research papers literature review

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.

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

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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 12, 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

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).

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.

• Study Background & Introduction
• How to write…

How to write the literature review of your research paper

Nov 29, 2018

Many researchers struggle when it comes to writing literature review for their research paper. A literature review is a comprehensive overview of all the knowledge available on a specific topic till date. When you decide on a research topic, usually the first step you take in the direction of conducting research is learn more about the previous research published on the topic, and this eventually translates into literature review when you write your research paper. Literature review is one of the pillars on which your research idea stands since it provides context, relevance, and background to the research problem you are exploring.  

Types of literature review

Literature reviews can be categorized as experimental and theoretical. Experimental literature review basically refers to surveying all the information available on a particular topic and critically analyzing the gaps that need to be worked upon. In this sense, it essentially forms the first experiment of any research project. The more extensive the review, the more precise and systematic the research project will be. Therefore, it is one of the most critical parts of one’s research.

Theoretical literature review essentially involves two steps: 

• Surveying and critically reading the existing literature: this step is commonly referred to as experimental literature review.
• Summarizing and actually penning down the gist of your review in an organized manner: this is known as theoretical review.

Literature review could be a part of a dissertation or research article and a stand-alone literature review. Let us look at this in more detail.

Literature reviews for dissertation/research article

Every research report/ thesis/research article begins with an introduction to the topic of research. This forms the literature review for the article. The main purpose of the review is to introduce the readers to the need for conducting the said research. A literature review should begin with a thorough literature search using the main keywords in relevant online databases such as Google Scholar , PubMed , etc. Once all the relevant literature has been gathered, it should be organized as follows:

• Background literature about the broad research topic to introduce the readers to the field of study.
• Recent progress on the study topic which can be organized thematically or chronologically. Ideally, separate themes should be discussed in a chronological manner to describe how research in the field has evolved over time and to highlight the progress in the field.
• The review should include a comparison and contrast of different studies. Discussing the controversial aspects helps to identify the main gaps that need to be worked upon. This is essential for defining the problem statement of the study and highlighting the significance of the research under question.
• Once a problem statement has been defined, the strengths and pitfalls of other studies that have tackled the problem statement should be discussed. This is important for outlining the need and novelty of the research.

A literature review should not be a mere recounting of all the available information. It should be a critical and analytical summary of the selected literature that guides the readers through the central theme of the research.

Does your publication goal seem near yet too far? Explore the #POWERofMORE – the boost you need to achieve all your goals Click here to know more!   

Stand-alone literature reviews

Literature reviews can also be written as stand-alone articles. These are not different from the literature review sections described above; however, they are not followed by experimental data.

They basically fall into 2 broad categories: narrative reviews and systematic reviews.

1. Narrative reviews

These are theoretical discussions of relevant information on a particular topic and its critical analysis. These are mostly qualitative in nature similar to the review sections of larger articles.

Narrative reviews are usually organized as follows:

Introduction that establishes the context of the field of research and the topic of the review

Body is normally used for describing the different themes under the main topic by dividing them into different subheadings. This section compares and contrasts published studies and identifies gaps that have not been addressed or have been unsuccessfully addressed.

Conclusions. This section differs slightly between reviews which are part of research articles and narrative reviews. The section describes the main conclusions from analysis of all the current studies and puts forth further avenues for research. This section requires critical interpretation by the author such that the review adds value to existing literature. It should bring out ideas/hypotheses that can explain any discrepancies and provide solutions to existing problems.

2. Systematic reviews

On the other hand, systematic reviews follow a well-planned methodology to qualitatively or quantitatively analyze a defined number of studies. They usually focus on a single question and have clear study objectives that are worked upon in a systematic manner. These studies are based on a well-defined strategy unlike narrative reviews. Systematic reviews and narrative reviews are organized slightly differently. The details are described below:

Introduction: Systematic reviews begin with specific research questions that are defined in terms of the samples and research outcomes to be studied.

Methods (only for systematic reviews):  These studies have a comprehensive methodology that starts by narrowing down the literature for the review. Usually, specific inclusion/exclusion criteria are set based on the research questions and databases are searched based on these criteria. Once the sample studies have been shortlisted, they are analyzed in detail.

Results: The results section for these studies involves comprehensive data analysis to determine the significance of the study outcomes. Systematic reviews can be accompanied with Meta-analysis which involves statistical analysis of the included studies to increase the power of the results.

Discussion: This section usually interprets the study data based on their weighted significance and the power of the results. The study therefore provides strengthened results that are validated by the scientific rigor of the analytical method.

Before starting to write a review, it is important to determine what kind of review you want to write and follow the appropriate style and guidelines. An effective literature review is important for the complete life cycle of a research from defining the right research goals to correctly interpreting and presenting the research results.

If you wish to learn in more depth how to conduct literature search, check out this course designed exclusively for researchers:  How to conduct an effective literature search and review .

• Literature Review

Rishibha Sachdev

Molecular biologist and published author with expertise in mammalian cell culture, immunofluorescence, biochemical and immunoassay

See more from Rishibha Sachdev

Found this useful?

If so, share it with your fellow researchers

Leave a Reply 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.

Related post

What skills do academic librarians need to..., what is a graphical abstract tips to..., journal citation reports 2024: some reflections, related reading, pnas: quick facts and submission tips, catch up with us at these upcoming academic conferences, how to use color palettes in scientific figures, what life is like on the science grind, 12 months of grad school.

Accelerating scientific advancement2002—2024 Cactus Communications. All Rights Reserved.

Icons made by various authors from www.flaticon.com

Filter by a topic

• Books & Tools
• Becoming a Peer Reviewer
• Career Advice for Researchers
• Collaboration and networking
• Presentation skills
• Project Management
• Plain Language Summaries
• Promoting your Research
• Public Engagement
• Video & Graphical Abstracts
• Funding Sources
• Grant Application
• Authorship in Research
• Literature Search
• Planning to Write
• Research Ethics
• Statement of the Problem
• Data Analysis
• Data Storage & Management
• AI & Digital Transformation
• Maximizing Impact
• Research Integrity
• Researcher Engagement
• Trends in Scholarly Publishing
• Journal Selection Tips
• Presubmission Inquiry
• Understanding the Impact Factor
• Avoiding Predatory Publishers
• Open Access & Subscription Models
• Rapid Publication
• Dealing with Rejection
• Reasons for Rejection
• Dealing with Retraction
• Reasons for Retraction
• Duplicate Submission
• Ethical Declarations
• Submission Process
• Basics of Peer Review
• Responding to Peer Reviewers
• Manuscript Status
• Manuscript Withdrawal
• Queries to the Editor
• Grammar & Language
• Plagiarism in Research
• Style & Format
• Publication Support Services
• References & Acknowledgements
• Results & Discussion
• Tables & Figures
• Title, Abstract & keywords
• Research Culture
• Researcher Wellness
• Industry Interviews
• Industry News
• Industry Trends
• Peer Review Week 2020
• Trending Research
• Around the web
• Our Publication Showcase
• Resources for Editors
• Showcasing Research Impact

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

• 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 Findings – Types Examples and Writing...

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

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/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

How to win funding to talk about your science

Career Feature 15 AUG 24

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

Career Column 14 AUG 24

‘Who will protect us from seeing the world’s largest rainforest burn?’ The mental exhaustion faced by climate scientists

Career Feature 12 AUG 24

The need for equity in Brazilian scientific funding

Correspondence 13 AUG 24

Canadian graduate-salary boost will only go to a select few

A hike of postdoc salary alone will not retain the best researchers in low- or middle-income countries

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

Why I’ve removed journal titles from the papers on my CV

Career Column 09 AUG 24

Scientists are falling victim to deepfake AI video scams — here’s how to fight back

Career Feature 07 AUG 24

Postdoctoral Fellow in Epigenetics/RNA Biology in the Lab of Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf

Van Andel Institute’s (VAI) Professor Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf, Ph.D. is hiring a Postdoctoral Fellow to join the lab and carry out an independent...

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Van Andel Institute

Faculty Positions in Center of Bioelectronic Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

SLS invites applications for multiple tenure-track/tenured faculty positions at all academic ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Positions, Aging and Neurodegeneration, Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine

Applicants with expertise in aging and neurodegeneration and related areas are particularly encouraged to apply.

Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine (WLLSB)

Faculty Positions in Chemical Biology, Westlake University

We are seeking outstanding scientists to lead vigorous independent research programs focusing on all aspects of chemical biology including...

Assistant Professor Position in Genomics

The Lewis-Sigler Institute at Princeton University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in Genomics.

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, US

The Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

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.

• 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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Something went wrong when searching for seed articles. Please try again soon.

No articles were found for that search term.

Author, year The title of the article goes here

LITERATURE REVIEW SOFTWARE FOR BETTER RESEARCH

“Litmaps is a game changer for finding novel literature... it has been invaluable for my productivity.... I also got my PhD student to use it and they also found it invaluable, finding several gaps they missed”

Varun Venkatesh

Austin Health, Australia

As a full-time researcher, Litmaps has become an indispensable tool in my arsenal. The Seed Maps and Discover features of Litmaps have transformed my literature review process, streamlining the identification of key citations while revealing previously overlooked relevant literature, ensuring no crucial connection goes unnoticed. A true game-changer indeed!

Ritwik Pandey

Doctoral Research Scholar – Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

Using Litmaps for my research papers has significantly improved my workflow. Typically, I start with a single paper related to my topic. Whenever I find an interesting work, I add it to my search. From there, I can quickly cover my entire Related Work section.

David Fischer

Research Associate – University of Applied Sciences Kempten

“It's nice to get a quick overview of related literature. Really easy to use, and it helps getting on top of the often complicated structures of referencing”

Christoph Ludwig

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

“This has helped me so much in researching the literature. Currently, I am beginning to investigate new fields and this has helped me hugely”

Aran Warren

Canterbury University, NZ

“I can’t live without you anymore! I also recommend you to my students.”

Professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“Seeing my literature list as a network enhances my thinking process!”

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

“Incredibly useful tool to get to know more literature, and to gain insight in existing research”

KU Leuven, Belgium

“As a student just venturing into the world of lit reviews, this is a tool that is outstanding and helping me find deeper results for my work.”

Franklin Jeffers

South Oregon University, USA

“Any researcher could use it! The paper recommendations are great for anyone and everyone”

Swansea University, Wales

“This tool really helped me to create good bibtex references for my research papers”

Ali Mohammed-Djafari

Director of Research at LSS-CNRS, France

“Litmaps is extremely helpful with my research. It helps me organize each one of my projects and see how they relate to each other, as well as to keep up to date on publications done in my field”

Daniel Fuller

Clarkson University, USA

As a person who is an early researcher and identifies as dyslexic, I can say that having research articles laid out in the date vs cite graph format is much more approachable than looking at a standard database interface. I feel that the maps Litmaps offers lower the barrier of entry for researchers by giving them the connections between articles spaced out visually. This helps me orientate where a paper is in the history of a field. Thus, new researchers can look at one of Litmap's "seed maps" and have the same information as hours of digging through a database.

Baylor Fain

Postdoctoral Associate – University of Florida

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena 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 to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

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 to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of 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 of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Peer Review
• Citation/Style Guides This link opens in a new window

Quick Links

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a methodical examination of the published literature on a specific topic or research question, aimed at analyzing rather than merely summarizing scholarly works relevant to your research . It includes literature that offers background on your topic and demonstrates how it aligns with your research question.

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

• To help define the focus of your research topic.
• To identify existing research in your area of interest, pinpoint gaps in the existing literature, and avoid duplicating previous research.
• To gain an understanding of past and current research as well as the current developments and controversies in your field of interest.
• To recognize and assess the strengths and weaknesses of works related to your area of interest.
• To evaluate the contributions of experts, theoretical approaches, methodologies, results, conclusions, and possible opportunities for future research.

A Literature Review is NOT

• An annotated bibliography or research paper
• A collection of broad, unrelated sources
• Everything that has been written on a particular topic
• Literature criticism or a book review.

Literature Review vs Annotated Bibliography

A literature review and an annotated bibliography are both tools used to assess and present scholarly research, but they serve different purposes and have distinct formats:

Where Can I Find a Lit Review?

The Literature Review portion of a scholarly article is usually close to the beginning. It often follows the introduction , or may be combined with the introduction. The writer may discuss his or her research question first, or may choose to explain it while surveying previous literature.

If you are lucky, there will be a section heading that includes " literature review ".  If not, look for the section of the article with the most citations or footnotes .

• Next: Steps for Conducting a Lit Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 5:23 PM
• URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/literaturereview

Writing the Literature Review

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

• The Literature Review

What is the Purpose of the Review?

What is the scope of the review, strategies for getting started, types of literature reviews, composition guidelines, how to locate reviews by discipline, key takeaways.

We also provide the following activities:

Types of Literature Reviews [Refresher]

Writing the literature review [refresher], the literature review [1].

Conducting a literary studies research project involves time and effort, with much of it going towards the development of a literature review . A literature review might fill several pages of your research paper and usually appears soon after an introduction but before you present your detailed argument. A literature review provides your audience with an overview of the available research about your area(s) of study, including the literary work, your theory, and methodology. The literature review demonstrates how these scholarly discussions have changed over time, and it allows you to position your research in relation to research that has come before yours. Your aim is to present the discussion up to this point. Depending on the nature of the assignment, you may also include your critical commentary on prior research, noting among this material the weaker and stronger arguments, breakthroughs and dead ends, blind spots and opportunities, the invention of key terms and methods, mistakes as well as misreadings, and so on.

Once you have gathered the research materials you need for your literature review, you have another task: conducting an analysis on the research to see where your original contribution fits into the scholarly conversation. As the saying goes, “we are standing on the shoulders of giants.” Your job is to show a portrait of these giants to your audience, and to show how your work relates to the portrait. On many scholarly topics, literature reviews already exist. You may refer to such existing reviews within your own, indicating any materials might have been overlooked, new developments that have arisen since the publication of the existing literature review, and new perspectives or insights you have about the materials.

Some beginning researchers try to tear down the work of other researchers in an effort to make their own work look good by comparison. It rarely works. First, it tends to make your audience skeptical of your claims. Second, it ignores the fact that even the mistakes, blind spots, and failures of other researchers contribute something to our knowledge. Albert Einstein didn’t disrespect Sir Isaac Newton by saying Newton’s theory of space was wrong and terrible and that Einstein’s own theory was great by comparison. He built upon Newton’s work, showing how it could be improved. If, however, a researcher willfully set out to deceive or distort or to tear down the work of other scholars without good reason, then their work does not deserve such deference.

Most literature reviews appear after the introduction. It presents your reader with relevant information about the scholarly discussion up to now. Later in your paper, you discuss your contribution. Before you begin work on your literature review, let’s discuss what we mean by “literature”; understand the purpose and scope of the review; establish criteria for selecting, organizing, and interpreting your findings; and discuss how to connect your findings to your research question.

Many students seek to “find sources that agree with my claim or idea.” That approach is too narrow, in our view. If we use such an approach, we may get the following results:

• Because we can find sources that agree with almost any claim, readers will wonder whether your claims are weak and the sources are cherry picked.
• While literary scholars sometimes cite authorities to support their claims, they don’t rely only on authority. They respect authority, but not too much. Your own claims need to rely more on evidence (from the literary text, historical and biographical information), and your critical and creative reasoning skills.
• Scholarship is a conversation; thus, the goal is less about finding agreement and more about joining the conversation with the aim of making a valuable contribution to the discussion.

The literature review provides your reader with an overview of the existing research about your topic or problem. It provides the context necessary for your reader to catch up with the scholarly conversation and then to appreciate the value of your contribution to it. The literature review sharpens the focus of your research and demonstrates your knowledge and understanding of the scholarly conversation around your topic, which, in turn, helps establish your credibility as a researcher.

Creating the literature review involves more than gathering citations. It is a qualitative process through which you will discover what is already known about your topic, and identify the key authorities, methods, and theoretical foundations, so you can begin to position your contributions within the scholarly conversation.

Defining the scope of your review will also help you establish criteria to determine the relevance of the sources you are finding. At this stage, you are not reading in-depth; instead, you are skimming through what has already been published and identifying the major concepts, theories, methodologies, and methods present within these published works. You should also be identifying connections, tensions, and contradictions within the already published works of your topic or problem. This involves building on the knowledge of others and understanding what methods, measures, and models we have inherited from previous researchers in our field.

Literature Reviews: Common Errors Made When Conducting a Literature Review [12 min 22 sec]

Video provided courtesy of the Center for Quality Research (CQR)

A literature review helps your reader understand the relationship of your research project to the work of other scholars. It covers the existing knowledge about a problem, and allows you to show the relevance/significance of your contribution to the discussion. Your reader may or may not have read scholarly literature about the theories, methodologies, and literary works you are discussing. But they want to know that you have read it and have thought about it. Your literature review provides not only a summary of the existing scholarship for readers; it also offers your perspective on it.

Begin your work on the literature review by synthesizing the various sources in your annotated bibliography .

For advice on Synthesizing Sources, consider the following from The Purdue Online Writing Lab: [2]

Note that  synthesizing is not the same as summarizing .

• A summary restates the information in one or more sources without providing new insight or reaching new conclusions.
• A synthesis draws on multiple sources to reach a broader conclusion.
• Don’t force a relationship between sources if there isn’t one. Not all of your sources have to complement one another.
• Do your best to highlight the relationships between sources in very clear ways.
• Don’t ignore any outliers in your research. It’s important to take note of every perspective (even those that disagree with your broader conclusions).

Not all humanities research projects contain literature reviews, but many do. Keep in mind that the type of literature review you choose (see list below) pertains to the secondary research – other scholarly sources – and not to the primary literary work. For instance, a literature review about Kate Chopin’s writing will be your thoughts about the scholarship on Chopin and not about Chopin’s text itself. You are summarizing what you see in the scholarly literature about Chopin’s writing. The literature review puts you in the position of authority not just on Chopin’s writing but on the scholarship about her writing. You are seeking to understand what scholars have said about her work. Scholars might belong to different schools of thought (psychoanalytic, feminist, Marxist, etc.). They might make different arguments about Chopin. They might use different methodological approaches. 

If your research involves two or more theories, such as psychology and genre studies, you may need to create multiple literature reviews, one for each theory or methodology. If the theories overlap with each other significantly (i.e., Marxism and Cultural Studies), you may combine them. Your literature review need not include everything about the subject area – you would need to write a book to cover a single theory – but only those concepts and methods that are most relevant to your research problem.

Factors to Consider When Developing Your Literature Review

• Determine the Scope : How broad or narrow should your literature review be? You may want to focus on recent scholarship only, or on a particular school of thought in the literature. Your scope is determined by your purpose; what is it you aim to achieve with your research?
• Establish Criteria : We discussed the importance of defining the purpose and scope of your review on the previous page, but it’s worth reviewing here as well. This step will help you establish important criteria and focus your searching. For example, how many sources will you need? What types of sources (primary, secondary, statistics, media)? Is currency important? Do you know who the prominent authors or theorists are in your subject area? Take some time to map out these or other important factors before you begin searching journals and databases.
• Consider Your Audience : Unlike a work cited page or an annotated bibliography, both of which are lists of sources, a literature review is essayistic and can be considered a precursor to your final paper. Therefore, it should be written in your own voice, and it should be geared toward a specific audience. Considering audience during this early stage will help focus your final paper as well.
• Find Models : We’ll discuss the different types of literature reviews and how to locate examples in the section below. However, even if you’re undecided about what type of review will work best for you, you may want to review some example literature reviews to get a sense of what they look like before you begin your own.

One piece of advice before starting: look for existing literature reviews on your area of scholarship. You can build on the work that other scholars have put into reviewing the scholarly literature. There’s no need to completely “reinvent the wheel” if some of the work is already done.

Scholars sometimes publish “stand-alone” literature reviews that are not part of a larger work; such literature reviews are valuable contributions to the field, as they summarize the state of knowledge for other scholars.

Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth’s “A Typology of Reviews” identifies 14 distinct types of literature reviews. Further, the UCLA library created a chart to complement the article and for easy comparison of those 14 types of reviews. This section provides a brief summary of the most common literature reviews. For a more complete analysis, please see the full article and the chart .

To choose the most appropriate structure, put yourself in your reader’s shoes and think through their need for information. The literature review is about providing context for your contribution. How much context do people need? Keep it to the minimum necessary; compressing a lot of information into a small amount of text is a must.

These structures are not meant to be straightjackets but tools to help you organize your research. If you find that the tool is working, then keep using it. If not, switch tools or modify the one you are using. Keep in mind that the types of literature reviews are just different ways of organizing information. So, you can discuss literary trends without organizing your review of secondary literature by trend; your discussion can be organized by theory or theme, for examples. In our literature reviews, we are not recounting other scholars’ arguments at length but merely providing key concepts so we can summarize the discussion so far and position our own claims. You don’t have to adhere strictly to one structure or another. They are just organizing tools that help you manage your material (and help your reader make sense of it).

Types of Reviews

• Traditional or narrative reviews : This approach will generate a comprehensive, critical analysis of the published research on your topic. However, rather than merely compiling as many sources as possible, use this approach to establish a theoretical framework for your paper, establish trends, and identify gaps in the research. This process should bring your research question into clearer focus and help define a thesis that you will argue for in your paper. This is perhaps the most common and general type of literature review. The examples listed below are all designed to serve a more specific purpose.
• Argumentative : The purpose of an argumentative literature review is to select sources for the purpose of supporting or refuting a specific claim. While this type of review can help the author make a strong case for or against an issue, they can also be prone to claims of bias. Later in this textbook, we will read about the distinction between warranted and unwarranted bias . One is ok and the other is not.
• Chronological : A chronological review is used when the author wants to demonstrate the progression of how a theory, methodology, or issue has progressed over time. This method is most effective when there is a clear chronological path to the research about a specific historical event or trend as opposed to a more recursive theoretical concept.
• By trend : This is similar to the chronological approach except it focuses on clearly-defined trends rather than date ranges. This would be most appropriate if you want to illustrate changing perspectives or attitudes about a given issue when specific date ranges are less important than the ebb and flow of the trend.
• Thematic : In this type of literature review, the author will select specific themes that he or she feels are important to understanding a larger topic or concept. Then, the author will organize the sources around those themes, which are often based on relevance or importance. The value of this method is that the process of organizing the review by theme is similar to constructing an argument. This can help the author see how resources connect to each other and determine how as well as why specific sources support their thesis.
• Theoretical : The goal of this type of review is to examine how theory has shaped the research on a given topic. It establishes existing theoretical models, their connections, and how extensively they have been developed in the published research. For example, Jada applied critical race theory to her analysis of Sonny’s Blues , but she might also consider conducting a more comprehensive review of other theoretical frameworks such as feminism, Marxism, or postmodernism. Doing so could provide insight into alternate readings, and help her identify theoretical gaps such as unexplored or under-developed approaches to Baldwin’s work.
• Methodological : The approach focuses on the various methodologies used by researchers in a specific area rather than an analysis of their findings. In this case, you would create a framework of approaches to data collection related to your topic or research question. This is perhaps more common in education or the social and hard sciences where published research often includes a methods section, but it is sometimes appropriate for the digital humanities as well.
• Scoping : The aim of a scoping review is to provide a comprehensive overview or map of the published research or evidence related to a research question. This might be considered a prelude to a systematic review that would take the scoping review one step further toward answering a clearly defined research question. See below for more details.
• Systematic : The systematic review is most appropriate when you have a clearly-defined research question and have established criteria for the types of sources you need. In this way, the systematic review is less exploratory than other types of reviews. Rather, it is comprehensive, strategic, and focused on answering a specific research question. For this reason, the systematic review is more common in the health and social sciences, where comprehensiveness is more important. Literature reviews in the Humanities are not usually exhaustive but tend to show only the most representative or salient developments in the scholarship.
• Meta-analysis : Does your research deal with statistics or large amounts of data? If so, then a meta-analysis might be best for you rather than providing a critical review, the meta-analysis will summarize and synthesize the results of numerous studies that involve statistics or data to provide a more comprehensive picture than would be possible from just one study.

An argumentative literature review presents and takes sides in scholarly arguments about the literary work. It makes arguments about other scholars’ work. It does not necessarily involve a claim that the literary work is itself making an argument. Likewise, a chronological literature review presents the scholarly literature in chronological order.

You don’t need to keep strictly to one type. Scholars often combine features from various types of literature reviews. A sample review that combines the follow types –

• Argumentative
• Theoretical
• Methodological

– is the excellent work of Eiranen, Reetta, Mari Hatavara, Ville Kivimäki, Maria Mäkelä & Raisa Maria Toivo (2022) “ Narrative and Experience: Interdisciplinary Methodologies between History and Narratology , ” Scandinavian Journal of History , 47:1, 1-15

When writing your literature review, please follow these pointers:

• Conduct systematic searches
• Use Evidence
• Be Selective
• Use Quotes Sparingly
• Summarize & Synthesize
• Use Caution when Paraphrasing
• Use Your Own Voice

Advice from James Mason University’s “Literature Reviews: An Overview”

A note on synthesizing : Don’t make the common mistake of summarizing individual studies or articles one after the other. The goal is to synthesize — that is, to make observations about groups of studies. Synthesis often uses language like this:

• Much of the literature on [topic x ] focuses on [major themes].
• In recent years, researchers have begun investigating [facets a , b , and c ] of [topic x ].
• The studies in this review of [topic x ] confirm / suggest / call into question / support [idea / practice / finding / method / theory / guideline y ].
• In the reviewed studies [variable x ] was generally associated with higher / lower rates of [outcome y ].
• A limitation of some / most / all of these studies is [ y ].

Please see this sample annotated literature review  from James Mason University.

Structure of a literature review [2]

• Problematization: The 2 to 3 pages of problematization are a distinct, iterative, step. It may take doing such a statement a few times before moving forward to writing the actual paper.
• Search: Write down your keyword sets, your updated keyword sets, and databases. It is perfectly within a reviewer’s rights to ask for these details.
• Summary: Really getting to know major themes requires some annotation of articles. You want to identify core papers and themes and write about them. This helps you really learn the material. [ChatGPT or Wikipedia are no substitute for deep engagement with a paper.]
• Argument: Either outline or create a slide deck that help you express the arguments in your paper. Read them out loud. Have friends look at them. Present them. [Every literature review has an argument. If not, it’s a summary. A summary does not merit publication in a top outlet.]
• Unpacking: Once you’ve nailed the short pitch, unpack the full argument. [ a) Take time in each major section to map out a) the argument, b) the supporting evidence, and the takeaway. b) Take those major sections, reconcile them, make sure they don’t overlap, then move on to writing. c) Sketch out the paper’s sections, tables, figures, and appendices.]
• Writing: Writing is the easy part. You can always put words to the screen. [Revising and improving is hard. Make time to write every day. Improving requires feedback. Find a writing partner to give feedback. Create your tables and figures. Write to them. Make sure the words in the paper align to the visuals.]
• Communicate: When the paper is done, go back and create a paper presentation. [I do this for the papers that I’m most serious about. The act of storyboarding helps me sort out the small pieces of the story that don’t fit together. If I really want it to succeed, I present it. The act of presenting helps me get it right. My best papers sometimes take seven or eight presentations to get it right. Then I return to the paper and fine tune it. Only then, does it have a shot at a top outlet.]

Literature reviews can be published as part of a scholarly article, often after the introduction and sometimes with a header, but they can also be published as a standalone essay. To find examples of what reviews look like in your discipline, choose an appropriate subject database (such as MLA for literary criticism) and conduct a keyword search with the term “Literature Review” added in quotes:

Not only do these examples demonstrate how to structure different types of literature reviews, but some offer insights into trends and directions for future research. In the next section, we’ll take a closer look at some reading strategies to help guide you through this process.

Since scholars already have produced literature reviews on various scholarly conversations, you don’t always need to “reinvent the wheel” (start a literature review from nothing). You can find a published literature review and update it or amend it; scholars do that all the time. However, you must properly cite work you incorporate from others.

• What types of literature review will you be using for your paper? Why did you make this selection over others? If you haven’t made a selection yet, which types are you considering?
• What specific challenges do you face in following a literature review structure?
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?
• In the “Back Matter” of this book, you will find a page titled “Rubrics.” On that page, we provide a rubric for Creating a Literature Review ↵
• Richard West, Brigham Young University, amended by Jason Thatcher, Temple University - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_academicwriting-topten2023-activity-7146507675021766656-BB0O ↵

Writing the Literature Review Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How and Where to Find Research Papers for Literature Reviews

The literature review is an integral part of the research process. Finding the correct research papers for a literature review can be a daunting task, especially for early career researchers. This is more so in the digital age, where the sheer quantum of research available can drown researchers who attempt to sift through case studies, journals, online platforms, repositories, and databases. Regardless of whether you are just starting a career in research or are a veteran in the field, looking for relevant sources for a literature review can be time-consuming and frustrating.

In this article, we will provide valuable tips and explore various resources to understand how to find research papers relevant to literature reviews efficiently.

Table of Contents

Academic Databases and Search Engines

To master how to find research papers, start with academic databases and search engines. Platforms such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Scopus are indispensable for accessing a diverse array of scholarly articles. Enhance your search effectiveness by using advanced search options, employing specific keywords, and exploring related terms. Understanding and using the subject headings or descriptors provided by these databases is crucial for honing in on the most relevant papers quickly.

Reference Lists and Citation Networks

An effective strategy for finding research papers lies within the reference lists of the papers you already have. These lists can be gateways to additional, highly relevant sources. Similarly, investigating citation networks—observing which papers have cited key articles in your field—can unveil contemporary studies and emerging perspectives.

Accessing University Libraries

University libraries are a primary source of information on where you can find research papers. They offer access to a wealth of research papers and journals, including databases like JSTOR and ScienceDirect, for those seeking free resources. Library catalogs are instrumental in finding papers by title, author, or subject, and librarians can provide expert navigation through these resources.

Engaging with Online Academic Platforms

Platforms such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, aside from being academic social networks, are valuable for finding research papers. They facilitate access to scholarly articles and enable researchers to share their work and connect with peers. Repositories like arXiv, bioRxiv, and SSRN provide early access to preprints across various disciplines, broadening your research scope.

Networking through Professional Associations and Conferences

For insights on where to find research papers, tap into professional associations and conferences. These platforms often grant members access to specialized publications and maintain online libraries of scholarly work. Conferences are also a goldmine for obtaining preprints or drafts of papers and for networking with fellow researchers.

Institutional Repositories

Institutional repositories are a go-to resource for finding research papers. These digital collections, hosted by academic institutions, offer open access to a variety of research outputs. Use keywords and subject categories to navigate these repositories for a rich selection of freely available scholarly material.

Government Reports and Policy Documents

Government agencies and research institutes are sometimes overlooked but can be significant sources of research papers. Their published reports and policy documents often include references to pertinent studies, providing valuable insights for your literature review.

By applying these expert strategies, you can streamline your search for relevant research papers. Remember, the quest is not just about where to find scientific articles; it’s about adopting a systematic and informed approach to locate the best resources. Utilizing targeted keywords, keeping abreast of the latest research, and exploring various sources will immensely enhance the quality of your literature reviews.

References:  

• https://www.academictransfer.com/en/blog/how-to-find-papers-when-you-do-your-literature-review/  
• https://www.scribendi.com/academy/articles/free_online_journal_and_research_databases.en.html  

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading app that uses your interests to instantly create personalized reading feeds. Researchers can stay updated on the latest, most relevant content from its continually expanding library of 115M+  research articles  sourced from trusted aggregators like  CrossRef ,  Unpaywall ,  PubMed,   PubMed  Central, Open Alex as well as prestigious publishing houses like  Springer Nature ,  JAMA , IOP,  Taylor & Francis , NEJM,  BMJ ,  Karger , SAGE,  Emerald Publishing  and more. The top-rated app in its space, R Discovery’s carefully curated features give you the power to choose what, where, and how you read research.    

Try the app for free or upgrade to  R Discovery Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, invite collaborators, auto sync with top reference managers, multiple feeds, and more. It’s like having the world of research  at your fingertips ! Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research –  Get R Discovery Prime now at just  US $39 a year!

Related Posts

What are the Best Research Funding Sources

What are Experimental Groups in Research

Free Al Office Suite with PDF Editor

Edit Word, Excel, and PPT for FREE.

Read, edit, and convert PDFs with the powerful PDF toolkit.

Microsoft-like interface, easy to use.

Windows • MacOS • Linux • iOS • Android

• Articles of Word

How to Write A Literature Review - Steps with Examples

This is something, as a student, I remember very well: writing literature reviews. They were always assigned, yet few of us knew how to write anything really impactful. For me, a good literature review is not the mere act of summarizing; rather, it is analysis, synthesis, and illumination all about discovered knowledge gaps. So let us break it down step-by-step and notice exactly how WPS Office can be used as your secret weapon in getting this one right.

What is a Literature Review & What are the Parts of it? 

It's not a book report for adults—a literature review is a critical examination of research that is already published, which plumbs deep into the scholarly conversation around your topic. Think of it this way: you are giving a guided tour through the general intellectual landscape, and you're not only pointing at landmarks but also explaining their importance, their relations to one another, and where the unknown areas can be.

The Blueprint: Introduction, Body, and Conclusion

Any well-constructed literature review will be built around the clear structure of an introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction: This is your opening act. Here you introduce your topic and lay out the central question or thesis your review will address. You might also give a sneak peek at the key themes or sources you'll be exploring, should you do a stand-alone review. This will also be a good place to explain how you picked and analyzed sources.

Body: This is the meat of your review. This is where you are going to put together the information from your sources in such a way that it makes sense. Again, do not just summarize, but also include your own ideas pointing out strengths as well as weaknesses of each document and relating the different studies. You will need to write clear paragraphs with effective transitions so that your reader can easily follow through the material.

Conclusion: Time to wind up: According to your literature review, there is a need to summarize the major findings and explain how they relate to your question. What are the big takeaways? What remains unanswered? Your conclusion should leave the reader with a great sense of evaluation about the present state of knowledge on a subject area and indication of where future research in this area might lead.

This framework will help you to structure a good literature review. Once more, this is only a rough expectation—remember, it is not etched in the stone. While the basic structure will usefully be applied as it is for most of the assignments or projects, sometimes maybe you will need to slightly adjust it according to the concrete needs of the assignment or project. The key is the following: Your review needs to be reader-friendly and organized, and it needs to communicate clearly the research findings.

How to organize the literature review [4 approaches]

Now that you have collected your sources and extracted their key insights, you are well on your way to developing a well-structured story. In many ways, this is akin to choosing the appropriate lens for a camera—the literature review snaps into focus. There are four common ways to approach literature review organization:

1. Chronological: This approach is almost like a timeline of ideas. You will trace the development of a topic in chronological order, so you will center on central milestones, swings in ideas, and influential debates.

2. Thematic: View this as thematically organizing your research. This will allow exploration of the subject under study in a more systematic way.

3. By Method: If you are dealing with research that utilizes a variety of methods, then this can be a revealing approach. You will draw out comparisons and contrasts between studies based on their methodology, where appropriate, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

4. Theoretical: This is commonly used within the humanities and social sciences, where theories are key. You will look at some of the several theoretical frameworks scholars have reached for to grasp your topic at hand, debating their strengths, limitations, and how they relate to each other.

The best approach for you will depend on what kind of research question you're asking and the body of literature involved. Don't be afraid to experiment and find the structure that works the best. You could also use a combination in your approach—like a primarily thematic approach with chronological elements there to help provide additional context for each theme.

How to Write a Literature Review Faster in 3 Steps

This type of strategic planning and effecting proper organization distinguishes an efficient literature review. The process of streamlining it is as follows:

Step 1: Gathering and Evaluating Relevant Sources

Research credible sources on academic databases like Google Scholar. Use specific keywords in order to find recent and influential publications that contribute to the topic at hand. Appraise every source according to your criteria of relevance and credibility.

Step 2: Identification of Themes and Literature Analysis

Skim through your selected sources in the search for emerging themes, debates, or gaps in the literature. Secondly, summarize key findings and methodologies for each source. Find the patterns or recurrent discussion which will help you categorize your review well and organize it.

Step 3: Outline and Structure Your Literature Review

Devise a clear structure for your literature review: introduce the topic and the thesis in the introduction, develop sources cohesively in the body, and summarize key findings in the conclusion. You could make use of organizational strategies such as chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical in representing your topic.

Use tools like WPS Office to plan your literature review and keep all of your sources well-organized. This will save you much time and guarantee that your literature review stays organized while you remain focused on your research objectives.

Remember: Do not simply list and summarize, but analyze and synthesize. Your literature review is not just a compilation of sources but one that critically relates the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of research, identifies the important debates in the area under consideration, and makes links between diverse pieces of research. WPS AI can help you to do this, through its identification of key terms, concepts, and relationships within the literature.

Bonus Tips: How to Perfect your Literature Review with WPS AI

Want WPS AI to be that magic weapon to help you make an extraordinary literature review? Here is how this intelligent assistant will supercharge your effort.

Annotation and Highlighting: WPS AI  permits direct annotation and highlighting of parts of interest within its software. This is quite useful to facilitate the marking of key findings, interesting quotes, or even areas in which authors have differed. By annotating through WPS AI, all critical points will be easy to refer to while you compose your review.

This WPS AI summarization tool will give you a condensed version of the long article or paper. It saves time by putting together exactly what the point or argument is from each source. On this, you will have a digest of several studies at your fingertips. This helps you easily compare and synthesize in your literature review.

Writing Assistance: Use WPS AI's writing tools to build your literature review section. These allow you to check the grammar, refine the sentence structure, work on the text length, and basically improve clarity. With these, you then ensure that it is well-written and easy for the readers to understand.

Build in these WPS AI features into your process of writing a literature review for refining workflow and bringing about a polished and insightful review that answers to academic standards.

FAQs about writing a literature review

Q1. what is the step before writing a literature review.

You must choose a topic, research existing literature, gather sources, determine themes, and make a defined scope of review before you begin writing your literature review.

Q2. Where should the literature review be placed within a dissertation?

Place the literature review after the introduction and before the methodology section of your dissertation.

Q3. Why do we need to write literature reviews?

Literature reviews would hence be a summary of earlier research on a topic, identification of gaps, building a context for fresh research, and devising credibility in an academic writing.

A literature review is one of the most critical steps of any research project. This aids in the placement of knowledge, pointing out the gaps, and placing one's research in a certain field. With accurate tools and strategies,or msg like WPS Office and WPS AI, the process can be streamlined in the production of quality literature reviews.

• 1. How to Write a Hook- Steps With Examples
• 2. How to Write a Proposal [ Steps & Examples]
• 3. How to Write a Call to Action - Steps with Examples
• 4. ThinkFree Office Write Review: Features, Review and Download
• 5. How to Write a Book Review [Tips with Examples]
• 6. How to Write an Argumentative Essay- Steps with Examples

15 years of office industry experience, tech lover and copywriter. Follow me for product reviews, comparisons, and recommendations for new apps and software.

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.

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
• Recommended Articles
• 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

Two decades of advancements in cold supply chain logistics for reducing food waste: a review with focus on the meat industry.

1. Introduction

Objective and scope of study.

• What is the current state of the art on beef CSCL in terms of management, sustainability, network design, and the use of information technologies for red meat waste reduction?
• To provide an overview of the current state of the art and to identify the gaps and contemporary challenges to red meat waste reduction;
• To identify key research themes and their potential role and associated elements in mitigating red meat waste reduction, especially across the beef CSCL systems;
• To pinpoint the directions in each theme that warrant further research advancement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. literature retrieval and selection, 2.2. extracting the research themes, 3.1. the literature review identified themes and subjects, 3.2. the literature’s evolution and descriptive results, 3.3. management, 3.3.1. logistics management and chronological evolution, 3.3.2. management and regulations, 3.3.3. management and collaboration, 3.3.4. management and costs, 3.3.5. management and inventory, 3.3.6. management and decision-making, 3.3.7. management and risks, 3.3.8. management and waste reduction, 3.3.9. management and information, 3.3.10. management and cold chain deficiencies, 3.4. sustainability, 3.4.1. sustainability and closed-loop scs (clscs), 3.4.2. sustainability and business models, 3.4.3. sustainability and wastage hotspots, 3.4.4. sustainability and packing, 3.4.5. sustainability and information flow, 3.5. network design optimisation, 3.5.1. network design and decision levels, 3.5.2. network design and the location–inventory problem, 3.5.3. network design and routing-inventory problem, 3.5.4. network design and the location routing problem, 3.5.5. network design and the integrated location–inventory routing problem, 3.5.6. network design and sustainability, 3.5.7. network design and information flow, 3.6. information technologies, 3.6.1. it and meat sc transformation, 3.6.2. emerging information technologies and meat scs, technical instruments, technological systems, 4. discussion, 4.1. management, 4.2. sustainability, 4.3. network design, 4.4. information technology, 5. conclusions.

• Management: ◦ Effective management practices are crucial for addressing FLW in beef CSCL systems. ◦ There is a notable transition from LM to FLM and SFLM, with the potential for emerging technologies to create an “Intelligent Sustainable Food Logistics Management” phase. ◦ Suboptimal management practices continue to contribute significantly to FLW, underscoring the need for enhanced strategies and adherence to regulations and standards.
• Sustainability: ◦ Sustainability in beef CSCL involves addressing social, economic, and environmental benefits. ◦ Reducing FLW can lead to increased profits, improved customer satisfaction, public health, equity, and environmental conservation by minimising resource use and emissions. ◦ Comprehensive research integrating all sustainability dimensions is needed to fully understand and mitigate FLW. Current efforts often address only parts of sustainability. A more holistic approach is required to balance environmental, economic, and social dimensions effectively.
• Network Design: ◦ Effective network design and optimisation are pivotal in reducing FLW within beef CSCL systems. ◦ There is a necessity for integrating all three levels of management decisions in the logistics network design process. Decision levels in network design must be considered to understand trade-offs among sustainability components in this process. ◦ Future research should focus on integrating management decisions and network design, CSCL uncertainties, sustainability dimensions, and advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and reduce waste in beef CSCL systems.
• Information Technologies: ◦ Information technologies such as Digital Twins (DTs) and Blockchain (BC) play a significant role in improving efficiency and reducing FLW in beef CSCL. ◦ The integration of these technologies can enhance understanding of fluid dynamics, thermal exchange, and meat quality variations, optimising the cooling process and reducing energy usage. ◦ Challenges like data security and management efficiency need to be addressed to maximise the benefits of these technologies.

Author Contributions

Data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Ren, Q.-S.; Fang, K.; Yang, X.-T.; Han, J.-W. Ensuring the quality of meat in cold chain logistics: A comprehensive review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022 , 119 , 133–151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nastasijević, I.; Lakićević, B.; Petrović, Z. (Eds.) Cold chain management in meat storage, distribution and retail: A review. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brodribb, P. A Study of Waste in the Cold Food Chain and Opportunities for Improvement ; Expert Group: Hefei, China, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Castonguay, A.C.; Polasky, S.; Holden, M.H.; Herrero, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Godde, C.; Chang, J.; Gerber, J.; Witt, G.B.; Game, E.T. Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production. Nat. Sustain. 2023 , 6 , 284–294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• FAO. FAOSTAT Online Database. 2021. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 20 September 2023).
• Australia, M.L. Global Beef Industry and Trade Report ; Meat & Livestock Australia: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Juan Ding, M.; Jie, F.; Parton, K.A.; Matanda, M.J. Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2014 , 25 , 85–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.; Pan, P. (Eds.) Food waste in developed countries and cold chain logistics. In E3S Web of Conferences ; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ishangulyyev, R.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.H. Understanding food loss and waste—Why are we losing and wasting food? Foods 2019 , 8 , 297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• National Food Waste Strategy: Halving Australia’s Food Waste by 2030. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, Australia. 2024. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste#:~:text=Australia’s%20National%20Food%20Waste%20Strategy,the%20National%20Food%20Waste%20Strategy (accessed on 8 February 2024).
• Keegan, E.; Breadsell, J.K. Food waste and social practices in Australian households. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aschemann-Witzel, J.; De Hooge, I.; Amani, P.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Oostindjer, M. Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 6457–6477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gokarn, S.; Kuthambalayan, T.S. Analysis of challenges inhibiting the reduction of waste in food supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 168 , 595–604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, H.; Song, M.-J.; Lee, H.-Y. A Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Food Loss and Waste and Sustainable Mitigation Strategies: A Logistics Service Providers’ Perspective. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 11374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brennan, A.; Browne, S. Food waste and nutrition quality in the context of public health: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 5379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Neff, R.A.; Kanter, R.; Vandevijvere, S. Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Aff. 2015 , 34 , 1821–1829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, N.; Olsen, T.; Liu, Y. A Conceptual Framework to Analyze Food Loss and Waste within Food Supply Chains: An Operations Management Perspective. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parashar, S.; Sood, G.; Agrawal, N. Modelling the enablers of food supply chain for reduction in carbon footprint. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 275 , 122932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, L.; Qin, W.; Garnett, T.; Zhang, F. Review on drivers, trends and emerging issues of the food wastage in China. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2015 , 2 , 159–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lan, S.; Tseng, M.-L.; Yang, C.; Huisingh, D. Trends in sustainable logistics in major cities in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 712 , 136381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farooque, M.; Zhang, A.; Liu, Y. Barriers to circular food supply chains in China. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 677–696. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, J.-W.; Zuo, M.; Zhu, W.-Y.; Zuo, J.-H.; Lü, E.-L.; Yang, X.-T. A comprehensive review of cold chain logistics for fresh agricultural products: Current status, challenges, and future trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 109 , 536–551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martinez, M.G.; Fearne, A.; Caswell, J.A.; Henson, S. Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance: Opportunities for public–private partnerships. Food Policy 2007 , 32 , 299–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, K.Y.; Yip, T.L. Cold-chain systems in China and value-chain analysis. In Finance and Risk Management for International Logistics and the Supply Chain ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 217–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, M.; Dan, B.; Zhang, S.; Ma, S. Information sharing in an E-tailing supply chain for fresh produce with freshness-keeping effort and value-added service. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021 , 290 , 572–584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• An, J.; Wang, L.; Lv, X. Research on agri-food cold chain logistics management system: Connotation, structure and operational mechanism. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2015 , 8 , 894–902. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Cao, W.; Park, M. Reliability analysis and optimization of cold chain distribution system for fresh agricultural products. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 3618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Qiu, B.; Zhang, K. A new risk assessment model for agricultural products cold chain logistics. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 , 117 , 1800–1816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chauhan, C.; Dhir, A.; Akram, M.U.; Salo, J. Food loss and waste in food supply chains. A systematic literature review and framework development approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 295 , 126438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, N.; Olsen, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, A. Reducing food loss and waste in supply chain operations. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2022 , 162 , 102730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broeze, J.; Guo, X.; Axmann, H. Trade-Off Analyses of Food Loss and Waste Reduction and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 8531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, A.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P. An integrated literature review on sustainable food supply chains: Exploring research themes and future directions. Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 821 , 153411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stindt, D. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management-How to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 153 , 146–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003 , 14 , 207–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. A systematic review of supply chain knowledge management research: State of the art and research opportunities. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016 , 182 , 276–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, I.; Gölgeci, I. Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic and co-occurrence analysis. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019 , 49 , 793–815. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• VOSviewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/getting-started (accessed on 20 May 2023).
• Chopra, S. Designing the distribution network in a supply chain. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2003 , 39 , 123–140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gunasekaran, A.; Lai, K.-h.; Cheng, T.E. Responsive supply chain: A competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega 2008 , 36 , 549–564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dabbene, F.; Gay, P.; Sacco, N. Optimisation of fresh-food supply chains in uncertain environments, Part I: Background and methodology. Biosyst. Eng. 2008 , 99 , 348–359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trienekens, J.; Zuurbier, P. Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008 , 113 , 107–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lipinski, B.; Hanson, C.; Lomax, J.; Kitinoja, L.; Waite, R.; Searchinger, T. Reducing Food Loss and Waste ; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Vorst, J.G.; van Kooten, O.; Luning, P.A. Towards a diagnostic instrument to identify improvement opportunities for quality controlled logistics in agrifood supply chain networks. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2011 , 2 , 94–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wognum, P.N.; Bremmers, H.; Trienekens, J.H.; Van Der Vorst, J.G.; Bloemhof, J.M. Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains–Current status and challenges. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011 , 25 , 65–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soysal, M.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Meuwissen, M.P.; van der Vorst, J.G. A review on quantitative models for sustainable food logistics management. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2012 , 3 , 136–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koberg, E.; Longoni, A. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 207 , 1084–1098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brandenburg, M.; Govindan, K.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014 , 233 , 299–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bettley, A.; Burnley, S. Towards sustainable operations management integrating sustainability management into operations management strategies and practices. In Handbook of Performability Engineering ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 875–904. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhong, R.; Xu, X.; Wang, L. Food supply chain management: Systems, implementations, and future research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 , 117 , 2085–2114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van der Meulen, B.M. The structure of European food law. Laws 2013 , 2 , 69–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kayikci, Y.; Ozbiltekin, M.; Kazancoglu, Y. Minimizing losses at red meat supply chain with circular and central slaughterhouse model. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 33 , 791–816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jedermann, R.; Nicometo, M.; Uysal, I.; Lang, W. Reducing food losses by intelligent food logistics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014 , 372 , 20130302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Sun, L.; Sun, S. (Eds.) Research on food safety and security of cold chain logistics. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science ; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; p. 012176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Ertz, M. Food cold chain management: What we know and what we deserve. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021 , 26 , 102–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, J.C.; Daraba, A.; Voidarou, C.; Rozos, G.; Enshasy, H.A.E.; Varzakas, T. Implementation of food safety management systems along with other management tools (HAZOP, FMEA, Ishikawa, Pareto). The case study of Listeria monocytogenes and correlation with microbiological criteria. Foods 2021 , 10 , 2169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Singh, R.K.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Uniyal, S. Applications of information and communication technology for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019 , 147 , 10–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nayak, R.; Waterson, P. Global food safety as a complex adaptive system: Key concepts and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 409–425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tseng, M.-L.; Ha, H.M.; Tran, T.P.T.; Bui, T.-D.; Lim, M.K.; Lin, C.-W.; Helmi Ali, M. Data-driven on sustainable food supply chain: A comparison on Halal and non-Halal food system. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2022 , 39 , 430–457. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bortolini, M.; Faccio, M.; Ferrari, E.; Gamberi, M.; Pilati, F. Fresh food sustainable distribution: Cost, delivery time and carbon footprint three-objective optimization. J. Food Eng. 2016 , 174 , 56–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, F.T.; Wang, Z.; Goswami, A.; Singhania, A.; Tiwari, M.K. Multi-objective particle swarm optimisation based integrated production inventory routing planning for efficient perishable food logistics operations. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 5155–5174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fikar, C. A decision support system to investigate food losses in e-grocery deliveries. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018 , 117 , 282–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soysal, M.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Haijema, R.; van der Vorst, J.G. Modeling a green inventory routing problem for perishable products with horizontal collaboration. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018 , 89 , 168–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liljestrand, K. Logistics solutions for reducing food waste. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017 , 47 , 318–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halloran, A.; Clement, J.; Kornum, N.; Bucatariu, C.; Magid, J. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy 2014 , 49 , 294–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cattaneo, A.; Sánchez, M.V.; Torero, M.; Vos, R. Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy 2021 , 98 , 101974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, X. Research on Food Cold Chain Logistics System Collaboration. Carpathian J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016 , 8 , 131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weng, X.; An, J.; Yang, H. The analysis of the development situation and trend of the city-oriented cold chain logistics system for fresh agricultural products. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2015 , 3 , 70–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dania, W.A.P.; Xing, K.; Amer, Y. Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 186 , 851–864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seuring, S.; Brix-Asala, C.; Khalid, R.U. Analyzing base-of-the-pyramid projects through sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 212 , 1086–1097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Y.; Jaenicke, E.C. Estimating food waste as household production inefficiency. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2020 , 102 , 525–547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, H.; He, Y.; Li, D. Pricing and inventory decisions in the food supply chain with production disruption and controllable deterioration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 180 , 280–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Zhou, K. Multi-objective cold chain logistic distribution center location based on carbon emission. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 28 , 32396–32404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dai, J.; Che, W.; Lim, J.J.; Shou, Y. Service innovation of cold chain logistics service providers: A multiple-case study in China. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020 , 89 , 143–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Theeb, N.; Smadi, H.J.; Al-Hawari, T.H.; Aljarrah, M.H. Optimization of vehicle routing with inventory allocation problems in Cold Supply Chain Logistics. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020 , 142 , 106341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, H.; Liu, S.; Tian, C.; Yan, G.; Wang, D. An overview of current status of cold chain in China. Int. J. Refrig. 2018 , 88 , 483–495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, J.; Zou, Y.; Xie, R.; Tu, B.; Liu, G. Compact supervisory system for cold chain logistics. Food Control 2021 , 126 , 108025. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Badia-Melis, R.; Mc Carthy, U.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Garcia-Hierro, J.; Villalba, J.R. New trends in cold chain monitoring applications-A review. Food Control 2018 , 86 , 170–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, G.; Hu, J.; Yang, Y.; Xia, S.; Lim, M.K. Vehicle routing problem in cold Chain logistics: A joint distribution model with carbon trading mechanisms. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020 , 156 , 104715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Esmizadeh, Y.; Bashiri, M.; Jahani, H.; Almada-Lobo, B. Cold chain management in hierarchical operational hub networks. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021 , 147 , 102202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Dan, B.; Shi, J. A variable neighborhood search approach for the multi-compartment vehicle routing problem with time windows considering carbon emission. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 277 , 123932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, J.; Haasis, H.-D. The freight village as a pathway to sustainable agricultural products logistics in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 196 , 1227–1238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsamboulas, D.A.; Kapros, S. Freight village evaluation under uncertainty with public and private financing. Transp. Policy 2003 , 10 , 141–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pekkaya, M.; Keleş, N. Determining criteria interaction and criteria priorities in the freight village location selection process: The experts’ perspective in Turkey. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022 , 34 , 1348–1367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shashi, S.; Cerchione, R.; Singh, R.; Centobelli, P.; Shabani, A. Food cold chain management: From a structured literature review to a conceptual framework and research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018 , 29 , 792–821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magalhães, V.S.; Ferreira, L.M.D.; da Silva César, A.; Bonfim, R.M.; Silva, C. Food loss and waste in the Brazilian beef supply chain: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020 , 32 , 214–236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hülsmann, M.; Brenner, V. Causes and Effects of Cold Chain Ruptures: Performance of Fragmented Versus Integrated Cold Chains ; Jacobs University, School of Engineering and Science, Internat. Logistics, Systems Management: Bremen, Germany, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buisman, M.; Haijema, R.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. Discounting and dynamic shelf life to reduce fresh food waste at retailers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019 , 209 , 274–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kibler, K.M.; Reinhart, D.; Hawkins, C.; Motlagh, A.M.; Wright, J. Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: A review of food waste management alternatives. Waste Manag. 2018 , 74 , 52–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Herron, C.B.; Garner, L.J.; Siddique, A.; Huang, T.-S.; Campbell, J.C.; Rao, S.; Morey, A. Building “First Expire, First Out” models to predict food losses at retail due to cold chain disruption in the last mile. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022 , 6 , 1018807. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mendes, A.; Cruz, J.; Saraiva, T.; Lima, T.M.; Gaspar, P.D. (Eds.) Logistics strategy (FIFO, FEFO or LSFO) decision support system for perishable food products. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Sakheer, Bahrain, 8–9 November 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 173–178. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plan, W.R.A. Reducing Food Waste through Retail Supply Chain Collaboration ; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolicic, S.; Kilibarda, M.; Maslaric, M.; Mircetic, D.; Bojic, S. Reducing food waste in the retail supply chains by improving efficiency of logistics operations. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 6511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaipia, R.; Dukovska-Popovska, I.; Loikkanen, L. Creating sustainable fresh food supply chains through waste reduction. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013 , 43 , 262–276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Govindan, K.; Kadziński, M.; Sivakumar, R. Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega 2017 , 71 , 129–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahbari, M.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Mahdiraji, H.A.; Dorcheh, F.R.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. A novel location-inventory-routing problem in a two-stage red meat supply chain with logistic decisions: Evidence from an emerging economy. Kybernetes 2021 , 51 , 1498–1531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Zolfani, S.H. Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 142 , 3728–3740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kieu, P.T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Ho, T.P. A spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP) and combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) algorithm in distribution center location selection: A case study in agricultural supply chain. Axioms 2021 , 10 , 53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mihajlović, J.; Rajković, P.; Petrović, G.; Ćirić, D. The selection of the logistics distribution center location based on MCDM methodology in southern and eastern region in Serbia. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2019 , 2 , 72–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zanoni, S.; Zavanella, L. Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for sustainable food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012 , 140 , 731–736. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aravendan, M.; Panneerselvam, R. Literature review on network design problems in closed loop and reverse supply chains. Intell. Inf. Manag. 2014 , 6 , 104–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mejjaouli, S.; Babiceanu, R.F. Cold supply chain logistics: System optimization for real-time rerouting transportation solutions. Comput. Ind. 2018 , 95 , 68–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Titiyal, R.; Bhattacharya, S.; Thakkar, J.J. The distribution strategy selection for an e-tailer using a hybrid DANP VIKOR MCDM model. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019 , 26 , 395–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallo, A.; Accorsi, R.; Baruffaldi, G.; Manzini, R. Designing sustainable cold chains for long-range food distribution: Energy-effective corridors on the Silk Road Belt. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 2044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yakavenka, V.; Mallidis, I.; Vlachos, D.; Iakovou, E.; Eleni, Z. Development of a multi-objective model for the design of sustainable supply chains: The case of perishable food products. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020 , 294 , 593–621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sel, Ç.; Pınarbaşı, M.; Soysal, M.; Çimen, M. A green model for the catering industry under demand uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 167 , 459–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Der Vorst, J.G.; Tromp, S.-O.; Zee, D.-J.v.d. Simulation modelling for food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on product quality, sustainability and logistics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009 , 47 , 6611–6631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bortolini, M.; Galizia, F.G.; Mora, C.; Botti, L.; Rosano, M. Bi-objective design of fresh food supply chain networks with reusable and disposable packaging containers. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 184 , 375–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q.; Yu, P.; Wu, X. Shelf life extending packaging, inventory control and grocery retailing. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2017 , 26 , 1369–1382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verghese, K.; Lewis, H.; Lockrey, S.; Williams, H. Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015 , 28 , 603–620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghadge, A.; Kaklamanou, M.; Choudhary, S.; Bourlakis, M. Implementing environmental practices within the Greek dairy supply chain: Drivers and barriers for SMEs. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 , 117 , 1995–2014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sajjad, A.; Eweje, G.; Tappin, D. Managerial perspectives on drivers for and barriers to sustainable supply chain management implementation: Evidence from New Zealand. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020 , 29 , 592–604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hien, D.N.; Thanh, N.V. Optimization of cold chain logistics with Fuzzy MCDM Model. Processes 2022 , 10 , 947. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008 , 1 , 83–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karanam, M.; Krishnanand, L.; Manupati, V.K.; Antosz, K.; Machado, J. Identification of the critical enablers for perishable food supply chain using deterministic assessment models. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 4503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kutlu Gündoğdu, F.; Kahraman, C. A novel VIKOR method using spherical fuzzy sets and its application to warehouse site selection. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2019 , 37 , 1197–1211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, S.M.; Rahman, M.H.; Tumpa, T.J.; Rifat, A.A.M.; Paul, S.K. Examining price and service competition among retailers in a supply chain under potential demand disruption. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018 , 40 , 40–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, S.M.; Nakade, K. Optimal ordering policies in a multi-sourcing supply chain with supply and demand disruptions-a CVaR approach. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2017 , 28 , 180–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, A.; Shukla, N.; Mishra, N. Social media data analytics to improve supply chain management in food industries. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018 , 114 , 398–415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, C.S. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006 , 103 , 451–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, S.M.; Moktadir, M.A.; Kabir, G.; Chakma, J.; Rumi, M.J.U.; Islam, M.T. Framework for evaluating risks in food supply chain: Implications in food wastage reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 228 , 786–800. [ Google Scholar ]
• Govindan, K. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018 , 195 , 419–431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Oliveira, U.R.; Marins, F.A.S.; Rocha, H.M.; Salomon, V.A.P. The ISO 31000 standard in supply chain risk management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 151 , 616–633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, O.; Burnes, B. Risk and supply chain management: Creating a research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2007 , 18 , 197–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Barua, M.K. An integrated methodology of FTA and fuzzy AHP for risk assessment in green supply chain. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2016 , 25 , 77–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogataj, D.; Hudoklin, D.; Bogataj, M.; Dimovski, V.; Colnar, S. Risk mitigation in a meat supply chain with options of redirection. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 8690. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, A.H.T.; Singh, A.; Kumari, S.; Choudhary, S. Multi-agent architecture for waste minimisation in beef supply chain. Prod. Plan. Control 2023 , 34 , 1082–1096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deng, X.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Lu, Z. Risk propagation mechanisms and risk management strategies for a sustainable perishable products supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019 , 135 , 1175–1187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Srivastava, S.K.; Chaudhuri, A.; Srivastava, R.K. Propagation of risks and their impact on performance in fresh food retail. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2015 , 26 , 568–602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amani, M.A.; Sarkodie, S.A. Mitigating spread of contamination in meat supply chain management using deep learning. Sci. Rep. 2022 , 12 , 5037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Klein, A.Z.; Da Costa, E.G.; Vieira, L.M.; Teixeira, R. The use of mobile technology in management and risk control in the supply chain: The case of a Brazilian beef chain. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. (JGIM) 2014 , 22 , 14–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohebi, E.; Marquez, L. Intelligent packaging in meat industry: An overview of existing solutions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015 , 52 , 3947–3964. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Martins, C.; Melo, M.; Pato, M. Redesigning a food bank supply chain network in a triple bottom line context. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019 , 214 , 234–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kowalski, Z.; Kulczycka, J.; Makara, A.; Harazin, P. Quantification of material recovery from meat waste incineration–An approach to an updated food waste hierarchy. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021 , 416 , 126021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teigiserova, D.A.; Hamelin, L.; Thomsen, M. Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 706 , 136033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beheshti, S.; Heydari, J.; Sazvar, Z. Food waste recycling closed loop supply chain optimization through renting waste recycling facilities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022 , 78 , 103644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Jensen, J.H.; Jensen, M.H.; Kulikovskaja, V. Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite 2017 , 116 , 246–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Porpino, G. Household food waste behavior: Avenues for future research. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2016 , 1 , 41–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gholami-Zanjani, S.M.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Pishvaee, M.S. A resilient-green model for multi-echelon meat supply chain planning. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021 , 152 , 107018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rijpkema, W.A.; Rossi, R.; van der Vorst, J.G. Effective sourcing strategies for perishable product supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2014 , 44 , 494–510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albrecht, A.; Ibald, R.; Raab, V.; Reichstein, W.; Haarer, D.; Kreyenschmidt, J. Implementation of time temperature indicators to improve temperature monitoring and support dynamic shelf life in meat supply chains. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2020 , 4 , 23–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ndraha, N.; Vlajic, J.; Chang, C.-C.; Hsiao, H.-I. Challenges with food waste management in the food cold chains. In Food Industry Wastes ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 467–483. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016 , 106 , 110–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saeed, M.A.; Kersten, W. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Identification and classification. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 1137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, A.; Choudhary, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, V.; Rehman Khan, S.A.; Mishra, N. Analysis of critical success factors for implementing industry 4.0 integrated circular supply chain–Moving towards sustainable operations. Prod. Plan. Control 2023 , 34 , 984–998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chauhan, A.; Debnath, R.M.; Singh, S.P. Modelling the drivers for sustainable agri-food waste management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018 , 25 , 981–993. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jo, J.; Yi, S.; Lee, E.-k. Including the reefer chain into genuine beef cold chain architecture based on blockchain technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 363 , 132646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kler, R.; Gangurde, R.; Elmirzaev, S.; Hossain, M.S.; Vo, N.V.; Nguyen, T.V.; Kumar, P.N. Optimization of Meat and Poultry Farm Inventory Stock Using Data Analytics for Green Supply Chain Network. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2022 , 2022 , 8970549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Handfield, R.B.; Cousins, P.D.; Lawson, B.; Petersen, K.J. How can supply management really improve performance? A knowledge-based model of alignment capabilities. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2015 , 51 , 3–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qi, L.; Xu, M.; Fu, Z.; Mira, T.; Zhang, X. C2SLDS: A WSN-based perishable food shelf-life prediction and LSFO strategy decision support system in cold chain logistics. Food Control 2014 , 38 , 19–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matta, V.; Moberg, C. Defining the Antecedents for Adoption of RFID in the Supply Chain. Issues Inf. Syst. 2007 , 8 , 449–454. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nychas, G.-J.E.; Skandamis, P.N.; Tassou, C.C.; Koutsoumanis, K.P. Meat spoilage during distribution. Meat Sci. 2008 , 78 , 77–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; bin Ujang, Z. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014 , 76 , 106–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joshi, R.; Banwet, D.; Shankar, R.; Gandhi, J. Performance improvement of cold chain in an emerging economy. Prod. Plan. Control 2012 , 23 , 817–836. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, S.; Pai, S.S. Analysis of operating effectiveness of a cold chain model using Bayesian networks. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015 , 21 , 722–742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cousins, P.D.; Menguc, B. The implications of socialization and integration in supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 2006 , 24 , 604–620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beulens, A.J.; Broens, D.-F.; Folstar, P.; Hofstede, G.J. Food safety and transparency in food chains and networks Relationships and challenges. Food Control 2005 , 16 , 481–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangla, S.K.; Sharma, Y.K.; Patil, P.P.; Yadav, G.; Xu, J. Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: Study on leading Indian diary organizations. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 238 , 117620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balaji, M.; Arshinder, K. Modeling the causes of food wastage in Indian perishable food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016 , 114 , 153–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo, J.-C.; Chen, M.-C. Developing an advanced multi-temperature joint distribution system for the food cold chain. Food Control 2010 , 21 , 559–566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smigic, N.; Antic, D.; Blagojevic, B.; Tomasevic, I.; Djekic, I. The level of food safety knowledge among meat handlers. Br. Food J. 2016 , 118 , 9–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sander, F.; Semeijn, J.; Mahr, D. The acceptance of blockchain technology in meat traceability and transparency. Br. Food J. 2018 , 120 , 2066–2079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patel, S.; Dora, M.; Hahladakis, J.N.; Iacovidou, E. Opportunities, challenges and trade-offs with decreasing avoidable food waste in the UK. Waste Manag. Res. 2021 , 39 , 473–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raak, N.; Symmank, C.; Zahn, S.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Rohm, H. Processing-and product-related causes for food waste and implications for the food supply chain. Waste Manag. 2017 , 61 , 461–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wittstruck, D.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the success factors of sustainable supply chain management: Empirical evidence from the electrics and electronics industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012 , 19 , 141–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, A.; Shukla, N.; Paul, S.K.; Trianni, A. Sustainable supply chain management and multi-criteria decision-making methods: A systematic review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 7104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010 , 365 , 3065–3081. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinto, J.; Boavida-Dias, R.; Matos, H.A.; Azevedo, J. Analysis of the food loss and waste valorisation of animal by-products from the retail sector. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mota, B.; Gomes, M.I.; Carvalho, A.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Towards supply chain sustainability: Economic, environmental and social design and planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 105 , 14–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q. The fuzzy multi-objective distribution planner for a green meat supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017 , 184 , 47–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Zhao, G.; Qi, Y.; Li, B. A robust fuzzy optimization model for closed-loop supply chain networks considering sustainability. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5726. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ko, H.J.; Evans, G.W. A genetic algorithm-based heuristic for the dynamic integrated forward/reverse logistics network for 3PLs. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007 , 34 , 346–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mosallanezhad, B.; Arjomandi, M.A.; Hashemi-Amiri, O.; Gholian-Jouybari, F.; Dibaj, M.; Akrami, M.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Metaheuristic optimizers to solve multi-echelon sustainable fresh seafood supply chain network design problem: A case of shrimp products. Alex. Eng. J. 2023 , 68 , 491–515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Accorsi, R.; Ferrari, E.; Gamberi, M.; Manzini, R.; Regattieri, A. A closed-loop traceability system to improve logistics decisions in food supply chains: A case study on dairy products. In Advances in Food Traceability Techniques and Technologies ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 337–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alinezhad, M.; Mahdavi, I.; Hematian, M.; Tirkolaee, E.B. A fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for sustainable closed-loop supply chain network design in food industries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022 , 24 , 8779–8806. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sgarbossa, F.; Russo, I. A proactive model in sustainable food supply chain: Insight from a case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017 , 183 , 596–606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Che, A.; Chu, F. Improved model and efficient method for bi-objective closed-loop food supply chain problem with returnable transport items. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022 , 60 , 1051–1068. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amin, S.H.; Zhang, G.; Eldali, M.N. A review of closed-loop supply chain models. J. Data Inf. Manag. 2020 , 2 , 279–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MahmoumGonbadi, A.; Genovese, A.; Sgalambro, A. Closed-loop supply chain design for the transition towards a circular economy: A systematic literature review of methods, applications and current gaps. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 323 , 129101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tavana, M.; Kian, H.; Nasr, A.K.; Govindan, K.; Mina, H. A comprehensive framework for sustainable closed-loop supply chain network design. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 332 , 129777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martindale, W.; Duong, L.; Swainson, M. Testing the data platforms required for the 21st century food system using an industry ecosystem approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 724 , 137871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vlajic, J.V.; Mijailovic, R.; Bogdanova, M. Creating loops with value recovery: Empirical study of fresh food supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control 2018 , 29 , 522–538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; de Souza, T.S.; Holland, B.; Dunshea, F.; Barrow, C.; Suleria, H.A. Valorization of food waste to produce value-added products based on its bioactive compounds. Processes 2023 , 11 , 840. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Mishra, N.; Singh, A.; Rana, N.P.; Dora, M.; Dwivedi, Y. Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Prod. Plan. Control 2018 , 29 , 551–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sehnem, S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Pereira, S.C.F.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. Improving sustainable supply chains performance through operational excellence: Circular economy approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019 , 149 , 236–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wiskerke, J.S.; Roep, D. Constructing a sustainable pork supply chain: A case of techno-institutional innovation. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2007 , 9 , 53–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ilbery, B.; Maye, D. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish–English borders. Environ. Plan. A 2005 , 37 , 823–844. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mundler, P.; Laughrea, S. The contributions of short food supply chains to territorial development: A study of three Quebec territories. J. Rural Stud. 2016 , 45 , 218–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rucabado-Palomar, T.; Cuéllar-Padilla, M. Short food supply chains for local food: A difficult path. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020 , 35 , 182–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vittersø, G.; Torjusen, H.; Laitala, K.; Tocco, B.; Biasini, B.; Csillag, P.; de Labarre, M.D.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Maj, A.; Majewski, E. Short food supply chains and their contributions to sustainability: Participants’ views and perceptions from 12 European cases. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 4800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blanquart, C.; Gonçalves, A.; Vandenbossche, L.; Kebir, L.; Petit, C.; Traversac, J.-B. (Eds.) The logistic leverages of short food supply chains performance in terms of sustainability. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbonne, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010. 10p. [ Google Scholar ]
• Majewski, E.; Komerska, A.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Wąs, A.; Sulewski, P.; Gołaś, M.; Pogodzińska, K.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Tocco, B. Are short food supply chains more environmentally sustainable than long chains? A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the eco-efficiency of food chains in selected EU countries. Energies 2020 , 13 , 4853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collison, M.; Collison, T.; Myroniuk, I.; Boyko, N.; Pellegrini, G. Transformation trends in food logistics for short food supply chains-what is new? Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019 , 121 , 102–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Bernardi, P.; Tirabeni, L. Alternative food networks: Sustainable business models for anti-consumption food cultures. Br. Food J. 2018 , 120 , 1776–1791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loiseau, E.; Colin, M.; Alaphilippe, A.; Coste, G.; Roux, P. To what extent are short food supply chains (SFSCs) environmentally friendly? Application to French apple distribution using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 276 , 124166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, W.; Jafarzadeh, S.; Thakur, M.; Ólafsdóttir, G.; Mehta, S.; Bogason, S.; Holden, N.M. Environmental impacts of animal-based food supply chains with market characteristics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 783 , 147077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hill, A. Whole of Meat Supply Chain Food Loss and Waste Mapping and Interventions-Phase 1–Final Report ; Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA): Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonou, A.; Colley, T.A.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Olsen, S.I.; Birkved, M. Life cycle assessment of Danish pork exports using different cooling technologies and comparison of upstream supply chain efficiencies between Denmark, China and Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 244 , 118816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Q.; Qian, J.; Yang, H.; Wu, W. Sustainable food cold chain logistics: From microenvironmental monitoring to global impact. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022 , 21 , 4189–4209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caldeira, C.; De Laurentiis, V.; Corrado, S.; van Holsteijn, F.; Sala, S. Quantification of food waste per product group along the food supply chain in the European Union: A mass flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019 , 149 , 479–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Betz, A.; Buchli, J.; Göbel, C.; Müller, C. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry–Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Manag. 2015 , 35 , 218–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Apaiah, R.K.; Linnemann, A.R.; Van Der Kooi, H.J. Exergy analysis: A tool to study the sustainability of food supply chains. Food Res. Int. 2006 , 39 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peters, G.M.; Rowley, H.V.; Wiedemann, S.; Tucker, R.; Short, M.D.; Schulz, M. Red meat production in Australia: Life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010 , 44 , 1327–1332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Asem-Hiablie, S.; Battagliese, T.; Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R.; Alan Rotz, C. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019 , 24 , 441–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsakiridis, A.; O’Donoghue, C.; Hynes, S.; Kilcline, K. A comparison of environmental and economic sustainability across seafood and livestock product value chains. Mar. Policy 2020 , 117 , 103968. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resour. Ind. 2013 , 1 , 25–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bottani, E.; Vignali, G.; Mosna, D.; Montanari, R. Economic and environmental assessment of different reverse logistics scenarios for food waste recovery. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019 , 20 , 289–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Omolayo, Y.; Feingold, B.J.; Neff, R.A.; Romeiko, X.X. Life cycle assessment of food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021 , 164 , 105119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lipińska, M.; Tomaszewska, M.; Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. Identifying factors associated with food losses during transportation: Potentials for social purposes. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 2046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• León-Bravo, V.; Caniato, F.; Caridi, M.; Johnsen, T. Collaboration for sustainability in the food supply chain: A multi-stage study in Italy. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 1253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Accorsi, R.; Baruffaldi, G.; Manzini, R. A closed-loop packaging network design model to foster infinitely reusable and recyclable containers in food industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020 , 24 , 48–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tonn, B.; Frymier, P.D.; Stiefel, D.; Skinner, L.S.; Suraweera, N.; Tuck, R. Toward an infinitely reusable, recyclable, and renewable industrial ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 2014 , 66 , 392–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pålsson, H.; Hellström, D. Packaging logistics in supply chain practice–current state, trade-offs and improvement potential. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2016 , 19 , 351–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020 , 228 , 107730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wikström, F.; Verghese, K.; Auras, R.; Olsson, A.; Williams, H.; Wever, R.; Grönman, K.; Kvalvåg Pettersen, M.; Møller, H.; Soukka, R. Packaging strategies that save food: A research agenda for 2030. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019 , 23 , 532–540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goossens, Y.; Berrens, P.; Custers, K.; Van Hemelryck, S.; Kellens, K.; Geeraerd, A. How origin, packaging and seasonality determine the environmental impact of apples, magnified by food waste and losses. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019 , 24 , 667–687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McMillin, K.W. Advancements in meat packaging. Meat Sci. 2017 , 132 , 153–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Domínguez, R.; Barba, F.J.; Gómez, B.; Putnik, P.; Kovačević, D.B.; Pateiro, M.; Santos, E.M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Active packaging films with natural antioxidants to be used in meat industry: A review. Food Res. Int. 2018 , 113 , 93–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Warner, R.D.; Johnson, S.K. Active and intelligent packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017 , 61 , 60–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, E.; Morey, A. Intelligent packaging for poultry industry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2019 , 28 , 791–800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Realini, C.E.; Marcos, B. Active and intelligent packaging systems for a modern society. Meat Sci. 2014 , 98 , 404–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moustafa, H.; Youssef, A.M.; Darwish, N.A.; Abou-Kandil, A.I. Eco-friendly polymer composites for green packaging: Future vision and challenges. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019 , 172 , 16–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ocampo, L.A.; Villegas, Z.V.A.; Carvajal, J.-a.T.; Apas, C.-A.A. Identifying significant drivers for sustainable practices in achieving sustainable food supply chain using modified fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory approach. Int. J. Adv. Oper. Manag. 2018 , 10 , 51–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Irani, Z.; Sharif, A.M. Sustainable food security futures: Perspectives on food waste and information across the food supply chain. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016 , 29 , 171–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jeswani, H.K.; Figueroa-Torres, G.; Azapagic, A. The extent of food waste generation in the UK and its environmental impacts. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 26 , 532–547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shafiee-Jood, M.; Cai, X. Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security and environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016 , 50 , 8432–8443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Parekh, H.; Joshi, S. Modeling the internet of things adoption barriers in food retail supply chains. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019 , 48 , 154–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rejeb, A. Halal meat supply chain traceability based on HACCP, blockchain and internet of things. Acta Tech. Jaurinensis 2018 , 11 , 218–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harvey, J.; Smith, A.; Goulding, J.; Illodo, I.B. Food sharing, redistribution, and waste reduction via mobile applications: A social network analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020 , 88 , 437–448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, N.; Singh, A. Use of twitter data for waste minimisation in beef supply chain. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018 , 270 , 337–359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Biuki, M.; Kazemi, A.; Alinezhad, A. An integrated location-routing-inventory model for sustainable design of a perishable products supply chain network. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 260 , 120842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alkaabneh, F.; Diabat, A.; Gao, H.O. Benders decomposition for the inventory vehicle routing problem with perishable products and environmental costs. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020 , 113 , 104751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elhedhli, S.; Merrick, R. Green supply chain network design to reduce carbon emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012 , 17 , 370–379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daskin, M.S.; Coullard, C.R.; Shen, Z.-J.M. An inventory-location model: Formulation, solution algorithm and computational results. Ann. Oper. Res. 2002 , 110 , 83–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, A.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, L.; Lu, Q.; Fan, Y. Sustainable supply chain management for perishable products in emerging markets: An integrated location-inventory-routing model. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021 , 150 , 102319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diabat, A.; Dehghani, E.; Jabbarzadeh, A. Incorporating location and inventory decisions into a supply chain design problem with uncertain demands and lead times. J. Manuf. Syst. 2017 , 43 , 139–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bravo, J.J.; Vidal, C.J. Freight transportation function in supply chain optimization models: A critical review of recent trends. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013 , 40 , 6742–6757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Javid, A.A.; Azad, N. Incorporating location, routing and inventory decisions in supply chain network design. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2010 , 46 , 582–597. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benders, J.F. Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Comput. Manag. Sci. 2005 , 2 , 3–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savelsbergh, M. A branch-and-price algorithm for the generalized assignment problem. Oper. Res. 1997 , 45 , 831–841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Talkhestani, H.R.A.; Jahromi, M.H.M.A.; Keshavarzfard, R. A Location-Inventory Model for Multi-Product Supply Chain with Perishable Products and Price-Dependent Demand. Adv. Ind. Eng. 2023 , 56 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi, Z.; Barzinpour, F.; Teimoury, E. A location-inventory model for the sustainable supply chain of perishable products based on pricing and replenishment decisions: A case study. PLoS ONE 2023 , 18 , e0288915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tarantilis, C.; Kiranoudis, C. Distribution of fresh meat. J. Food Eng. 2002 , 51 , 85–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, G.; Habenicht, W.; Spieß, W.E.L. Improving the structure of deep frozen and chilled food chain with tabu search procedure. J. Food Eng. 2003 , 60 , 67–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Yu, L.y. (Eds.) Optimization model of refrigerated food transportation. In Proceedings of the ICSSSM12, Shanghai, China, 2–4 July 2012; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 220–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves-Moreira, F.; Almada-Lobo, B.; Cordeau, J.-F.; Guimarães, L.; Jans, R. Solving a large multi-product production-routing problem with delivery time windows. Omega 2019 , 86 , 154–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Govindan, K.; Jafarian, A.; Khodaverdi, R.; Devika, K. Two-echelon multiple-vehicle location–routing problem with time windows for optimization of sustainable supply chain network of perishable food. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014 , 152 , 9–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q. Developing a meat supply chain network design using a multi-objective possibilistic programming approach. Br. Food J. 2017 , 119 , 690–706. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moreno, S.; Pereira, J.; Yushimito, W. A hybrid K-means and integer programming method for commercial territory design: A case study in meat distribution. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020 , 286 , 87–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahbari, M.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Dehaghi, M.R.; Moallem, M.; Dorcheh, F.R. Modeling and solving a five-echelon location–inventory–routing problem for red meat supply chain: Case study in Iran. Kybernetes 2020 , 50 , 66–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Ji, Y.; Dai, Z.; Wang, Z. Robust maximum expert consensus modeling with dynamic feedback mechanism under uncertain environments. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soysal, M.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Van Der Vorst, J.G. Modelling food logistics networks with emission considerations: The case of an international beef supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014 , 152 , 57–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohebalizadehgashti, F.; Zolfagharinia, H.; Amin, S.H. Designing a green meat supply chain network: A multi-objective approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020 , 219 , 312–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aung, M.M.; Chang, Y.S. Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 2014 , 39 , 172–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ketzenberg, M.; Bloemhof, J.; Gaukler, G. Managing perishables with time and temperature history. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2015 , 24 , 54–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bottani, E.; Casella, G.; Nobili, M.; Tebaldi, L. An analytic model for estimating the economic and environmental impact of food cold supply chain. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vrat, P.; Gupta, R.; Bhatnagar, A.; Pathak, D.K.; Fulzele, V. Literature review analytics (LRA) on sustainable cold-chain for perishable food products: Research trends and future directions. Opsearch 2018 , 55 , 601–627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Keizer, M.; Haijema, R.; Bloemhof, J.M.; Van Der Vorst, J.G. Hybrid optimization and simulation to design a logistics network for distributing perishable products. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015 , 88 , 26–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coelho, L.C.; Laporte, G. Optimal joint replenishment, delivery and inventory management policies for perishable products. Comput. Oper. Res. 2014 , 47 , 42–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasani, A.; Zegordi, S.H.; Nikbakhsh, E. Robust closed-loop supply chain network design for perishable goods in agile manufacturing under uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012 , 50 , 4649–4669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, B.D.; Ko, Y.D. A vehicle routing problem of both refrigerated-and general-type vehicles for perishable food products delivery. J. Food Eng. 2016 , 169 , 61–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Keizer, M.; Akkerman, R.; Grunow, M.; Bloemhof, J.M.; Haijema, R.; van der Vorst, J.G. Logistics network design for perishable products with heterogeneous quality decay. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017 , 262 , 535–549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammed, A.; Govindan, K.; Zubairu, N.; Pratabaraj, J.; Abideen, A.Z. Multi-tier supply chain network design: A key towards sustainability and resilience. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023 , 182 , 109396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tavakkoli Moghaddam, S.; Javadi, M.; Hadji Molana, S.M. A reverse logistics chain mathematical model for a sustainable production system of perishable goods based on demand optimization. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 2019 , 15 , 709–721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q.; Li, X. A cost-effective decision-making algorithm for an RFID-enabled HMSC network design: A multi-objective approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017 , 117 , 1782–1799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alfian, G.; Syafrudin, M.; Farooq, U.; Ma’arif, M.R.; Syaekhoni, M.A.; Fitriyani, N.L.; Lee, J.; Rhee, J. Improving efficiency of RFID-based traceability system for perishable food by utilizing IoT sensors and machine learning model. Food Control 2020 , 110 , 107016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verghese, K.; Lewis, H.; Lockrey, S.; Williams, H. The Role of Packaging in Minimising Food Waste in the Supply Chain of the Future: Prepared for: CHEP Australia ; RMIT University Report: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, A.; Kumari, S.; Malekpoor, H.; Mishra, N. Big data cloud computing framework for low carbon supplier selection in the beef supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 202 , 139–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thakur, M.; Forås, E. EPCIS based online temperature monitoring and traceability in a cold meat chain. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015 , 117 , 22–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kittipanya-Ngam, P.; Tan, K.H. A framework for food supply chain digitalization: Lessons from Thailand. Prod. Plan. Control 2020 , 31 , 158–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, H.; Zhu, M.; Ye, S.; Hou, H.; Chen, Y.; Bulysheva, L. An intelligent tracking system based on internet of things for the cold chain. Internet Res. 2016 , 26 , 435–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodrigues, V.S.; Demir, E.; Wang, X.; Sarkis, J. Measurement, mitigation and prevention of food waste in supply chains: An online shopping perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021 , 93 , 545–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fung, F.; Wang, H.-S.; Menon, S. Food safety in the 21st century. Biomed. J. 2018 , 41 , 88–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siems, E.; Land, A.; Seuring, S. Dynamic capabilities in sustainable supply chain management: An inter-temporal comparison of the food and automotive industries. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 236 , 108128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gholami-Zanjani, S.M.; Klibi, W.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Pishvaee, M.S. The design of resilient food supply chain networks prone to epidemic disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 233 , 108001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Yue, H. Food safety pre-warning system based on data mining for a sustainable food supply chain. Food Control 2017 , 73 , 223–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Esmaeilian, B.; Sarkis, J.; Lewis, K.; Behdad, S. Blockchain for the future of sustainable supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020 , 163 , 105064. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McKinna, D.; Wall, C. Commercial Application of Supply Chain Integrity and Shelf Life Systems ; Technical Report; Meat and Livestock Australia Limited: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jia, L.; Evans, S. Improving food allergen management in food manufacturing: An incentive-based approach. Food Control 2021 , 129 , 108246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nyarugwe, S.P.; Linnemann, A.R.; Luning, P.A. Prevailing food safety culture in companies operating in a transition economy-Does product riskiness matter? Food Control 2020 , 107 , 106803. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sestino, A.; Prete, M.I.; Piper, L.; Guido, G. Internet of Things and Big Data as enablers for business digitalization strategies. Technovation 2020 , 98 , 102173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Astill, J.; Dara, R.A.; Campbell, M.; Farber, J.M.; Fraser, E.D.; Sharif, S.; Yada, R.Y. Transparency in food supply chains: A review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 240–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, M.; Corradini, M.G. Big data and its role in mitigating food spoilage and quality deterioration along the supply chain. In Harnessing Big Data in Food Safety ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 93–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiwari, S.; Wee, H.-M.; Daryanto, Y. Big data analytics in supply chain management between 2010 and 2016: Insights to industries. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018 , 115 , 319–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ngai, E.W.; Papadopoulos, T. Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016 , 176 , 98–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Addo-Tenkorang, R.; Helo, P.T. Big data applications in operations/supply-chain management: A literature review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016 , 101 , 528–543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, H.; Wang, X.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X. Applying blockchain technology to improve agri-food traceability: A review of development methods, benefits and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 260 , 121031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanka, A.I.; Irfan, M.; Huang, I.; Cheung, R.C. A survey of breakthrough in blockchain technology: Adoptions, applications, challenges and future research. Comput. Commun. 2021 , 169 , 179–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azzi, R.; Chamoun, R.K.; Sokhn, M. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019 , 135 , 582–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Powell, W.; Foth, M.; Cao, S.; Natanelov, V. Garbage in garbage out: The precarious link between IoT and blockchain in food supply chains. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022 , 25 , 100261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verboven, P.; Defraeye, T.; Datta, A.K.; Nicolai, B. Digital twins of food process operations: The next step for food process models? Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020 , 35 , 79–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuffi, K.D.; Defraeye, T.; Nicolai, B.M.; De Smet, S.; Geeraerd, A.; Verboven, P. CFD modeling of industrial cooling of large beef carcasses. Int. J. Refrig. 2016 , 69 , 324–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, W.; Beretta, C.; Cronje, P.; Hellweg, S.; Defraeye, T. Environmental trade-offs in fresh-fruit cold chains by combining virtual cold chains with life cycle assessment. Appl. Energy 2019 , 254 , 113586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agalianos, K.; Ponis, S.; Aretoulaki, E.; Plakas, G.; Efthymiou, O. Discrete event simulation and digital twins: Review and challenges for logistics. Procedia Manuf. 2020 , 51 , 1636–1641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Ma, X.; Liu, M.; Gong, K.; Liu, Y.; Xu, M.; Wang, Y. Cooperation and profit allocation in two-echelon logistics joint distribution network optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017 , 56 , 143–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Z.; Bai, Y.; Dai, W.; Liu, D.; Hu, Y. Quality of e-commerce agricultural products and the safety of the ecological environment of the origin based on 5G Internet of Things technology. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021 , 22 , 101462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Osman, S.A.; Xu, C.; Akuful, M.; Paul, E.R. Perishable Food Supply Chain Management: Challenges and the Way Forward. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 11 , 349–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verhoef, P.C.; Lemon, K.N. Successful customer value management: Key lessons and emerging trends. Eur. Manag. J. 2013 , 31 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tseng, M.-L. Modeling sustainable production indicators with linguistic preferences. J. Clean. Prod. 2013 , 40 , 46–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Derqui, B.; Fayos, T.; Fernandez, V. Towards a more sustainable food supply chain: Opening up invisible waste in food service. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heising, J.K.; Claassen, G.; Dekker, M. Options for reducing food waste by quality-controlled logistics using intelligent packaging along the supply chain. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2017 , 34 , 1672–1680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ravindran, R.; Jaiswal, A.K. Exploitation of food industry waste for high-value products. Trends Biotechnol. 2016 , 34 , 58–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, C.S.K.; Pfaltzgraff, L.A.; Herrero-Davila, L.; Mubofu, E.B.; Abderrahim, S.; Clark, J.H.; Koutinas, A.A.; Kopsahelis, N.; Stamatelatou, K.; Dickson, F. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013 , 6 , 426–464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krishnan, R.; Arshinder, K.; Agarwal, R. Robust optimization of sustainable food supply chain network considering food waste valorization and supply uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022 , 171 , 108499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cristóbal, J.; Castellani, V.; Manfredi, S.; Sala, S. Prioritizing and optimizing sustainable measures for food waste prevention and management. Waste Manag. 2018 , 72 , 3–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karwowska, M.; Łaba, S.; Szczepański, K. Food loss and waste in meat sector—Why the consumption stage generates the most losses? Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 6227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dani, S.; Deep, A. Fragile food supply chains: Reacting to risks. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2010 , 13 , 395–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corrêa, H.L.; Xavier, L.H. Concepts, design and implementation of Reverse Logistics Systems for sustainable supply chains in Brazil. J. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 2013 , 6 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pagell, M.; Shevchenko, A. Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014 , 50 , 44–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Difrancesco, R.M.; Huchzermeier, A. Closed-loop supply chains: A guide to theory and practice. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2016 , 19 , 443–464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battini, D.; Bogataj, M.; Choudhary, A. Closed Loop Supply Chain (CLSC): Economics, Modelling, Management and Control ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 183, pp. 319–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meneghetti, A.; Monti, L. Greening the food supply chain: An optimisation model for sustainable design of refrigerated automated warehouses. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015 , 53 , 6567–6587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adekomaya, O.; Jamiru, T.; Sadiku, R.; Huan, Z. Sustaining the shelf life of fresh food in cold chain–A burden on the environment. Alex. Eng. J. 2016 , 55 , 1359–1365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benn, S.; Edwards, M.; Williams, T. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability ; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chopra, S.; Meindl, P. Supply Chain Management. Strategy, Planning & Operation ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Q.; Liu, A. Big data driven supply chain management. Procedia CIRP 2019 , 81 , 1089–1094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nagy, G.; Salhi, S. Location-routing: Issues, models and methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007 , 177 , 649–672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamariotou, M.; Kitsios, F.; Charatsari, C.; Lioutas, E.D.; Talias, M.A. Digital strategy decision support systems: Agrifood supply chain management in smes. Sensors 2021 , 22 , 274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Trstenjak, M.; Opetuk, T.; Đukić, G.; Cajner, H. Logistics 5.0 Implementation Model Based on Decision Support Systems. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, L.; Li, W.; Luo, Y.; He, L. Real-time scheduling simulation optimisation of job shop in a production-logistics collaborative environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022 , 61 , 1373–1393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stijn, E.v.; Phuaphanthong, T.; Keretho, S.; Pikart, M.; Hofman, W.; Tan, Y.-H. Implementation Framework for e-solutions for Trade Facilitation. In Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 285–317. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yavas, V.; Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D. Logistics centers in the new industrial era: A proposed framework for logistics center 4.0. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020 , 135 , 101864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zokaei, A.K.; Simons, D.W. Value chain analysis in consumer focus improvement: A case study of the UK red meat industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2006 , 17 , 141–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cox, A.; Chicksand, D.; Yang, T. The proactive alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies: A food service case. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007 , 12 , 321–333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jie, F.; Gengatharen, D. Australian food retail supply chain analysis. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019 , 25 , 271–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knoll, S.; Marques, C.S.S.; Liu, J.; Zhong, F.; Padula, A.D.; Barcellos, J.O.J. The Sino-Brazilian beef supply chain: Mapping and risk detection. Br. Food J. 2017 , 119 , 164–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schilling-Vacaflor, A. Integrating human rights and the environment in supply chain regulations. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9666. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Knoll, S.; Padula, A.D.; dos Santos, M.C.; Pumi, G.; Zhou, S.; Zhong, F.; Barcellos, J.O.J. Information flow in the Sino-Brazilian beef trade. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018 , 21 , 17–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• E-Fatima, K.; Khandan, R.; Hosseinian-Far, A.; Sarwar, D.; Ahmed, H.F. Adoption and Influence of Robotic Process Automation in Beef Supply Chains. Logistics 2022 , 6 , 48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Storer, M.; Hyland, P.; Ferrer, M.; Santa, R.; Griffiths, A. Strategic supply chain management factors influencing agribusiness innovation utilization. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2014 , 25 , 487–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangla, S.K.; Börühan, G.; Ersoy, P.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Song, M. Impact of information hiding on circular food supply chains in business-to-business context. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 135 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faisal, M.N. A study of inhibitors to transparency in red meat supply chains in Gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015 , 21 , 1299–1318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shanoyan, A.; Schiavi Bankuti, S.M.; Colares-Santos, L. Analysis of incentive structures at producer–processor interface of beef supply chain in Brazil. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2019 , 9 , 159–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nakandala, D.; Lau, H.; Zhang, J. Cost-optimization modelling for fresh food quality and transportation. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016 , 116 , 564–583. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ge, H.; Gómez, M.; Peters, C. Modeling and optimizing the beef supply chain in the Northeastern US. Agric. Econ. 2022 , 53 , 702–718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hsiao, Y.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; Chin, C.-L. Distribution planning for perishable foods in cold chains with quality concerns: Formulation and solution procedure. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017 , 61 , 80–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meksavang, P.; Shi, H.; Lin, S.-M.; Liu, H.-C. An extended picture fuzzy VIKOR approach for sustainable supplier management and its application in the beef industry. Symmetry 2019 , 11 , 468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taylor, D.H. Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food supply chains: A case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2006 , 11 , 271–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erol, E.; Saghaian, S.H. The COVID-19 pandemic and dynamics of price adjustment in the US beef sector. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Galuchi, T.P.D.; Rosales, F.P.; Batalha, M.O. Management of socioenvironmental factors of reputational risk in the beef supply chain in the Brazilian Amazon region. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019 , 22 , 155–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silvestre, B.S.; Monteiro, M.S.; Viana, F.L.E.; de Sousa-Filho, J.M. Challenges for sustainable supply chain management: When stakeholder collaboration becomes conducive to corruption. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 194 , 766–776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eriksson, M.; Strid, I.; Hansson, P.-A. Waste of organic and conventional meat and dairy products—A case study from Swedish retail. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014 , 83 , 44–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Accorsi, R.; Bortolini, M.; Gallo, A. Modeling by-products and waste management in the meat industry. In Sustainable Food Supply Chains ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 339–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ersoy, P.; Börühan, G.; Kumar Mangla, S.; Hormazabal, J.H.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Lafcı, Ç. Impact of information technology and knowledge sharing on circular food supply chains for green business growth. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022 , 31 , 1875–1904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahbubi, A.; Uchiyama, T. Assessing the sustainability of the Indonesian halal beef supply chain. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2020 , 11 , 468–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bragaglio, A.; Napolitano, F.; Pacelli, C.; Pirlo, G.; Sabia, E.; Serrapica, F.; Serrapica, M.; Braghieri, A. Environmental impacts of Italian beef production: A comparison between different systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 172 , 4033–4043. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zeidan, R.; Van Holt, T.; Whelan, T. Existence inductive theory building to study coordination failures in sustainable beef production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 267 , 122137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santos, A.B.; Costa, M.H. Do large slaughterhouses promote sustainable intensification of cattle ranching in Amazonia and the Cerrado? Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 3266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• E-Fatima, K.; Khandan, R.; Hosseinian-Far, A.; Sarwar, D. The Adoption of Robotic Process Automation Considering Financial Aspects in Beef Supply Chains: An Approach towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 7236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huerta, A.R.; Güereca, L.P.; Lozano, M.d.l.S.R. Environmental impact of beef production in Mexico through life cycle assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016 , 109 , 44–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cox, A.; Chicksand, D.; Palmer, M. Stairways to heaven or treadmills to oblivion? Creating sustainable strategies in red meat supply chains. Br. Food J. 2007 , 109 , 689–720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teresa, H.; Áine, M.-W.; Olive, M.; Carol, P.; Maeve, H. Co-operation among Irish beef farmers: Current perspectives and future prospects in the context of new producer organisation (PO) legislation. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 4085. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kyayesimira, J.; Wangalwa, R.; Kagoro Rugunda, G.; Lejju, J.B.; Matofari, J.W.; Andama, M. Causes of losses and the economic loss estimates at post-harvest handling points along the beef value chain in Uganda. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2019 , 11 , 176–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ranaei, V.; Pilevar, Z.; Esfandiari, C.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Dhakal, R.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Hosseini, H. Meat value chain losses in Iran. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021 , 41 , 16–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wiedemann, S.; McGahan, E.; Murphy, C.; Yan, M.-J.; Henry, B.; Thoma, G.; Ledgard, S. Environmental impacts and resource use of Australian beef and lamb exported to the USA determined using life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 94 , 67–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez, C.I.P.; Poveda, A.C. Characterization of cooling equipment in the food industry: Case study of the Colombian meat, dairy, and fruit and vegetable sectors. Environ. Dev. 2022 , 41 , 100693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fattahi, F.; Nookabadi, A.S.; Kadivar, M. A model for measuring the performance of the meat supply chain. Br. Food J. 2013 , 115 , 1090–1111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Florindo, T.; Florindo, G.d.M.; Talamini, E.; da Costa, J.; de Léis, C.; Tang, W.; Schultz, G.; Kulay, L.; Pinto, A.; Ruviaro, C.F. Application of the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach in the identification of Carbon Footprint reduction actions in the Brazilian beef production chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 196 , 1379–1389. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diaz, F.; Vignati, J.A.; Marchi, B.; Paoli, R.; Zanoni, S.; Romagnoli, F. Effects of energy efficiency measures in the beef cold chain: A life cycle-based study. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2021 , 25 , 343–355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmidt, B.V.; Moreno, M.S. Traceability optimization in the meat supply chain with economic and environmental considerations. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022 , 169 , 108271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Domingues Zucchi, J.; Zeng, A.Z.; Caixeta-Filho, J.V. Optimum location for export-oriented slaughterhouses in Mato Grosso, Brazil: A dynamic mathematical model. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2011 , 14 , 135–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorcheh, F.R.; Rahbari, M. Greenhouse gas emissions optimization for distribution and vehicle routing problem in a poultry meat supply chain in two phases: A case study in Iran. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2023 , 7 , 1289–1317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Javanmard, S.; Vahdani, B.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. Solving a multi-product distribution planning problem in cross docking networks: An imperialist competitive algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014 , 70 , 1709–1720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Z.; Aqlan, F.; Zheng, X.; Gao, K. A location-inventory supply chain network model using two heuristic algorithms for perishable products with fuzzy constraints. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018 , 119 , 338–352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saragih, N.I.; Bahagia, N.; Syabri, I. A heuristic method for location-inventory-routing problem in a three-echelon supply chain system. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019 , 127 , 875–886. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hiassat, A.; Diabat, A.; Rahwan, I. A genetic algorithm approach for location-inventory-routing problem with perishable products. J. Manuf. Syst. 2017 , 42 , 93–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, T.; Diabat, A.; Richard, J.-P.; Yih, Y. A column generation-based heuristic algorithm for an inventory routing problem with perishable goods. Optim. Lett. 2013 , 7 , 1481–1502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Wang, M.; Ruan, J.; Zhan, H. The multi-objective optimization for perishable food distribution route considering temporal-spatial distance. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016 , 96 , 1211–1220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rafie-Majd, Z.; Pasandideh, S.H.R.; Naderi, B. Modelling and solving the integrated inventory-location-routing problem in a multi-period and multi-perishable product supply chain with uncertainty: Lagrangian relaxation algorithm. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2018 , 109 , 9–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, A.; Mishra, N.; Ali, S.I.; Shukla, N.; Shankar, R. Cloud computing technology: Reducing carbon footprint in beef supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015 , 164 , 462–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Baker, D.; Griffith, G. Product quality information in supply chains: A performance-linked conceptual framework applied to the Australian red meat industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020 , 31 , 697–723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, S.; Powell, W.; Foth, M.; Natanelov, V.; Miller, T.; Dulleck, U. Strengthening consumer trust in beef supply chain traceability with a blockchain-based human-machine reconcile mechanism. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021 , 180 , 105886. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kassahun, A.; Hartog, R.J.; Tekinerdogan, B. Realizing chain-wide transparency in meat supply chains based on global standards and a reference architecture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016 , 123 , 275–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ribeiro, P.C.C.; Scavarda, A.J.; Batalha, M.O. The application of RFID in brazilian harvest facilities: Two case studies. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2011 , 3 , 1–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, S.; Foth, M.; Powell, W.; Miller, T.; Li, M. A blockchain-based multisignature approach for supply chain governance: A use case from the Australian beef industry. Blockchain Res. Appl. 2022 , 3 , 100091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, J.-Y.; Hsiao, H.-I. Food quality and safety risk diagnosis in the food cold chain through failure mode and effect analysis. Food Control 2021 , 120 , 107501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Davoudi, S.; Stasinopoulos, P.; Shiwakoti, N. Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

Davoudi S, Stasinopoulos P, Shiwakoti N. Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

Davoudi, Sina, Peter Stasinopoulos, and Nirajan Shiwakoti. 2024. "Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals