchers and authors are not limited in terms of how many sources they can review. Students will usually have a given number of sources to review as an assignment. However, the number of sources referenced in a lit review will vary from one topic or discipline to the other. Some topics have a vast catalog of available sources, while others have minimal sources, especially emerging issues. It is, however, advised that each key point discussed should have at least 2-3 references/sources. For example, a 10-page lit review will have an average of 30 references.

About This Article

Was this helpful?

Great! Tell us more about your experience

Not up to par help us fix it, keep reading.

Analysis , Education

40 free venn diagram templates [2, 3, and 4-circle].

12 Free Class Schedule Templates

Charts , Planners

Blood type diet (with free charts).

Charts , Education

24 free bar graph templates (editable), thank you for your feedback.

Your Voice, Our Progress. Your feedback matters a lot to us.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3
• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: FAMU Writing Center >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

We apologize for any inconvenience as we update our site to a new look.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing: Sample Paper Reviews

• Paper Reviews
• Sample Paper Reviews
• Previous Page: Paper Reviews

Sample Paper Reviews: Overview

Wondering what to expect from your paper review appointment? Below are the types of assignments we review, along with sample feedback. Feedback will vary among writing instructional specialists but will consist of some of these:

• Explanations of errors
• Links to resources
• Questions or reactions from a reader’s perspective
• Recommended next steps
• Revision strategies
• Highlighted patterns
• Models of effective writing
• Video clips to watch

The  appointment form in myPASS  is the best place to tell us your goals and about areas you are struggling with in your writing. Be as specific as possible to get targeted help within the 30-minute timeframe.

Discussion Posts

• Sample Review of a Discussion Post (PDF) This document contains an excerpt of a discussion post with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.

Undergraduate Papers

• Sample Review of an Undergraduate Paper--1000 Level (PDF) This document contains excerpts of a 1000 level undergraduate paper with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.
• Sample Review of an Undergraduate Paper--3000 Level (PDF) This document contains excerpts of a 3000 level undergraduate paper with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.

Graduate Papers

• Sample Review of a Graduate Paper (PDF) This document contains excerpt of a graduate-student paper with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.

Major Assessments

• Sample Review of a Major Assessment (PDF) This document contains an excerpt of a student's major assessment with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.

Revisions of Previously Submitted Material

• Sample Review of a Revision (PDF) This document contains an excerpt of a student's revised draft with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.

Graded Papers

• Sample Review of a Graded Paper (PDF) This document contains an excerpt of a student's graded paper with sample feedback. Please click on the file to view.

Recommended APA Style Reference List Entry for This Page

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.) Paper reviews: Sample paper reviews . https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/academic-skills/paper-reviews/sample-paper-reviews

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

• Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
• Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.

Exploring tourism competitiveness in developing economies: residents’ perspective

• Open access
• Published: 17 August 2024
• Volume 5 , article number  201 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sanja Kovačić 1 ,
• Marija Cimbaljević 1 ,
• Vanja Pavluković 1 &
• Slobodan Jovanović 2  

74 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Understanding the factors that contribute to tourism competitiveness in developing economies is essential for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers, as these countries still struggle to fully capitalize on their tourism potential. The residents’ perspective, often overlooked in Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC) models, is crucial because they are the primary stakeholders who directly experience the consequences of tourism activities in their daily lives. Their positive attitudes can contribute to a welcoming and friendly environment, enhancing the competitiveness of the destination in the global tourism market. Up to now, there have been a few studies that relate residents’ attitudes to tourism destination competitiveness. However, none have focused on developing a tailor-made model for measuring residents’ perspectives on TDC. To develop such a specific model and contribute to the existing theory in this area, our research applied a multi-step approach, including a literature review of existing models, pilot testing for indicator selection, and model validation through CFA. The data were collected through a survey of residents in Serbia, chosen as an example of a developing country. The final model of the study consists of five factors: Natural and Cultural Resources, Quality of Tourist Offer and Infrastructure, Situational Framework of Tourism Development and Management, Destination Perception and Experience, and Pollution, containing 32 indicators. Practical applicability of the model and theoretical contributions are discussed in the paper, as well as the TDC evaluation for Serbia.

Similar content being viewed by others

Formative-reflective scheme for the assessment of tourism destination competitiveness: an analysis of Italian municipalities

Qualitative Research in Tourism - Use of WebQDA in the C’s Tourist Destination Competitiveness Matrix

Territorial Differentiation, Competitiveness and Sustainability of Tourism

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Tourism plays a crucial role in the economic development of many nations, particularly in developing economies, where it can be a significant driver of growth and employment. Formerly marginalized in the tourism sector, the developing world has now evolved into a key driver of its expansion [ 1 ]. However, advanced nations consistently hold top positions in the World Economic Forum (WEF) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index. Meanwhile, developing economies express concerns regarding environmental sustainability, human resources, job prospects in tourism, and the prioritization of tourism [ 2 ]. According to Sanches-Pereira and associates [ 3 ], developing countries have yet to fully capitalize on their tourism potential. Therefore, understanding the factors that contribute to tourism competitiveness in developing economies is essential for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers alike.

Numerous studies have explored tourism competitiveness, aiming to comprehend the diverse factors influencing a country’s capacity to attract and retain tourists [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. The evaluation of a country’s tourism competitiveness encompasses an analysis of various dimensions, including natural and cultural resources, infrastructure, policy environment, and overall appeal to tourists. The majority of these studies were carried out in well-established destinations and emphasize the viewpoints of tourism experts and industry practitioners, who are deemed to possess the highest level of knowledge regarding management and competitiveness [ 11 ]. Unfortunately, the perspective of residents has been largely overlooked.

Residents, as integral stakeholders, contribute to the co-creation of the destination’s identity, influencing its attractiveness and sustainability. They play a crucial role in shaping the destination’s image and influencing the overall visitor experience. To achieve sustainable and inclusive tourism development in any country, particularly a developing one, and to ensure the overall well-being of local communities, residents’ attitudes towards tourism development should be acknowledged [ 12 ]. Positive attitudes can contribute to a welcoming and friendly environment, enhancing the competitiveness of the destination in the global tourism market. The residents’ perspective is crucial because they are the primary stakeholders who directly experience the consequences of tourism activities in their daily lives. Residents of different destinations may have a different view of what characterizes a good stay and well-being in a destination compared to experts or tourists [ 13 , 14 ]. Unlike tourists, residents tend to have a more complex interpretation of a destination, as it holds greater significance for them beyond being just a vacation spot. For residents, a tourist destination is a social place where they earn their livelihood, interact with community members, utilize resources that influence their living and working conditions, and enjoy natural resources and cultural offerings for their personal well-being. When they have the opportunity to leverage these resources, they actively engage in tourism-related activities by providing services to tourists [ 15 ]. Additionally, these residents possess local knowledge that can enhance the tourist experience by recommending attractions or facilities to visit [ 16 ]. Thus, their role in evaluating destination attributes is significant, as they serve as prosumers—both consumers of local services and co-creators of the tourist experience. Moreover, the evaluation of destination attributes is complex for this group of stakeholders, as their perspectives can significantly impact the residents' quality of life [ 17 ]. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the key determinants of tourism competitiveness in a developing country from the residents’ viewpoint.

In this context, Serbia was chosen as the research area because it is an emerging tourism destination and a developing economy actively seeking a stronger presence in the global tourism arena. Strategically located in Southeast Europe, Serbia boasts a diverse cultural and historical heritage, abundant tourism attractions, and faces notable developmental challenges, sustainability efforts, and deliberate market positioning. This makes Serbia an interesting area for studying tourism destination competitiveness (TDC). The country holds a relatively modest competitive position globally, ranking 83rd among 140 countries listed in the WEF Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019 [ 2 ]. The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) reported that in 2021, the total contribution of travel and tourism to Serbia’s GDP was 3.6%, and it accounted for 5.4% of employment [ 18 ]. Recognizing tourism as a priority sector, Serbia aims to leverage it for overall economic and social growth [ 19 ]. However, academic studies on TDC in Serbia are scarce and primarily focus on the perspectives of tourism experts and industry practitioners [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no attempt has been made so far to investigate residents’ opinions towards TDC in Serbia. Therefore, this study is significant as it aims to address this gap by developing a tailored competitiveness model that considers Serbian residents’ attitudes toward competitiveness indicators.

Through a comprehensive analysis, the study aims to shed light on the key factors influencing the tourism competitiveness of a developing economy, thereby offering valuable policy recommendations for fostering sustainable tourism development in developing economies. The paper is structured as follows: Sect.  2 sets the theoretical framework, Sect.  3 describes the methodology, Sect.  4 presents the main results, Sect.  5 provides a discussion, and Sect.  6 outlines the main conclusions.

2 Literature review

2.1 the role of residents in assessing the competitiveness of a tourist destination.

Tourist destinations that demonstrate the ability to foster economic prosperity or environmental well-being, while also prioritizing environmental conservation and enhancing residents’ quality of life, are likely to positively influence residents’ perceptions of tourism and increase the overall destination’s competitiveness [ 24 , 25 ]. Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to date, applying various TDC models. These studies utilize data on specific destinations to assess the significance of attributes relevant to tourism competitiveness [ 11 , 26 ]. It is unlikely that all these factors have the same impact and significance in shaping the level of competitiveness for different stakeholders within the tourism industry. Nonetheless, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive list of relevant variables and promote research conducted from the perspective of various stakeholders for a thorough understanding of a destination’s competitiveness. The role of residents in assessing destination competitiveness can be approached from different aspects. When managing the competitiveness and development of a destination, it is important to take into account local perspectives, as residents are inherent and deeply engaged stakeholders. Furthermore, the residents’ perspectives become increasingly significant, particularly in organizational aspects, as residents will assume a foundational role in presenting the destination's image, preserving its heritage, and enhancing its attractiveness [ 9 , 27 ].

Research focusing on destination image states that residents’ positive perceptions of the destination image may positively influence their views on the impacts and changes imposed by tourism in the community [ 28 ]. Since destination image serves as a reliable measure of destination attractiveness, it naturally contributes to the destination's competitiveness [ 29 ]. As a result, residents play a crucial role in strengthening the destination image, which is vital for setting the place apart from other destinations [ 9 ]. This, in turn, can increase their intention to support the development of tourism and enhance the destination’s competitiveness. When considering the contribution of communities to promoting tourism development, residents are recognized as both carriers and actors in destination marketing and competitiveness efforts. The competitiveness of a destination encompasses not only its natural landmarks but also its unique cultural and heritage aspects inherent to the locality. Strzelecka and associates [ 30 ] discovered that residents with deeper knowledge and comprehension of natural and cultural resources manifest a stronger sense of place attachment. This indicates that residents perceive various aspects of destination competitiveness that are closely related to the distinctive local environments and accessible resources at destinations. Initially, residents tend to perceive certain characteristics of TDC at a high level, including natural and cultural competitiveness. Ahn and Bessiere [ 15 ] examine that distinctive regional characteristics like contextual and natural competitiveness are valued as crucial tourism assets by residents. Additionally, technological advancements such as mobile applications, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and online information are recognized as significant elements of destination competitiveness. Consequently, practitioners and governments should aim to maximize the utilization of these competitive resources, foster the development of innovative travel products and activities, and create strategies for successful and sustainable destination management. Success for a tourist destination is often measured by various indicators such as the number of tourists, tourism revenue, length of stay, visitor satisfaction, and the destination’s image. However, true success goes beyond these quantitative measures to include qualitative aspects like resident satisfaction, environmental sustainability, and the overall quality of life for those living in the destination.

The connection between competitiveness and success lies in a destination’s ability to balance the needs and expectations of tourists with the well-being of its residents and the sustainability of its resources. A highly competitive destination that attracts many visitors might not be truly successful if it neglects the quality of life of its residents or the preservation of its natural and cultural assets [ 14 ]. Conversely, a destination that prioritizes resident satisfaction and sustainability is likely to achieve long-term success, fostering a supportive community and preserving its appeal for future visitors. Research by Dwyer [ 14 , 31 ] emphasizes the importance of incorporating broader measures of success into the evaluation of destination competitiveness. This includes considering factors such as resident well-being, environmental impact, and socio-cultural benefits.

Bu and associates [ 9 ] analyzed residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, focusing on perceived advantages, experienced effects, and willingness to support tourism initiatives. Their research highlighted residents’ belief in the government’s pivotal role in enhancing a destination’s image and competitiveness. This underscores the need to prioritize enhancing residents’ quality of life and well-being through tourism. Effective destination governance stresses the involvement of residents in the development process [ 32 ] acknowledging their direct experience of tourism's impacts [ 33 ]. Prioritizing residents’ interests is crucial for maximizing benefits from tourism development and fostering sustainable destination growth [ 30 , 34 ]. Detailed insights into residents' perspectives can validate planning processes and promote community-based sustainable development approaches [ 35 ]. Studies indicate that residents may perceive environmental impacts of tourism negatively. Gajdosik and associates [ 33 ] highlighted concerns such as noise pollution, water and air pollution, and issues with parking and construction. On the other hand, Vodeb [ 36 ] emphasized the importance of early engagement with residents in destination development to secure their participation and manage expectations effectively. This collaborative approach ensures that actions align with community interests and receive local support.

The role of residents in shaping the competitiveness of a destination is often underestimated but becomes apparent through their attitudes toward tourists and their impact on enhancing visitor experiences and the overall destination atmosphere. Previous studies have explored residents’ emotional responses and attitudes toward tourists [ 37 ], their behavioral interactions with tourists [ 25 ], and their cognitive assessments of tourism [ 38 ]. Local residents play a crucial role in shaping the visitor experience by actively participating in and contributing to tourism products and services. Positive interactions between residents and tourists contribute to a favorable destination image, thereby increasing competitiveness [ 9 , 27 ]. Tse & Wing Sun Tung [ 25 ] highlight various strategies for policymakers in the tourism sector to foster positive resident-tourist interactions, thereby enhancing destination attractiveness and competitiveness.

Studies also examine how residents act as ambassadors for their destinations, influencing others, including family and friends, to visit their hometowns [ 39 , 40 ]. As reliable informants, residents actively contribute to the uniqueness and attractiveness of their city when recommending it [ 41 ]. Thus, destination management organizations (DMOs) could benefit from involving residents more actively in destination promotion, potentially boosting both competitiveness and effective promotion [ 25 ].

Several studies have examined the economic impact of tourism from residents’ perspectives, revealing that residents typically view these impacts positively [ 42 ]. The competitive attributes of a destination can enhance its economic benefits, particularly when residents effectively utilize local resources [ 43 ]. This perspective suggests that increasing household income can confer a competitive advantage. Residents achieve this through various tourism-related business activities, such as selling handmade goods, running restaurants, and providing services as local travel agencies and guides [ 31 , 44 ].

Research on residents’ perceptions of tourism development and competitiveness primarily focuses on identifying, quantifying, and comparing different attributes that potentially shape perceptions of tourism and its effects [ 33 ]. Bu and colleagues [ 9 ] argue that tourism planners should actively seek input and recommendations from local residents regarding destination management and promotion, thereby evaluating resources as critical factors contributing to competitiveness. Additionally, tourism planning initiatives should offer opportunities for residents to engage in various activities and foster effective coordination among stakeholders.

While it is crucial for destinations to establish long-term competitive strategies aimed at enhancing their ability to offer diverse tourism experiences, it is equally important to understand how local residents perceive the competitiveness of their destination. Most significantly, local residents play an active role in contributing to tourism planning [ 45 ]. Despite this pivotal role, there remains a noticeable gap in the tourism literature regarding the analysis of residents' perceptions of destination competitiveness and their influential role in shaping this process. To address this gap, the present study aims to evaluate the developed model of competitiveness specifically with the local population as the target group. Developing and refining a measurement model tailored to assess residents' perspectives on tourism destination competitiveness involves creating comprehensive frameworks that capture their perceptions across different dimensions such as natural and cultural resources, quality of tourism offerings, infrastructure, management frameworks, and environmental concerns. While literature on residents’ perspectives regarding tourism destination competitiveness is currently limited, this research may prove valuable in conducting studies across developing economies to understand variations in resident attitudes and factors influencing tourism competitiveness.

The paper also outlines key points and highlights the gaps in research regarding the role of residents in evaluating TDC (see Table  1 ). Such research enables tourism planners and policymakers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of destinations [ 23 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], drawing insights from local residents. The objective is to create a model that is tailored to the preferences and perspectives of this target group, thereby promoting the significance of local involvement and participation. Given the dynamic nature of destinations, which evolve over time and undergo continuous change, the primary contribution of the present study is to identify the key determinants and planning factors that residents perceive as crucial for enhancing the competitiveness of their destination.

3 Methodology

The creation of the model is performed in three stages: In-depth literature review, Pilot testing and Model set and validation.

3.1 In-depth literature review

In order to generate a pool of indicators for measuring TDC, a detailed literature review has been done, taking into account the Scopus database in the period of from 2000 to March 2022. A total of 558 papers with the main keywords “destination competitiveness” and “sustainable tourism indicators” were selected for the analysis, while after initial screening, 232 papers were selected as relevant for further analysis. Most of these studies utilized established models for TDC evaluation, particularly relying on well-known models such as the Integrated Destination Competitiveness model [ 50 ] or the Ritchie and Crouch [ 51 ] model, emphasizing the perspectives of tourism experts and industry stakeholders, while overlooking the viewpoint of residents. In the second round of analysis, 12 tourism experts from Serbia reviewed the indicators extracted from relevant papers and removed repetitive and irrelevant items for the analysis of TDC. After a long process of purifying the relevant indicators, a list of 165 indicators was extracted and included in the pilot questionnaire for local communities.

3.2 Pilot testing

Pilot testing was conducted from June to August 2022 via email and standard paper-pen surveys with representatives of local communities in Serbia. Participants were randomly selected from major cities and tourism destinations such as Subotica, Novi Sad, Belgrade, Niš, Leskovac, Zlatibor, and Kopaonik. The pilot research aimed to eliminate any misunderstandings related to the questions and to remove indicators that community members lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate. Respondents were asked to estimate the relevance of each of the 165 indicators for measuring the tourism destination competitiveness (TDC) of Serbia on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1—not relevant at all, 5—very relevant). They were also given options to mark 6 if a question was “not well formulated” and 0 if they felt they “didn’t have enough knowledge.”

Indicators were divided into logical groups to facilitate the elimination and evaluation process. Pilot testing was conducted on a sample of 30 representatives of local communities. Typically, preliminary pilot tests are administered to a small set of respondents, with a sample size of about 30 to 50 individuals [ 52 ]. Afterwards, the responses were analyzed, and indicators were ranked based on the mean values of the answers and standard deviations. Indicators with a mean value below 4 and high standard deviations were marked for exclusion from the study. Additionally, any indicators that were unclear or beyond the scope of local knowledge were eliminated. From the initial 165 indicators, 60 relevant indicators were identified for the final stage of the research.

3.3 Model set and validation

3.3.1 participants.

A total of 456 representatives from local communities across Serbia participated in the final stage of the research. For model validation, the sample was divided into two parts: Sample 1 (N = 153 respondents) was used for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), while Sample 2 (N = 303 respondents) was used for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In both samples, there were slightly more female respondents. The age range was from 18 to 73 in Sample 1 and up to 75 in Sample 2. The highest number had completed secondary school, followed by those with higher education. Additionally, the majority of the sample were not employed in tourism.

3.3.2 Procedure and research instrument

The field research with the local population of Serbia was carried out from June until December in 2023. A total of 456 respondents from all over Serbia participated in the survey. The largest number of respondents are from Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš, Subotica, Leskovac, Užice, Kopaonik and Zlatibor, but the sample also includes subjects from the rest of Serbia. One of the primary criteria for conducting the research was selecting cities and tourist regions that play a significant role in Serbia’s tourism industry, offer diverse tourist attractions, and have the potential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing TDC. The sample selection was random, with the condition that respondents reside in the given city/destination and are above 18 years old.

The survey instrument consisted of 60 items measuring TDC of Serbia, which were extracted in the previous phases of model building, as well as socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. The participants were asked to evaluate their agreement with the statements referring to TDC of Serbia on a 5-point Likert scale (1-I totally disagree, 5-I totally agree). The research was conducted using standard paper-and-pen surveys by 10 trained researchers who collected data in the field. Additionally, respondents were offered the option to complete the survey via tablet or mobile phones to accommodate different preferences and ensure maximum reach. Researchers conducted on-site intercept surveys at key locations such as parks, shopping centres, public transportation hubs, tourist attractions, as well as during some local events and gatherings. This involved directly approaching individuals in these areas and inviting them to participate in the survey. In some cases, local tourism organizations helped to distribute the survey and encouraged participation. Small incentives, such as faculty promotional gifts (e.g. pencils, folders, notepads) were offered to encourage participation. Clear and concise information about the purpose of the survey, its importance, and how the data would be used was provided to potential respondents. The survey was anonymous and voluntary, but respondents were asked to provide some basic information such as age, gender and education (Table  2 ). Statistical software IBM SPSS 23 and AMOS were used for data analysis.

4.1 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

In order to identify the latent dimensions of Serbia's TDC, EFA was conducted on sample 1 (N = 153 respondents). Item analysis showed a high KMO = 0.923, and the statistically significant value of Bartlett’s sphericity test was confirmed (χ2 = 9896.90, df = 2485, p < 0,000). The analysis of item correlations revealed a significant number of correlations with values above 0.3, which led to the conclusion that the data are suitable for EFA. Items that had factor loadings lower than 0.3 (a total of 10 items) were excluded from the further analysis [ 53 ]. The method of principal components with Promax rotation (due to established correlations between factors) and Kaiser normalization was used to extract factors. As a result, considering only factors whose eigenvalues were equal to or greater than one, five factors were extracted with total of 50 items, which explain 50,56% of the variance. The five identified factors are: F1 Natural and cultural resources, F2 Quality of Tourist offer and infrastructure, F3 Situational conditions for tourism development and management, F4 Destination perception and experience, and F5 Pollution. The results of EFA are presented in Table  3 .

4.2 Confirmatory factory analysis

CFA is used on sample 2 (N = 303 respondents) to validate and confirm the factor structure obtained by EFA. The AMOS program for the Windows operating system was used for CFA. The Mardia index of multivariate kurtosis was above 3 for all tested models, indicating significant multivariate kurtosis. Therefore, it was justified to use robust methods and indices based on this method [ 54 ]. The fit or appropriateness of the model was assessed using the following indices: Sattora-Bentler χ 2 (S-B χ 2 )—if it is insignificant, then the model has a good fit, but since it is sensitive to the number of respondents, it is mostly significant in a greater number of cases, Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), Root Mean-Square Error Of Approximation (RMSEA)—SRMR and RMSEA should be less than 0.08 [ 55 ], Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)—if the CFI, NFI and NNFI are over 0.90, the model has a good fit [ 56 ]. In order to achieve adequate fit indices, modification indices were used with which AMOS suggests and proposes changes to the model.

When the first model obtained by exploratory factor analysis was tested, satisfactory fit indices were not achieved. First, it was suggested that several items should be excluded because they achieved saturation on several factors simultaneously (8 items in total). Moreover, the items that initially were part of the factor Situational conditions for tourism development and management (The positioning of the country as a tourist destination on the international market is effective, Social networks are effectively used to support the marketing activities) are suggested to be a part of the factor Destination perception and experience.

After these changes, the model was run again, and although the fit indices were visibly improved, a satisfactory fit index was still not achieved. The modification indices now suggested the exclusion of 10 more items. The final modifications related to the addition of correlations between individual items that belonged to the same factors. After these changes, a satisfactory fit model and the final structure of the competitiveness model were achieved. The final model consists of five factors: 1. Natural and cultural resources, 2. Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, 3. Situational framework of tourism development and management, 4. Destination perception and experience and 5. Pollution.

The final fit indices are shown in Table  4 .

The final model is shown in Table  5 , it consists of the five mentioned factors and a total of 32 indicators.

Factor 1: Natural and cultural resources is a factor referring to natural and cultural resources (tangible and intangible) of Serbia. Factor 2: Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure—refers to the quality of tourist infrastructure, signalization and accessibility of destination, including the quality of tourist offer and activities. Factor 3: Situational framework of tourism development and management—refers to the extent to which the conditions in Serbia are favourable for tourism development. This factor also contains items related to sustainability and ethics in tourism, i.e., local community support for tourism development, tourism companies operate in accordance with ethical principles etc. Factor 4: Destination perception and experience—refers to the perception of the brand, the image of Serbia as a tourist destination, destination positioning, but also quality of the overall experience at the destination. This factor also includes an assessment of the possibility of booking services, and the willingness to recommend Serbia as a destination to others. Finally, the last extracted factor is Factor 5: Pollution, referring to the assessment of the noise level, water and air pollution. This factor is of immense importance, as it indicates that local population consider pollution as important element of TDC.

4.3 Descriptive statistics and measurement model validity

Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table  6 . It can be seen that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all variables/dimensions is above 0.7. This means that the instruments used in the study are reliable and that they measure the given constructs. The results show that Natural and cultural resources are the best-rated factor in Serbia's competitiveness as a tourist destination, which means that Serbia has rich cultural and natural resources and great potential for tourism development. The lowest rated factor is the Factor 3: Situational framework of tourism development and management, especially the item Political values, the overall political situation and stability in Serbia are favourable for the development of tourism. Only one item in this group exceeds 3.5, which is the residents support the development of tourism. This is followed by factor Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, where the items related to the transport infrastructure and signalization Local tourist and traffic signalization is in line with the needs of tourists, a high-quality air traffic infrastructure and A high quality bicycle and pedestrian paths are the lowest rated together with the item Quality offer of amusement and theme parks. On the other hand, the highest rated item in this group is Diverse and high-quality restaurant offer. The concerning fact is also that Pollution is rated above 3.5 which could negatively influence competitive position of Serbia on travel market.

The data obtained from the research pointed to the basic shortcomings that affect the competitiveness of Serbia as a tourist destination, and they should be the focus of further tourism strategies and initiatives.

Before conducting CFA, convergent and divergent validity of the constructs was calculated to check the measurement model validity. The convergent validity of each dimension was examined by calculating the score of the average variance extracted (AVE, [ 57 ]). A substantial convergent validity is achieved when all item-to-factor loadings are significant and the AVE score is higher than 0.50 within each dimension, but AVE of 0.40 is still acceptable if the composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.60 [ 58 ]. Results showed that all dimensions had AVE higher than 0.40 and CR higher than 0.60 (Table  6 ) which indicates good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was then checked by comparing the average variances extracted (AVEs) for each latent factor with the squared correlation estimates between latent constructs. Fornell and Larcker [ 57 ] noted that the discriminant validity is guaranteed when the AVEs are greater than the squared correlation estimates (Table  7 ).

5 Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to address significant gaps identified in previous TDC research. These gaps primarily include the lack of consideration for residents’ attitudes towards TDC indicators and the absence of specifically tailored models to assess destination competitiveness in developing countries from the residents' perspective. Existing literature has predominantly focused on residents' perceptions of destination image [ 9 , 28 , 29 ] or place attachment [ 30 , 59 ], but lacked comprehensive models for measuring destination competitiveness. It is evident that residents possess specific knowledge, information, and emotional attachment to their living destinations [ 60 ]. Therefore, assessing competitiveness from their viewpoint requires specific indicators, which may differ in some aspects from traditional TDC models where assessments are typically conducted by tourism stakeholders or tourists. To address these gaps and contribute to theory in this area, our research employed a multi-step approach. This approach included a literature review of existing models, pilot testing for indicator selection, and model validation through CFA. Through this rigorous scientific process, we selected indicators and validated a model structure tailored for assessing residents’ perceptions in developing economies. This model represents the first of its kind in the existing literature on this topic, marking a significant theoretical contribution. The final model of the study comprises five factors: Natural and cultural resources, Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, Situational framework of tourism development and management, Destination perception and experience and Pollution, encompassing 32 indicators. The model is tailor-made through pilot testing, where residents themselves identified indicators, they could assess based on their knowledge, experiences and information levels. Those indicators were further validated through survey research involving another sample of residents, and tested through EFA and CFA.

The application of this model to Serbia, a developing economy, has yielded insightful findings. Previous research has highlighted residents’ significant role in assessing natural and cultural resources [ 30 ] and shaping destination image [ 9 , 28 , 29 ], given their extensive knowledge and role as destination promoters and ambassadors. This aligns with two factors in our model: Natural and cultural resources, and Destination perception and experience. Additionally, our model underscores residents’ crucial role in evaluating the Quality of tourist offerings and infrastructure. Residents often utilize tourism infrastructure extensively [ 61 ], granting them firsthand insights into its quality. Moreover, some residents are directly involved in tourism-related businesses, providing further expertise in this area [ 15 , 44 ]. A novel aspect of our model is the recognition of residents’ capability to assess the Situational framework of tourism development and management. This factor evaluates the conditions favoring tourism development at a destination, a role traditionally fulfilled by tourism stakeholders without residents’ input [ 32 , 45 ]. Furthermore, sustainability factors, crucial for competitiveness in developing countries, receive attention through the Pollution factor, which reflects residents’ concerns about environmental conditions at their destination. This tailor-made model for residents’ assessment of TDC serves as a new tool for enhancing local involvement and participation in TDC assessment, particularly beneficial for developing economies in their early stages of tourism development [ 3 ]. Engaging residents in understanding factors influencing TDC is essential for effective tourism decision-making and planning processes.

Additionally, this study contributes to the limited understanding of residents' attitudes toward TDC in Serbia, marking the first inclusion of their perspectives in the competitiveness assessment. It offers long-term recommendations for integrating residents into the assessment process. The model indicates that Serbia's primary competitive advantage lies in its natural and cultural resources, while significant opportunities for improvement exist in the other four factors. Residents express concerns about the Situational framework of tourism development and management, particularly noting political stability as a factor negatively impacting destination competitiveness. They also highlight areas needing improvement in the Quality of tourist offerings and infrastructure. Pollution emerges as another concern, with residents indicating room for enhancing environmental sustainability to bolster Serbia's competitive position. A detailed analysis of each factor's components provides valuable insights for destination managers regarding residents' perceptions of the current state of TDC, identifying major gaps and advantages.

6 Conclusion

Numerous empirical studies have utilized various models to assess TDC predominantly from the perspectives of tourism experts and industry practitioners, often overlooking the viewpoint of residents. Establishing a comprehensive list of TDC variables and promoting research that incorporates perspectives from diverse stakeholders are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of TDC. Notably, destinations that successfully foster economic prosperity and environmental conservation while enhancing residents' quality of life tend to positively influence residents’ perceptions and overall TDC. This study focuses specifically on developing economies, which face unique challenges and opportunities in tourism development. The model developed is tailored to these contexts, providing insights that are more relevant and applicable to similar countries, thereby enhancing the theoretical framework of TDC in these regions.

To date, several studies have highlighted the significant role of residents, among other stakeholders, in comprehending and enhancing destination competitiveness. Their active involvement contributes to enhancing the destination's image, preserving its heritage, and increasing its overall attractiveness. Moreover, positive resident perceptions of the destination’s image can improve their attitudes towards tourism impacts and changes, thereby enhancing overall competitiveness. Success in tourism goes beyond mere quantitative metrics such as tourist numbers and revenue; it encompasses qualitative factors like resident satisfaction, environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life. Hence, achieving a balance between the needs of tourists, the well-being of residents, and the sustainability of resources is critical for long-term success. Integrating residents’ attitudes provides a more holistic view of TDC and acknowledges the pivotal role of the local population in shaping a welcoming and hospitable environment.

Finally, by understanding residents' perceptions across various dimensions such as natural and cultural resources, tourism offerings, infrastructure, management frameworks, and environmental aspects, tourism planners and policymakers can better assess the strengths and weaknesses of destinations. Encouraging local involvement and participation in tourism planning is vital, given the dynamic nature of destinations. This research helps identify the key determinants and planning factors that residents perceive as important for the competitiveness of their destination, highlighting the significance of local involvement in shaping successful and sustainable tourism development. The final model in this study consists of five distinct factors: Natural and cultural resources, Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, Situational framework of tourism development and management, Destination perception and experience, and Pollution. These factors provide a comprehensive framework for assessing TDC from a residents' perspective, which can be used as a benchmark for future studies.

7 Practical implication

The practical application of the model lies in the fact that it is made to be used for the continuous evaluation of destination competitiveness by residents in developing economies. This could be performed as a regular research procedure of local or regional tourism organisations that could include residents in assessing destination competitiveness together with other important target groups such as tourism stakeholders and tourists. The model highlights the importance of community engagement in tourism development. By fostering positive attitudes among residents, destinations can enhance their attractiveness and competitiveness in the global market. The model provides a structured framework for evaluating TDC, which can be used by researchers and practitioners to benchmark performance and identify areas for improvement. Policymakers can use the model to understand residents' attitudes towards tourism, enabling them to create policies that align with local needs and preferences. This can lead to more sustainable and accepted tourism development strategies. Industry stakeholders can utilize the insights from the model to enhance the quality of tourist offerings and infrastructure, ensuring they meet both resident and tourist expectations. This can improve overall satisfaction and competitiveness. By considering factors such as pollution and the situational framework of tourism development, the model encourages sustainable practices that benefit, the environment, the local community, and visitors. It should be also emphasized that TDC is a multi-faced concept and its assessment requires the involvement of all important stakeholders at the destination in order to get a concrete pathway to increasing tourism competitive position on the market. The involvement of the local population in evaluating competitiveness may necessitate significant shifts in attitudes toward tourism planning, development, management, and destination marketing. Anticipated outcomes include a broader understanding of the factors contributing to destination competitiveness and clearer insights into the population’s role in this process. Developing a model to measure residents’ perspectives on tourism competitiveness ensures greater relevance to the diverse realities of various destinations, considering that the validation and adaptation of existing models might be less effective across different cultural and geographical contexts. The practical benefits of the application of the model are numerous. However, the most important is the fact that measuring residents’ attitudes about destination competitiveness is essential for creating a balance between the economic benefits of tourism and the well-being of the local community. It allows for sustainable development, positive destination branding, and the creation of an overall positive experience for both residents and visitors.

Based on the research findings, we propose several recommendations for policymakers to enhance Serbia’s TDC:

Engage residents: Involve residents in tourism planning and decision-making processes, as well as in TDC assessment, to foster more sustainable and accepted tourism development strategies.

Utilize the new model: Apply the newly developed model tailored to capture residents’ TDC assessments in developing economies, gaining comprehensive insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the destination from a local perspective.

Regular monitoring: Implement a regular monitoring system using this model to track changes in TDC over time, helping to identify trends, policy impacts, and areas needing improvement.

Focus on quality improvement: Address residents' concerns regarding the quality of tourism infrastructure and services. Improvements in these areas can enhance both resident and tourist satisfaction, boosting overall competitiveness.

Address environmental concerns and promote sustainability: Recognize environmental sustainability as a key competitiveness factor. Implement measures to reduce pollution and improve environmental conditions, responding to residents’ concerns and enhancing the destination’s appeal. Encourage sustainable tourism practices that benefit both the environment and the local community.

Improve tourism development conditions: Address residents’ concerns about the situational framework of tourism development, particularly regarding political stability and favourable conditions for tourism growth, to significantly enhance the destination’s competitiveness.

Strive for sustainable development: Ensure that tourism development strategies balance economic benefits with the well-being of the local community. This includes considering residents’ satisfaction, environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life in tourism planning and development

8 Limitation and further research

The current study also has certain limitations. Firstly, the model has been tested in one developing economy (Serbia) chosen as a case study to conduct initial research. The model should be applied and replicated in other developing economies to confirm and validate the structure and prove the comparability of results obtained in various developing economies. Secondly, since this was an initial study aimed at creating a new model, the research was conducted only once. Continuous monitoring and longitudinal studies are necessary to track progress and draw conclusions about changes in destination competitiveness. Longitudinal studies play a crucial role in evaluating TDC by offering insights into trends, policy impacts, and causal relationships over time. Such information is vital for making informed decisions, especially in developing economies where understanding the long-term effects of tourism policies and interventions is critical.

Future research should also examine the impact of certain independent variables (such as their active engagement in tourism, tourism and pro-environmental attitudes etc.) and sociodemographic characteristics on residents’ perceptions of TDC. It would be also beneficial to reshape, modify and test the model for different target groups such as tourists or tourism stakeholders to enable a holistic approach to TDC research in developing countries.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files Ethics approval: The consent of the Ethics Commission of the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science, is not required for the collection of data for the purpose of scientific research through survey research, in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Code of Academic Integrity of the Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad number: 0601-351/5. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Rasool H, Maqbool S, Tarique M. The relationship between tourism and economic growth among BRICS countries: a panel cointegration analysis. Futur Bus J. 2021;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00048-3 .

Article   Google Scholar  

World Economic Forum (WEF). The travel & tourism competitiveness report 2019: travel and tourism at a tipping point. Geneva: WEF; 2019.

Google Scholar  

Sanches-Pereira A, Onguglo B, Pacini H, Gómez MF, Coelho ST, Muwanga MK. Fostering local sustainable development in Tanzania by enhancing linkages between tourism and small-scale agriculture. J Clean Prod. 2017;162:1567–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.164 .

Dwyer L, Armenski T, Knežević Cvelbar L, Dragićević V, Mihalic T. Modified Importance–performance analysis for evaluating tourism businesses strategies: comparison of Slovenia and Serbia. Int J Tour Res. 2016;18(4):327–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2052 .

Medina-Muñoz DR, Medina-Muñoz RD, Chim-Miki AF. Tourism competitiveness assessment: the current status of research in Spain and China. Tour Econ. 2013;19(2):297–318. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0197 .

Vila TD, Darcy S, González EA. Competing for the disability tourism market–a comparative exploration of the factors of accessible tourism competitiveness in Spain and Australia. Tour Manag. 2015;47:261–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.008 .

Armenski T, Dwyer L, Pavluković V. Destination competitiveness: public and private sector tourism management in Serbia. J Travel Res. 2018;57(3):384–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517692445 .

Goffi G, Cucculelli M, Masiero L. Fostering tourism destination competitiveness in developing countries: the role of sustainability. J Clean Prod. 2019;209:101–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.208 .

Bu NT, Kong H, Ye S. County tourism development in china: a case study. J China Tour Res. 2021;17(2):249–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2020.1761501 .

Martínez-González JA, Díaz-Padilla VT, Parra-López E. Study of the tourism competitiveness model of the world economic forum using Rasch’s mathematical model: the case of Portugal. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137169 .

Crouch GI. Destination competitiveness: an analysis of determinant attributes. J Travel Res. 2011;50(1):27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362776 .

López MFB, Virto NR, Manzano JA, Miranda JGM. Residents’ attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: the case of Trujillo. J Hosp Tour Manag. 2018;35:36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.02.002 .

Abreu-Novais ML, Ruhanen L, Arcodia C. Destination competitiveness: what we know, what we know but shouldn’t and what we don’t know but should. Curr Issues Tour. 2016;19(6):492–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1091443 .

Dwyer L. Destination competitiveness and resident well-being. Tour Manag Perspect. 2022;43(6):100996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100996 .

Ahn YJ, Bessiere J. The relationships between Tourism destination competitiveness, empowerment, and supportive actions for tourism. Sustainability. 2023;15:626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010626 .

Campelo AR, Aitken MT, Gnoth J. Sense of place: the importance of destination branding. J Travel Res. 2014;53(2):154–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496474 .

Stylidis D, Sit J, Biran A. An exploratory study of residents’ perception of place image: the case of Kavala. J Travel Res. 2014;55(5):659–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728751456316 .

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). SERBIA 2022 Annual Research: Key Highlights. 2022. https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact . Accessed 15 Feb 2024.

Government of the Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Trade, Tourism, and Telecommunications. Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025. 2016. https://mto.gov.rs/tekst/177/strategije.php . Accessed 20 Feb 2024.

Armenski T, Gomezelj DO, Djurdjev B, Ćurčić N, Dragin A. Tourism destination competitiveness—between two flags. Econ Res. 2012;25(2):485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2012.11517519 .

Dragićević V, Jovičić D, Blešić I, Stankov U, Bošković D. Business tourism destination competitiveness: a case of Vojvodina Province (Serbia). Econ Res. 2012;25(2):311–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2012.11517510 .

Drakulić Kovačević N, Kovačević L, Stankov U, Dragićević V, Miletić A. Applying destination competitiveness model to strategic tourism development of small destinations: the case of South Banat district. J Dest Mark Manag. 2018;8:114–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.01.002 .

Cimbaljević M, Panić A, Pavlović D, Pavluković V, Pivac T, Kovačić S, Stankov U. Systematic literature review on tourism destination competitiveness research. Turizam. 2023;27(1):51–6. https://doi.org/10.5937/turizam27-42000 .

Abreu Novais M, Ruhanen L, Arcodia C. Destination competitiveness: a phenomenographic study. Tour Manag. 2018;64:324–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.014 .

Tse S, Tung VWS. Measuring the valence and intensity of residents’ behaviors in host-tourist interactions: implications for destination image and destination competitiveness. J Travel Res. 2021;61(3):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521997576 .

Fernández JAS, Azevedo PS, Martín JMM, Martín JAR. Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in the countries most visited by international tourists: proposal of a synthetic index. Tour Manag Perspect. 2020;33:100582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100582 .

Nunkoo R, Gursoy D. Residents’ support for tourism: an identity perspective. Ann Tour Res. 2012;39(1):243–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006 .

Stylidis D, Dominguez Quintero AM. Understanding the effect of place image and knowledge of tourism on residents’ attitudes towards tourism and their word-of-mouth intentions: evidence from Seville Spain. Tour Plan Dev. 2022;19(5):433–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2022.2049859 .

Miličević K, Mihalič T, Sever I. An investigation of the relationship between destination branding and destination competitiveness. J Travel Tour Mark. 2017;34(2):209–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1156611 .

Strzelecka M, Boley BB, Woosnam KM. Place attachment and empowerment: do residents need to be attached to be empowered? Ann Tour Res. 2017;66:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.06.002 .

Dwyer L. Tourism development to enhance resident well-being: a strong sustainability perspective. Sustainability. 2023;15(4):3321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043321 .

Qian C, Sasaki N, Shivakoti G, Zhang Y. Effective governance in tourism development—An analysis of local perception in the Huangshan mountain area. Tour Manag Perspect. 2016;20:112–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.08.003 .

Gajdosik T, Gajdosikova Z, Strazanova R. Residents perception of sustainable tourism destination development: a destination governance issue. Glob Bus Finance Rev. 2018;23(1):24–35. https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2018.23.1.24 .

Tempest I. Planning for tourists and residents in an historic destination - York UK. In: Morpeth ND, Yan HL, editors. Planning for tourism: towards a sustainable future. Wallingford: CABI; 2015. p. 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644585.0088 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Line ND, Wang Y. A multi-stakeholder market oriented approach to destination marketing. J Dest Mark Manag. 2017;6(1):84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.03.003 .

Vodeb K. Sustainable competitiveness of destination and resident’s attitude towards tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Congress Proceedings, Trends in Tourism and Hospitality Industry; 2014, pp. 79–89.

Ouyang Z, Gursoy D, Sharma B. Role of trust, emotions and event attachment on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Tour Manag. 2017;63:426–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.026 .

Tung VWS, King BEM, Tse S. The tourist stereotype model: positive and negative dimensions. J Travel Res. 2020;59(1):37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518821739 .

Lai PH, Gudergan S, Young T, Lee K. Resident intention to invite friends, relatives, and acquaintances: the dynamic process of place identity as a motivator. Tour Manag. 2021;84:104251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104251 .

Styvén ME, Mariani MM, Strandberg C. This is my hometown! the role of place attachment, congruity, and self-expressiveness on residents’ intention to share a place brand message online. J Advert. 2020;49(5):540–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1810594 .

Andersson M, Ekman P. Ambassador networks and place branding. J Place Manag Dev. 2009;2(1):41–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538330910942799 .

García AF, Vázquez BA, Macías CR. Resident’s attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tour Manag Perspect. 2015;13:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002 .

Goffi G, Cucculelli M. Explaining tourism competitiveness in small and medium destinations: the Italian case. Curr Issues Tour. 2019;22(17):2109–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1421620 .

Abou-Shouk MA, Mannaa MT, Elbaz AM. Women’s empowerment and tourism development: a cross-country study. Tour Manag Perspect. 2021;37:100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100782 .

Boley BB, McGehee NG, Hammett ALT. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: the resident perspective. Tour Manag. 2017;58:66–77.

Campón-Cerro AM, Hernández-Mogollón JM, Alves H. Sustainable improvement of competitiveness in rural tourism destinations: the quest for tourist loyalty in Spain. J Destin Mark Manag. 2017;6(3):252–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.04.005 .

John A, Firoz CM, Ramanan TR. Destination competitiveness of a tourist region: a case of Kerala, India. J Glob Hosp Tour. 2023;2(1):71–98. https://doi.org/10.5038/2771-5957.2.1.1021 .

Oliveira T, de Lima PM, dos Anjos FA, Feger JE. Governance and competitiveness of tourism destinations: validation of the structural model in the case of Brazil. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2023.2251686 .

González-Rodríguez MR, Díaz-Fernández MC, Pulido-Pavón N. Tourist destination competitiveness: an international approach through the travel and tourism competitiveness index. Tour Manag Perspect. 2023;47:101127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101127 .

Dwyer L, Kim C. Destination competitiveness: determinants and indicators. Curr Issues Tour. 2003;6(5):369–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962 .

Ritchie JRB, Crouch GI. The competitive destination—a sustainable tourism perspective. Cambridge: CABI Publishing; 2003.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aithal A, Aithal PS. Development and validation of survey questionnaire experimental data—a systematical review-based statistical approach. Int J Manag Technol Soc Sci. 2020;5(2):233–51. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3724105 .

Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 4th ed. London: SAGE; 2013.

Bentler PM. EQS 6, structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software Inc; 2006.

Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 .

Hoyle RH. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 1995. p. 1–15.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 .

Huang FL. Conducting multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using R. 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12391.34724

Dimitrios S. Residents’ place image: a cluster analysis and its links to place attachment and support for tourism. J Sustain Tour. 2018;26(6):1007–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1435668 .

Chen N, Dwyer L. Residents’ place satisfaction and place attachment on destination brand-building behaviors: conceptual and empirical differentiation. J Travel Res. 2018;57(8):1026–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517729760 .

Mamirkulova G, Mi J, Abbas J, Mahmood S, Mubeen R, Ziapour A. New silk road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;24: e01194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01194 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by The Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, GRANT No. 7739076, Tourism Destination Competitiveness—Evaluation Model for Serbia—TOURCOMSERBIA. Also, the authors acknowledge financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-66/2024-03/ 200125 & 451-03-65/2024-03/200125).‬‬‬‬‬

This research was supported by The Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, GRANT No. 7739076, Tourism Destination Competitiveness—Evaluation Model for Serbia—TOURCOMSERBIA. Also, the authors acknowledge financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-66/2024-03/200125 & 451-03-65/2024-03/200125).‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Sanja Kovačić, Marija Cimbaljević & Vanja Pavluković

Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship (PEP), Mitropolita Petra 8 Street, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

Slobodan Jovanović

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SK Methodology, Investigation, Software, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing. MC Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing. VP Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision. SJ Investigation, Writing—Original Draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marija Cimbaljević .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The consent of the Ethics Commission of the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science, is not required for the collection of data for the purpose of scientific research through survey research, in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Code of Academic Integrity of the Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad number: 0601-351/5. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The 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.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kovačić, S., Cimbaljević, M., Pavluković, V. et al. Exploring tourism competitiveness in developing economies: residents’ perspective. Discov Sustain 5 , 201 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00416-x

Download citation

Received : 13 March 2024

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 17 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00416-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

• Tourism destination competitiveness
• Developing countries
• Mix-method research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Integrating blockchain, iot, and xbrl in accounting information systems: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 2.1. definition of the research question, 2.2. search for literature, 2.3. applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2.4. quality assessment, 3.1. journal analysis, 3.2. blockchain studies, 3.2.1. overview analysis, 3.2.2. blockchain as an accounting system, blockchain as a triple-entry accounting system, blockchain as a single accounting system, 3.2.3. blockchain and the quality of accounting information, 3.3. internet of things technology studies, 3.3.1. overview analysis, 3.3.2. using the internet of things (iot) in the accounting field, 3.4. extensible business reporting language (xbrl) studies, 3.4.1. overview analysis, 3.4.2. the benefits of extensible business reporting language (xbrl) in accounting, 3.5. the integration of blockchain, the internet of things, and xbrl, 4. discussion, 5. the limitations of the study, 6. future research directions, 7. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Adamopoulos, Panagiotis, Vilma Todri, and Anindya Ghose. 2021. Demand effects of the internet-of-things sales channel: Evidence from automating the purchase process. Information Systems Research 32: 238–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alay, Hazal Koray. 2022. Evaluating Research Trends on The Emerging Blockchain Technology in The Fields of Business And Management: A Systematic Review. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy 7: 409–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alkafaji, Bashaer Khudhair Abbas, Mahmoud Lari Dashtbayaz, and Mahdi Salehi. 2023. The Impact of Blockchain on the Quality of Accounting Information: An Iraqi Case Study. Risks 11: 58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alkayed, Hani, Saad Zighan, Majed Qabajeh, and Mohammad I Almaharmeh. 2023. The role of XBRL adoption on enhancing transparency of information disclosure: A case study of Jordanian financial companies. Cogent Business and Management 10: 2265082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alles, Michael, and Maciej Piechock. 2012. Will XBRL improve corporate governance? A framework for enhancing governance decision making using interactive data. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13: 91–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arshad, Ameena, Faisal Shahzad, Ijaz Ur Rehman, and Bruno S Sergi. 2023. A systematic literature review of blockchain technology and environmental sustainability: Status quo and future research. International Review of Economics & Finance 88: 1602–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atzori, Marcella. 2018. Blockchain-Based Architectures for the Internet of Things: A Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beerbaum, Dirk. 2018. Blockchain A Business Case for XBRL: A Beast or a Lame Duck? SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bellucci, Marco, Damiano Cesa Bianchi, and Giacomo Manetti. 2022. Blockchain in accounting practice and research: Systematic literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research 30: 121–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benedetti, Hugo, Ehsan Nikbakht, Sayan Sarkar, and Andrew Craig Spieler. 2020. Blockchain and corporate fraud. Journal of Financial Crime 28: 702–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blankespoor, Elizabeth, Brian P. Miller, and Hal D. White. 2014. Initial evidence on the market impact of the XBRL mandate. Review of Accounting Studies 19: 1468–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boixo, Ignacio, Javier Mora, and Jesús Ruiz. 2019. Proof of Concept for an XBRL Report Indexer with Integrity and Non-Repudiation Secured by Blockchain Using a Smart Contract: XBRLchain Demo. 44th World Continuous Auditing and Reporting Symposium. 1–12. Available online: http://www.openfiling.info/wp-content/upLoads/data/ReportIndexerSecuredbyBlockchain.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2024).
• Bonsón, Enrique, and Michaela Bednárová. 2019. Blockchain and its implications for accounting and auditing. Meditari Accountancy Research 27: 725–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonsón, Enrique, Virginia Cortijo, and Tomás Escobar. 2009. Towards the global adoption of XBRL using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10: 46–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borgi, Hela, and Vincent Tawiah. 2022. Determinants of eXtensible business reporting language adoption: An institutional perspective. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 30: 352–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byström, Hans. 2019. Blockchains, real-time accounting, and the future of credit risk modeling. Ledger 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, Cynthia Weiyi. 2021. Triple-entry accounting with blockchain: How far have we come? Accounting & Finance 61: 71–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carlin, Tyrone. 2019. Blockchain and the Journey Beyond Double Entry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 305–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Centobelli, Piera, Roberto Cerchione, Pasquale Del Vecchio, Eugenio Oropallo, and Giustina Secundo. 2022. Blockchain technology design in accounting: Game changer to tackle fraud or technological fairy tale? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 35: 1566–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Shanzhi, Hui Xu, Dake Liu, Bo Hu, and Hucheng Wang. 2014. A vision of IoT: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with China Perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1: 349–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Songsheng, Jun Guo, Qingqing Liu, and Xiaoxiao Tong. 2021. The impact of XBRL on real earnings management: Unexpected consequences of the XBRL implementation in China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 56: 479–504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, Emon Kalyan, Iffat Ishrat Khan, and Bablu Kumar Dhar. 2023. Strategy for implementing blockchain technology in accounting: Perspectives of stakeholders in a developing nation. Business Strategy and Development 6: 477–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christidis, Konstantinos, and Michael Devetsikiotis. 2016. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 4: 2292–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christoffersen, Jeppe. 2013. A review of antecedents of international strategic alliance performance: Synthesized evidence and new directions for core constructs. International Journal of Management Reviews 15: 66–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cormier, Denis, Dominique Dufour, Philippe Luu, Pierre Teller, and Robert Teller. 2019. The Relevance of XBRL Voluntary Disclosure for Stock Market Valuation: The Role of Corporate Governance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36: 113–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2016. Imagineering audit 4.0. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 13: 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2017. Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems 31: 5–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debreceny, Roger, and Glen L. Gray. 2001. The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2: 47–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debreceny, Roger, Stephanie Farewell, Maciej Piechocki, Carsten Felden, and André Gräning. 2010. Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the SEC. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29: 296–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demirkan, Sebahattin, Irem Demirkan, and Andrew McKee. 2020. Blockchain technology in the future of business cyber security and accounting. Journal of Management Analytics 7: 189–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desplebin, Olivier, Gulliver Lux, and Nicolas Petit. 2021. To Be or Not to Be: Blockchain and the Future of Accounting and Auditing*. Accounting Perspectives 20: 743–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desyatnyuk, Oksana, Volodymyr Muravskyi, Oleg Shevchuk, and Mykhailo Oleksiiv. 2022. Dual Use of Internet of Things Technology in Accounting Automation and Cybersecurity. Paper presented at 2022 12th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, ACIT 2022, Ruzomberok, Slovakia, September 26–28; pp. 360–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Yi, Oliver Zhen Li, Yupeng Lin, and Chenkai Ni. 2016. Does Information-Processing Cost Affect Firm-Specific Information Acquisition? Evidence from XBRL Adoption. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 51: 435–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, Jing, Yun Shi, Wanfu Li, and Ying Chen. 2023. Can blockchain technology be effectively integrated into the real economy? Evidence from corporate investment efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Research 16: 100292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dumay, John, and Linlin Cai. 2015. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16: 121–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edquist, Harald, Peter Goodridge, and Jonathan Haskel. 2021. The Internet of Things and economic growth in a panel of countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 30: 262–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, and Narcisa Roxana Mosteanu. 2019. Accounting and blockchain technology: From double-entry to triple-entry. The Business and Management Review 10: 108–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faccia, Alessio, and Pythagoras Petratos. 2021. Blockchain, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and accounting information systems (AIS): Research on e-procurement and system integration. Applied Sciences 11: 6792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, Mohamed Yousif Khamis Al Naqbi, and Saeed Ahmad Lootah. 2019. Integrated cloud financial accounting cycle. How artificial intelligence, blockchain, and XBRL will change the accounting, fiscal and auditing practices. Paper presented at ICCBDC ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Oxford, UK, August 28–30; pp. 31–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, Narcisa Roxana Moşteanu, and Luigi Pio Leonardo. 2020. Blockchain Hash, the Missing Axis of the Accounts to Settle the Triple Entry Bookkeeping System. Paper presented at 2020 12th International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 16–18; pp. 18–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, Bin, Xinming Liu, Chen Ma, and Yusang Zhuo. 2023. Blockchain technology adoption and accounting information quality. Accounting and Finance 63: 4125–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fanning, Kurt, and David P. Centers. 2016. Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial Services. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 27: 53–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fullana, Olga, and Javier Ruiz. 2021. Accounting information systems in the blockchain era. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management 11: 63–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garman, Amy D. 2022. Does Blockchain Technology Constrain Real Earnings Management? Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, and Ashley Stampone. 2019. A transaction on the blockchain: An AIS perspective, intro case to explain transactions on the ERP and the role of the internal and external auditor. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 47–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, Salem L. Boumediene, and Magdy S. Farag. 2023. The creation of one truth: Single-ledger entries for multiple stakeholders using blockchain technology to address the reconciliation problem. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 20: 59–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greenhalgh, Trisha, Glenn Robert, Fraser Macfarlane, Paul Bate, and Olivia Kyriakidou. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 82: 581–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grigg, Ian. 2024. Triple entry accounting. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17: 76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haddud, Abubaker, Arthur DeSouza, Anshuman Khare, and Huei Lee. 2017. Examining potential benefits and challenges associated with the Internet of Things integration in supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28: 1055–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, James A. 2007. Accounting Information Systems , 5th ed. Issues in Accounting Education. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, vol. 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodge, Frank D., Jane Jollineau Kennedy, and Laureen A. Maines. 2004. Does search-facilitating technology improve the transparency of financial reporting? Accounting Review 79: 687–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoitash, Rani, and Udi Hoitash. 2018. Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. Accounting Review 93: 259–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iansiti, Marco, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2017. The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review 95: 118–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibañez, Juan Ignacio, Chris N. Bayer, Paolo Tasca, and Jiahua Xu. 2023. REA, Triple-Entry Accounting and Blockchain: Converging Paths to Shared Ledger Systems. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Inghirami, Iacopo Ennio. 2020. Accounting Information Systems: The Scope of Blockchain Accounting. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation 38: 107–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jarašūnienė, Aldona, Kristina Čižiūnienė, and Audrius Čereška. 2023. Research on Impact of IoT on Warehouse Management. Sensors 23: 2213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karajovic, Maria, Henry M. Kim, and Marek Laskowski. 2019. Thinking Outside the Block: Projected Phases of Blockchain Integration in the Accounting Industry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 319–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karmańska, Anna. 2021. Internet of Things in the Accounting Field. Benefits and Challenges. Operations Research and Decisions 31: 23–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Jeong-Bon, Joung W. Kim, and Jee-Hae Lim. 2019. Does XBRL Adoption Constrain Earnings Management? Early Evidence from Mandated U.S. Filers. Contemporary Accounting Research 36: 2610–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kitchenham, Barbara. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering . Technical Report, Ver. 2.3. EBSE. Staffordshire: Keele University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokina, Julia, Ruben Mancha, and Dessislava Pachamanova. 2017. Blockchain: Emergent industry adoption and implications for accounting. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14: 91–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, Van Thanh, Claus Pahl, Nabil El Ioini, and Gianfranco D’Atri. 2019. Enabling Financial Reports Transparency and Trustworthiness using Blockchain Technology. International Journal on Advances in Securiity 12: 236–47. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Pahl/publication/338622025_Enabling_Financial_Reports_Transparency_and_Trustworthiness_using_Blockchain_Technology/links/5e2008b6a6fdcc10156c35f5/Enabling-Financial-Reports-Transparency-and-Trustworthiness-using- (accessed on 28 March 2024).
• Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C. Gøtzsche, John PA Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Philip J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6: e1000100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, Chunhui, Xin Robert Luo, and Fu Lee Wang. 2017. An empirical investigation on the impact of XBRL adoption on information asymmetry: Evidence from Europe. Decision Support Systems 93: 42–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lombardi, Rosa, and Giustina Secundo. 2020. The digital transformation of corporate reporting–a systematic literature review and avenues for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research 29: 1179–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Yang. 2018. Blockchain and the related issues: A review of current research topics. Journal of Management Analytics 5: 231–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mainelli, Michael, and Mike Smith. 2015. Sharing Ledgers for Sharing Economies: An Exploration of Mutual Distributed Ledgers (Aka Blockchain Technology). Journal of Financial Perspectives 3: 38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maiti, Moinak, Ivan Kotliarov, and Vitalii Lipatnikov. 2021. A future triple entry accounting framework using blockchain technology. Blockchain: Research and Applications 2: 100037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mashayekhy, Yasaman, Amir Babaei, Xue-Ming Yuan, and Anrong Xue. 2022. Impact of Internet of Things (IoT) on Inventory Management: A Literature Survey. Logistics 6: 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Massaro, Maurizio, John Dumay, and James Guthrie. 2016. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 29: 767–801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayapada, Arung Gihna, Muhammad Afdhal, and Rahmi Syafitri. 2020. Earnings Management in the Pre and Post eXtensible Business Reporting Language Period in Indonesia. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research 23: 29–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, Qingfei, Yangguang Lu, Zhiyong Liu, Chao Su, and Bo Wang. 2019. Machine Learning based Digital Twin Framework for Production Optimization in Petrochemical Industry. International Journal of Information Management 49: 502–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mistry, Ishan, Sudeep Tanwar, Sudhanshu Tyagi, and Neeraj Kumar. 2020. Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for industrial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 135: 106382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and T. PRISMA Group*. 2009. Reprint-Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moll, Jodie, and Ogan Yigitbasioglu. 2019. The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. British Accounting Review 51: 100833. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muthulakshmi, S., and R. Chitra. 2022. IoT technologies, applications and challenges, blockchain and its role in IoT: A survey. International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions 12: 321–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available online: https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2024).
• Nord, Jeretta Horn, Alex Koohang, and Joanna Paliszkiewicz. 2019. The Internet of Things: Review and theoretical framework. Expert Systems with Applications 133: 97–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Leary, Daniel E. 2017. Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 24: 138–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palas, Rimona, and Amos Baranes. 2019. Making investment decisions using XBRL filing data. Accounting Research Journal 32: 587–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palmaccio, Matteo, Grazia Dicuonzo, and Zhanna S. Belyaeva. 2021. The internet of things and corporate business models: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research 131: 610–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, Justin, and Alex Rialp Criado. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review 29: 101717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Payne, Rick. 2019. The Internet of Things and Accounting: Lessons from China . London: ICAEW thought Leadership Business and Management Faculty. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, Gareth W., and Efstathios Panayi. 2016. Understanding Modern Banking Ledgers through Blockchain Technologies: Future of Transaction Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money . New Economic Windows. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilkington, Marc. 2016. Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. In Research Handbook on Digital Transformations . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinsker, Robert, and Shaomin Li. 2008. Costs and benefits of XBRL adoption: Early evidence. Communications of the ACM 51: 47–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pizzi, Simone, Andrea Caputo, Andrea Venturelli, and Fabio Caputo. 2022. Embedding and managing blockchain in sustainability reporting: A practical framework. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 13: 545–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romney, Marshall, Paul Steinbart, Joseph Mula, Ray McNamara, and Trevor Tonkin. 2012. Accounting Information Systems Australasian Edition . Frenchs Forest: Pearson Higher Education AU. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roszkowska, Paulina. 2021. Fintech in financial reporting and audit for fraud prevention and safeguarding equity investments. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 17: 164–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rozario, Andrea M., and Chanta Thomas. 2019. Reengineering the audit with blockchain and smart contracts. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 21–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruan, Lei, Heng Liu, and Sang-Bing Jason Tsai. 2021. XBRL Adoption and Capital Market Information Efficiency. Journal of Global Information Management 29: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salah, Khaled, M. Habib Ur Rehman, Nishara Nizamuddin, and Ala Al-Fuqaha. 2019. Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges. IEEE Access 7: 10127–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saraiva, Helena IB, and Paulo AA Vieira. 2023. Accounting systems with smart contracts: Building accounting records in blockchain step by step. In Accounting and Financial Reporting Challenges for Government, Non-Profits, and the Private Sector . Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 58–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmitz, Jana, and Giulia Leoni. 2019. Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda. Australian Accounting Review 29: 331–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serag, Asmaa. 2022. A proposed framework for integrating XBRL and blockchain to improve financial reporting transparency and integrity: XBRL Chain. Scientific Journal of Financial and Commercial Studies and Research 3: 497–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shapovalova, Alla, Olena Kuzmenko, Oleh Polishchuk, Tetyana Larikova, and Zoriana Myronchuk. 2023. Modernisation of the National Accounting and Auditing System Using Digital Transformation Tools. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 4: 33–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sherif, Karma, and Hania Mohsin. 2021. The effect of emergent technologies on accountant`s ethical blindness. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 21: 61–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Li. 2022. Construction of Accounting Internal Control Management Platform Based on IoT Cloud Computing. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2022: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swan, Melanie. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis . Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, Boon Seng, and Kin Yew Low. 2019. Blockchain as the Database Engine in the Accounting System. Australian Accounting Review 29: 312–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tawiah, Vincent, and Hela Borg. 2022. Impact of XBRL adoption on financial reporting quality: A global evidence. Accounting Research Journal 35: 815–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thies, Simon, Marko Kureljusic, Erik Karger, and Thilo Krämer. 2023. Blockchain-Based Triple-Entry Accounting: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Information Systems 37: 101–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thorpe, Richard, Robin Holt, Allan Macpherson, and Luke Pittaway. 2005. Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 7: 257–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uckelmann, Dieter, and Mark Harrison. 2010. Integrated billing mechanisms in the Internet of Things to support information sharing and enable new business opportunities. International Journal of RF Technologies: Research and Applications 2: 73–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valentinetti, Diego, and Francisco Flores Muñoz. 2021. Internet of things: Emerging impacts on digital reporting. Journal of Business Research 131: 549–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Niekerk, Anja, and Riaan Rudman. 2019. Risks, controls and governance associated with internet of things technologies on accounting information. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research 21: 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varriale, Vincenzo, Antonello Cammarano, Francesca Michelino, and Mauro Caputo. 2023. Integrating blockchain, RFID and IoT within a cheese supply chain: A cost analysis. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 34: 100486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahab, Z. Abd. 2019. Integrating XBRL and Block Chain to Improve Corporate Transparency Integrity and Availability in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1194–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Xiongyuan, Luofan Bu, and Xuan Peng. 2021. Internet of things adoption, earnings management, and resource allocation efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Studies 9: 333–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Yunsen, and Alexander Kogan. 2018. Designing confidentiality-preserving Blockchain-based transaction processing systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 30: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Zhenkun, and Simon S. Gao. 2012. Are XBRL-based Financial Reports Better than Non-XBRL Reports? A Quality Assessment. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 6: 511–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, Richard T., and Jane Webster. 2020. Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. Journal of Decision Systems 29: 129–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26: xiii–xxiii. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Jiapeng, Feng Xiong, and Cheng Li. 2019. Application of internet of things and blockchain technologies to improve accounting information quality. IEEE Access 7: 100090–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Zhiliang. 2017. A Comparative Study on the Architecture Internet of Things and its’ Implementation method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 81: 012192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yermack, David. 2017. Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance 21: 7–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoon, Hyungwook, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek. 2011. Does XBRL adoption reduce information asymmetry? Journal of Business Research 64: 157–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Ting, Zhiwei Lin, and Qingliang Tang. 2018. Blockchain: The Introduction and Its Application in Financial Accounting. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 29: 37–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zghaibeh, Manaf. 2023. A Blockchain-Based, Smart Contract and IoT-Enabled Recycling System. The Journal of The British Blockchain Association 7: 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Fan, Ethan Cecchetti, Kyle Croman, Ari Juels, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Town crier: An authenticated data feed for smart contracts. Paper presented at ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Yanan, Yuyan Guan, and Jeong-Bon Kim. 2019. XBRL adoption and expected crash risk. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 38: 31–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Yu, and Jiangtao Wen. 2017. The IoT electric business model: Using blockchain technology for the internet of things. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 10: 983–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Yuan, and Cuiping Guan. 2023. Research on the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Real Earnings Management of Listed Companies. Open Journal of Accounting 12: 85–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Nofel, M.; Marzouk, M.; Elbardan, H.; Saleh, R.; Mogahed, A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2024 , 17 , 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel M, Marzouk M, Elbardan H, Saleh R, Mogahed A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management . 2024; 17(8):372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel, Mohamed, Mahmoud Marzouk, Hany Elbardan, Reda Saleh, and Aly Mogahed. 2024. "Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17, no. 8: 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 1249 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Reliant's paper-scouring AI takes on science's data drudgery

AI models have proven capable of many things, but what tasks do we actually want them doing? Preferably drudgery — and there's plenty of that in research and academia. Reliant hopes to specialize in the kind of time-consuming data extraction work that's currently a specialty of tired grad students and interns.

"The best thing you can do with AI is improve the human experience: reduce menial labor and let people do the things that are important to them," said CEO Karl Moritz Hermann. In the research world, where he and co-founders Marc Bellemare and Richard Schlegel have worked for years, literature review is one of the most common examples of this "menial labor."

Every paper cites previous and related work, but finding these sources in the sea of science is not easy. And some, like systematic reviews, cite or use data from thousands.

For one study , Hermann recalled, "The authors had to look at 3,500 scientific publications, and a lot of them ended up not being relevant. It's a ton of time spent extracting a tiny amount of useful information — this felt like something that really ought to be automated by AI."

They knew that modern language models could do it: One experiment put ChatGPT on the task and found that it was able to extract data with an 11% error rate. Like many things LLMs can do, it's impressive but nothing like what people actually need.

"That's just not good enough," said Hermann. "For these knowledge tasks, menial as they may be, it's very important that you don't make mistakes."

Reliant's core product, Tabular, is based on an LLM in part (Llama 3.1), but augmented with other proprietary techniques, is considerably more effective. On the multi-thousand-study extraction above, they said it did the same task with zero errors.

What that means is you dump a thousand documents in, say you want this, that, and the other data out of them, and Reliant pores through them and finds that information — whether it's perfectly labeled and structured or (far more likely) it isn't. Then it pops all that data and any analyses you wanted done into a nice UI so you can dive down into individual cases.

"Our users need to be able to work with all the data all at once, and we're building features to allow them to edit the data that's there, or go from the data to the literature; we see our role as helping the users find where to spend their attention," Hermann said.

This tailored and effective application of AI — not as splashy as a digital friend but almost certainly much more viable — could accelerate science across a number of highly technical domains. Investors have taken note, funding an $11.3 million seed round; Tola Capital and Inovia Capital led the round, with angel Mike Volpi participating.

Like any application of AI, Reliant's tech is very compute-intensive, which is why the company has bought its own hardware rather than renting it a la carte from one of the big providers. Going in-house with hardware offers both risk and reward: You have to make these expensive machines pay for themselves, but you get the chance to crack open the problem space with dedicated compute.

"One thing that we've found is it's very challenging to give a good answer if you have limited time to give that answer," Hermann explained — for instance, if a scientist asks the system to perform a novel extraction or analysis task on a hundred papers. It can be done quickly, or well, but not both — unless they predict what users might ask and figure out the answer, or something like it, ahead of time.

"The thing is, a lot of people have the same questions, so we can find the answers before they ask, as a starting point," said Bellemare, the startup's chief science officer. "We can distill 100 pages of text into something else, that may not be exactly what you want, but it's easier for us to work with."

Think about it this way: If you were going to extract the meaning from a thousand novels, would you wait until someone asked for the characters' names to go through and grab them? Or would you just do that work ahead of time (along with things like locations, dates, relationships, etc.) knowing the data would likely be wanted? Certainly the latter — if you had the compute to spare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR56kMZ9ezI

This pre-extraction also gives the models time to resolve the inevitable ambiguities and assumptions found in different scientific domains. When one metric "indicates" another, it may not mean the same thing in pharmaceuticals as it does in pathology or clinical trials. Not only that, but language models tend to give different outputs depending on how they're asked certain questions. So Reliant's job has been to turn ambiguity into certainty — "and this is something you can only do if you're willing to invest in a particular science or domain," Hermann noted.

As a company, Reliant's first focus is on establishing that the tech can pay for itself before attempting anything more ambitious. "In order to make interesting progress, you have to have a big vision but you also need to start with something concrete," said Hermann. "From a startup survival point of view, we focus on for-profit companies, because they give us money to pay for our GPUs. We're not selling this at a loss to customers."

One might expect the firm to feel the heat from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, which are pouring money into handling more structured tasks like database management and coding, or from implementation partners like Cohere and Scale. But Bellemare was optimistic: "We're building this on a groundswell — any improvement in our tech stack is great for us. The LLM is one of maybe eight large machine learning models in there — the others are fully proprietary to us, made from scratch on data propriety to us."

The transformation of the biotech and research industry into an AI-driven one is certainly only beginning and may be fairly patchwork for years to come. But Reliant seems to have found a strong footing to start from.

"If you want the 95% solution, and you just apologize profusely to one of your customers once in a while, great," said Hermann. "We're for where precision and recall really matter, and where mistakes really matter. And frankly, that's enough; we're happy to leave the rest to others."

(This story originally had Hermann's name incorrect — my own error, I have changed it throughout.)