a literature review may not be

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.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

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 April 15, 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, what is your plagiarism score.

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.

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

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 315 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our  mailing list  and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

• Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . 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 in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

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 primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the 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 a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded 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 make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

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 or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus 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 [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon 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. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own 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 analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . 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?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to 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.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through 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 explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. 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 environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from 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. However, sometimes you may 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. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• 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?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates 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 research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. 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. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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 .

You Might Also Like:

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

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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. 

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

• UTC Library
• Research Guides
• Single Page

Literature Reviews

What is a literature review.

• Getting Started
• Searching the Literature
• How to Read Scholarly Studies
• Managing Your Results
• Assembling Your Review

Jump to Section

• Selecting a Topic & Scope
• Identify Keywords to Use in Searching
• Finding Articles
• Reading, Note-taking, and Organization
• Citation Management

Writing Assistance for Literature Reviews

Research help.

Set up a consultation with a librarian for help refining your topic and finding sources for your paper.

• Make an Appointment

A literature review is a very specific type of academic project. It is not an annotated bibliography. It isn't a research paper. It isn't a comprehensive list of everything ever published on a certain topic. 

Literature reviews are not created to produce new insights. They are written to explore and explain the literature on the topic or issue. 

One of the most important functions of a literature review is to lay the groundwork, provide background and context, for a larger research project such as a Masters thesis or PhD dissertation. Literature reviews often come at the start of scholarly journal articles. In the social sciences and natural sciences, a literature review comprises a section of a scholarly journal article.

Professors in research methods courses often assign standalone literature reviews so that students develop skills in searching, analyzing and organizing scholarly literature in a particular field. 

1. Selecting a Topic & Scope

The first step in any literature review is to identify a topic or subject area you wish to explore, and then setting some parameters to find the scope of your review.

You also need to make sure you select a subject area that has already been researched . It will not be possible to locate sufficient existing literature on a brand new discovery or current event that is being written about in the news right now. It needs to be a well-established research area with existing studies you can review, organize and analyze. Some professors require you to find a topic that has 'not been researched before'. In that case, they don't mean an entire broad topic that hasn't been researched; instead, you'll want to find a sliver of a broad topic that hasn't been researched before. This is where narrowing your topic and finding parameters becomes very important. You may need to do some background reading on several different topics to find one that works, if your professor is having you do a standalone literature review as part of a research methods course.

Ways of Narrowing a Broad topic

For example:

Broad topic: ADHD treatments

Narrowed question: How can neurofeedback be used in threating elementary school-aged children?

Publication Dates

The scope of your review will be a part of refining your topic area or research question. In some disciplines, medicine and health science for example, the publication date of your sources may be extremely important. So, to avoid including outdated clinical recommendations, you may want to limit your review to only the most recent research out there. For other topics, say history or literature, publication date may not be as important - and scholarly research from 20, 30, even 50 years ago may still be relevant and useful today. So it's good idea to consider setting some date ranges for your search, it that is important to your topic.

Whatever your topic area turns out to be, framing the boundaries of your research question ahead of time will make searching and selecting appropriate articles that much easier. 

2. Identify Keywords to Use in Searching

Once you have defined a suitable topic or research question for your review, you will need to create a list of keywords that you will use to search for appropriate studies to include in your review. You will be doing searches through several different databases, Google scholar, or publisher platforms and the terminology used in each may vary. It is especially important to have a good variety of search terms that you can combine in different ways. This will ensure you gather the most relevant sources that cover your topic thoroughly. 

Remember to continue to gather and change your keywords as you read more about your topic!

To start, list synonyms and phrases that have to do with the main words of a research topic:

Example: Is neurofeedback useful in the treatment of ADHD in children?

Now, let's consider the word "useful" in this example topic. What is meant by "useful"? The word itself will not be helpful while searching. Instead, think about what might be useful  in terms of treatment of a child with ADHD. Think about benefits and outcomes and brainstorm a list of words:

3. Finding Articles

Using research guides to find subject specific databases.

For more focused searching of the literature of just one discipline, head over to the Research Guides section of our website. We have  Subject Guides   for all disciplines represented at UTC. Find the subject guide that has most to do with your topic, for example, if you are writing about politics, you'd choose Political Science and Public Service guide. Writing about K-12 schools? Choose Education. Each Subject Guide was created by UTC Librarians and has links to a variety of resources that you have access to.

The databases listed are smaller, specialized search engines that mainly retrieve scholarly articles. You will usually find smaller sets of results for each search you do, but those results will be from a subset of very focused resources.

Subject specific databases are searchable by keywords just like Quick Search. An example is shown in the screenshot below of the APA PsycINFO database using the keywords "neurofeedback therapy" AND "ADHD in children":

APA PsycInfo Database Search:

Using the Quick Search

Quick Search is the main search box located in the center of the Library home page. It covers all formats within our collection (physical and electronic, books, films, articles and more).and all subject areas. It is an excellent tool for locating and accessing scholarly content using keyword searches. Below is an example of how to enter your keywords for an effective search, for our sample topic we typed the words "neurofeedback ADHD children behavior problems":

Quick Search has filters  to narrow to just peer reviewed if you'd like, or you can narrow to a specific format like articles, books, or ebooks. You can also narrow by date. Look for the filters on the left sidebar after you run a search. 

As you browse results. you will notice links below each article that allow you to read the full text on the publisher website. If you decide you would like to use the article in your lit review, download the entire PDF to your device for later use. 

Using Google Scholar

Click the  Databases button (just below the Quick Search box on library's homepage) and look for Google Scholar under Multisubject Databases. Using Google Scholar through the UTC Library links our library subscriptions to your Google Scholar search results- which allows you to see articles with no paywalls if we have access! 

4. Reading, Note-taking, and Organization

1. review the how to read a scholarly article guide.

• Learn about common sections in science and social science articles
• Strategies and tips for reading start by reading the entire Abstract, and feel free to jump down to Discussion to decide if an article should be included in your paper

2. Save yourself time with good note-taking

As you read each study, take notes about the most important findings, key concepts, debates or areas of controversy and common themes you see. These notes will inform how you approach organizing and writing your literature review.

To keep organized, UTC Librarians recommend using a literature review matrix, or spreadsheet, to keep track of the articles you find as you go.  Add columns for the citation (including the URL of the article), and once you read it, track the authors' research question, methods, findings and themes. Importantly, keep track of notes and quotes as you go, and the page numbers you got them from. You will see themes or facts emerge as you read more and more articles. 

Here's an example Literature Review Matrix for you to view. Download a sample matrix as an Excel file and edit with your own sources.

3. Some ideas on how to compile an outline for your review:

After reading and taking notes on the sources you are including in your literature review, you will probably be able to identify common themes or threads that appear throughout. These recurring threads or themes can be very useful in creating a narrative framework for your review to make it easier for your readers to understand what literature exists, what has been learned, and why it is significant. Using our example of Neurofeedback Therapy for Children with ADHD, we might decide to organize our results something like this:

Other questions you might ask yourself as you decide how to outline your literature review: 

• What are the major claims being made about the topic? (There may be several)
• What significant data exists to support / explain the claims?
• Are there connections between the claims / concepts / evidence?
• Are there controversies in the literature? 
• Are there knowledge gaps that have yet to be explored? 

5. Citation Management

For smaller literature review projects, simply keeping a list of your references in Word or Google Docs is probably fine. But for longer projects, or those that are going to form the basis for a thesis or dissertation, many students choose to use citation management software to keep track of, organize, and format their references. The UTC Library supports two main citation management options: Zotero and EndNote. 

Zotero is an open source tool provided by Google. It works well with Chrome and Google Docs and has a really nice, easy to use Chrome extension that allows you to seamlessly add references and full text PDFs to your reference "library" as you do your research. The Library has a guide page that walks you through the basics of downloading, configuring and using Zotero. Visit the link below to get started. 

Zotero Guide Page

EndNote is a very powerful software package with lots of advanced features. It is produced by a commercial publisher and the Library pays a subscription fee to offer it to our students and faculty. It comes in two versions: desktop and cloud-based. (The two versions work together to provide seamless access and redundancy no matter where you are). EndNote can be very labor intensive to configure and use at the beginning, but it offers hundreds of citation styles (most major journals, academic associations and scholarly publishers) and works very well for longer, more complex projects with many references and citations. It integrates really well with Microsoft Word but does not work as well with Google Docs. The Library has basic information on its website about how to download and set up EndNote, but in order to learn it effectively, a workshop or librarian consultation is usually required. Our EndNote information is found a the link below:

EndNote Help Page

The UTC Library is home to a full-service Writing and Communication Center with tutors available to assist you with writing projects at any stage - from outline, to draft, to final manuscript. The WCC has it's own section of the UTC Library website. Check out the link below to learn more about the services they offer and how to go about scheduling an appointment.

UTC Writing and Communication Center

• Next: Getting Started >>
• Last Updated: Sep 19, 2023 8:50 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utc.edu/literature-reviews

Learn how to write a review of literature

What is a review of literature.

The format of a review of literature may vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to assignment.

A review may be a self-contained unit — an end in itself — or a preface to and rationale for engaging in primary research. A review is a required part of grant and research proposals and often a chapter in theses and dissertations.

Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.

Writing the introduction

In the introduction, you should:

Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.

Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.

Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).

Writing the body

In the body, you should:

Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.

Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.

Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.

Writing the conclusion

In the conclusion, you should:

Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.

Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.

Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.

For further information see our handouts on Writing a Critical Review of a Nonfiction Book or Article or Reading a Book to Review It .

To learn more about literature reviews, take a look at our workshop on Writing Literature Reviews of Published Research.

Sample Literature Reviews

An important strategy for learning how to compose literature reviews in your field or within a specific genre is to locate and analyze representative examples. The following collection of annotated sample literature reviews written and co-written by colleagues associated with UW-Madison showcases how these reviews can do different kind of work for different purposes. Use these successful examples as a starting point for understanding how other writers have approached the challenging and important task of situating their idea in the context of established research.

• Sample 1 (PDF) A brief literature review within a political scientists’  National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship  grant
• Sample 2 (PDF) A several-page literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about philosophy
• Sample 3 (PDF) A brief literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about photochemistry

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• Library Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Writing the Review

Literature Reviews: Writing the Review

Outline of review sections.

Your Literature Review should not be a summary and evaluation of each article, one after the other. Your sources should be integrated together to create a narrative on your topic.

Consider the following ways to organize your review:

• By themes, variables, or issues
• By varying perspectives regarding a topic of controversy
• Chronologically, to show how the topic and research have developed over time

Use an outline to organize your sources and ideas in a logical sequence. Identify main points and subpoints, and consider the flow of your review. Outlines can be revised as your ideas develop. They help guide your readers through your ideas and show the hierarchy of your thoughts. What do your readers need to understand first? Where might certain studies fit most naturally? These are the kinds of questions that an outline can clarify.

An example outline for a Literature Review might look like this:

Introduction

• Background information on the topic & definitions
• Purpose of the literature review
• Scope and limitations of the review (what is included /excluded)
• Historical background 
• Overview of the existing research on the topic
• Principle question being asked
• Organization of the literature into categories or themes
• Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each study
• Combining the findings from multiple sources to identify patterns and trends
• Insight into the relationship between your central topic and a larger area of study
• Development of a new research question or hypothesis
• Summary of the key points and findings in the literature
• Discussion of gaps in the existing knowledge
• Implications for future research

Strategies for Writing

Annotated bibliography.

An annotated bibliography collects short descriptions of each source in one place. After you have read each source carefully, set aside some time to write a brief summary. Your summary might be simply informative (e.g. identify the main argument/hypothesis, methods, major findings, and/or conclusions), or it might be evaluative (e.g. state why the source is interesting or useful for your review, or why it is not).

This method is more narrative than the Literature Matrix talked about on the Documenting Your Search page.

Taking the time to write short informative and/or evaluative summaries of your sources while you are researching can help you transition into the drafting stage later on. By making a record of your sources’ contents and your reactions to them, you make it less likely that you will need to go back and re-read many sources while drafting, and you might also start to gain a clearer idea of the overarching shape of your review.

READ EXTANT LIT REVIEWS CLOSELY

As you conduct your research, you will likely read many sources that model the same kind of literature review that you are researching and writing. While your original intent in reading those sources is likely to learn from the studies’ content (e.g. their results and discussion), it will benefit you to re-read these articles rhetorically.

Reading rhetorically means paying attention to how a text is written—how it has been structured, how it presents its claims and analyses, how it employs transitional words and phrases to move from one idea to the next. You might also pay attention to an author’s stylistic choices, like the use of first-person pronouns, active and passive voice, or technical terminology.

See  Finding Example Literature Reviews on the Developing a Research Question page for tips on finding reviews relevant to your topic.

MIND-MAPPING

Creating a mind-map is a form of brainstorming that lets you visualize how your ideas function and relate. Draw the diagram freehand or download software that lets you easily manipulate and group text, images, and shapes ( Coggle ,  FreeMind , MindMaple ).

Write down a central idea, then identify associated concepts, features, or questions around that idea. Make lines attaching various ideas, or arrows to signify directional relationships. Use different shapes, sizes, or colors to indicate commonalities, sequences, or relative importance.

This drafting technique allows you to generate ideas while thinking visually about how they function together. As you follow lines of thought, you can see which ideas can be connected, where certain pathways lead, and what the scope of your project might be. By drawing out a mind-map you may be able to see what elements of your review are underdeveloped and will benefit from more focused attention.

USE VISUALIZATION TOOLS

Attribution.

Thanks to Librarian Jamie Niehof at the University of Michigan for providing permission to reuse and remix this Literature Reviews guide.

Avoiding Bias

Reporting bias.

This occurs when you are summarizing the literature in an unbalanced, inconsistent or distorted way . 

Ways to avoid:

• look for literature that supports multiple perspectives, viewpoints or theories 
• ask multiple people to review your writing for bias
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 3:50 PM
• URL: https://info.library.okstate.edu/literaturereviews

Recent advances in deep learning models: a systematic literature review

• Published: 25 April 2023
• Volume 82 , pages 44977–45060, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ruchika Malhotra 1 &
• Priya Singh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7656-7108 1  

1645 Accesses

6 Citations

Explore all metrics

In recent years, deep learning has evolved as a rapidly growing and stimulating field of machine learning and has redefined state-of-the-art performances in a variety of applications. There are multiple deep learning models that have distinct architectures and capabilities. Up to the present, a large number of novel variants of these baseline deep learning models is proposed to address the shortcomings of the existing baseline models. This paper provides a comprehensive review of one hundred seven novel variants of six baseline deep learning models viz. Convolutional Neural Network, Recurrent Neural Network, Long Short Term Memory, Generative Adversarial Network, Autoencoder and Transformer Neural Network. The current review thoroughly examines the novel variants of each of the six baseline models to identify the advancements adopted by them to address one or more limitations of the respective baseline model. It is achieved by critically reviewing the novel variants based on their improved approach. It further provides the merits and demerits of incorporating the advancements in novel variants compared to the baseline deep learning model. Additionally, it reports the domain, datasets and performance measures exploited by the novel variants to make an overall judgment in terms of the improvements. This is because the performance of the deep learning models are subject to the application domain, type of datasets and may also vary on different performance measures. The critical findings of the review would facilitate the researchers and practitioners with the most recent progressions and advancements in the baseline deep learning models and guide them in selecting an appropriate novel variant of the baseline to solve deep learning based tasks in a similar setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

• Deep Learning

Various Frameworks and Libraries of Machine Learning and Deep Learning: A Survey

Zhaobin Wang, Ke Liu, … Yaonan Zhang

An Overview of Deep Learning

Data availability.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as this is a review article. The detail of the selected primary studies is presented in Table 3 .

Abbreviations

Deep Leering

• Autoencoder
• Convolutional Neural Network
• Recurrent Neural Network
• Generative Adversarial Network
• Long Short-Term Memory
• Transformer Neural Network

Deep Learning Models

Systematic Literature Review

Novel Variant

Aberbour M, Mehrez H (1998) Architecture and design methodology of the RBF-DDA neural network. 1998 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). 3:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.1998.703974

Ainslie J, Ontanon S, Alberti C, Cvicek V, Fisher Z, Pham P, Yang L (2020) ETC: Encoding long and structured inputs in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08483

Akhtar MM, Shatat RSA, Shatat ASA et al (2022) IoMT-based smart healthcare monitoring system using adaptive wavelet entropy deep feature fusion and improved RNN. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13934-5

Alexia JM (2018) The relativistic discriminator: a key element missing from standard GAN. International Conference on Learning Representations

Al-Sarem M, Boulila W, Al-Harby M, Qadir J, Alsaeedi A (2019) Deep learning-based rumor detection on microblogging platforms: A systematic review. IEEE Access 7:152788–152812. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2947855

Article   Google Scholar  

Alzubaidi L, Zhang J, Humaidi AJ et al (2021) Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions. J Big Data 8:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00444-8

Amjady N (2001) Short-term hourly load forecasting using time-series modeling with peak load estimation capability. IEEE Trans Power Syst 16(4):798–805. https://doi.org/10.1109/59.962429

Arjovsky M, Chintala S, Bottou L (2017) Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. Int Conf Mach Learn 17:214–223

Google Scholar  

Atassi A, Azami IEl, Sadiq A (2018) The new deep learning architecture based on GRU and word2vec. International Conference on Electronics, Control, Optimization and Computer Science (ICECOCS). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECOCS.2018.8610611

Aygun RC, Yavuz AG (2017) Network anomaly detection with stochastically improved autoencoder based models. IEEE 4th International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud). IEEE, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCloud.2017.39

Aziz MF, Mostafa SA, Mohd CF et al (2022) Integrating Elman recurrent neural network with particle swarm optimization algorithms for an improved hybrid training of multidisciplinary datasets. Expert Syst Appl 183(115441):0957–4174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115441

Bhaskar, S, Thasleema TM. LSTM model for visual speech recognition through facial expressions. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12796-1

Biolchini L, Mian PG (2005) Systematic review in software engineering. System Engineering and Computer Science Department COPPE/UFRJ

Brock A, Jeff D, Karen S (2018) Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis

Buettner R, Bilo M, Bay N, Zubac T (2020) A systematic literature review of medical image analysis using deep learning. IEEE Symp Ind Electron Appl 1:4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIEA49364.2020.9188131

Cai C, Gou B, Khishe M et al (2023) Improved deep convolutional neural networks using chimp optimization algorithm for Covid19 diagnosis from the X-ray images. Expert Syst Appl 213:119206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119206

Can Aygun R, Gokhan Yavuz A (2017) Network anomaly detection with stochastically improved autoencoder based models. 2017 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud). https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCloud.2017.39

Chen HF (2010) New approach to recursive identification for ARMAX systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 55(4):868–879. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2010.2041997

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Chen G, Hu L, Zhang Q, Ren Z, Gao X, Cheng J (2020) ST-LSTM: Spatio-temporal graph based long short-term memory network for vehicle trajectory prediction. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). 608-612. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP40778.2020.9191332

Cheng Z, Wang S, Liu X, Zhu E (2021) Improved autoencoder for unsupervised anomaly detection. Int J Intell Syst 36(12):7103–7125. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22582

Child R, Gray S, Radford A, Sutskever I (2019) Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10509

Choromanski K, Likhosherstov V, Dohan D, Song X, Gane A, Sarlos T, Weller A (2020) Rethinking attention with performers. International Conference on Learning Representations

Ciresan DC, Meier U, Gambardella LM, Schmidhuber J (2010) Deep big simple neural nets excel on hand-written digit recognition. Neural Comput 22:12. https://doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00052

Clauwaert J, Waegeman W (2022) Novel transformer networks for improved sequence labeling in genomics. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinf 19(1):97–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2020.3035021

Connor JT, Martin RD, Atlas LE (1994) Recurrent neural networks and robust time series prediction. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 5(2):240–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107704

Cui J, Gao Q, Li D (2019) Improved long short-term memory network based short term load forecasting 2019 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC). 4428–4433. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAC48633.2019.8996379

Dai Z, Lai G, Yang Y, Le Q (2020) Funnel-transformer: Filtering out sequential redundancy for efficient language processing. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 33:4271–4282

Das M, Pratama M, Ashfahani A, Samanta S (2019) FERNN: A fast and evolving recurrent neural network model for streaming data classification. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2019.8851757

Dehuri S, Roy R, Cho SB, Ghosh A (2012) An improved swarm optimized functional link artificial neural network (ISO-FLANN) for classification. J Syst Softw 85(6):1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.025

Denton E, Chintala S, Szlam A, Fergus R (2015) Deep generative image models using a Laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 1:1486–1494

Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K (2019) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4171–4186. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423

Ding Z, Liu XY, Yin M et al (2019) Tgan: Deep tensor generative adversarial nets for large image generation. International Conference on Learning Representations

Fang X, Zhang W, Guo Y, Wang J, Wang M, Li S (2022) A novel reinforced deep RNN–LSTM Algorithm: Energy management forecasting case study. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 18(8):5698–5704. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2021.3136562

Fetanat M, Stevens M, Jain P, Hayward C, Meijering E, Lovell NH (2022) Fully Elman Neural Network: A novel deep recurrent neural network optimized by an improved harris hawks algorithm for classification of pulmonary arterial Wedge Pressure. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 69(5):1733–1744. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2021.3129459

Gao F et al (2018) SD-CNN: A shallow-deep CNN for improved breast cancer diagnosis. Comput Med Imaging Graph 70:53–62

Gavrilescu R et al (2018) Faster R-CNN: an approach to real-time object detection. 2018 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEPE.2018.8559776

Geng Z, Chen Z, Meng Q, Han Y (2022) Novel transformer based on gated convolutional neural network for dynamic soft sensor modeling of industrial processes. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 18(3):1521–1529. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2021.3086798

Gnanha AT, Cao W, Mao X, Wu S, Wong HS, Li Q (2022) The residual generator: An improved divergence minimization framework for GAN. Pattern Recognit 121:108222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2021.108222

Gong W, Chen H, Zhang Z, Zhang M, Wang R, Guan C, Wang Q (2019) A novel deep learning method for intelligent fault diagnosis of rotating machinery based on improved CNN-SVM and multichannel data fusion. Sensors 19(7):1693

Gu S, Feng Y (2019) Improving multi-head attention with capsule networks. In: Proceedings of NLPCC. 314–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32233-5_25

Gu Q, Huang Z (2022) An improved convolutional neural network for wind turbine bearing fault diagnosis research method. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cyber Security and Information Engineering (ICCSIE '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 725–729. https://doi.org/10.1145/3558819.3565179

Guan J, Pan C, Li S, Yu D (2019) Srdgan: learning the noise prior for super resolution with dual generative adversarial networks. International Conference on Learning Representations

Guo M, Zhang Y, Liu T (2019) Gaussian transformer: a lightweight approach for natural language inference. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 33(1):6489–6496. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016489

Guo Q, Qiu X, Xue X, Zhang Z (2019) Low-rank and locality constrained self-attention for sequence modeling. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 27(12):2213–2222. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2019.2944078

Hah J, Lee W, Lee J, Par S (2018) Information-based boundary equilibrium generative adversarial networks with interpretable representation learning. Comput Intell Neurosci 2018:6465949. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6465949

Han L, Musunuri SH, Min MR, Gao R, Tian Y, Metaxas D (2022) AE-StyleGAN: Improved training of style-based autoencoders. IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). 955–964. https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV51458.2022.00103

He W (2017) Load forecasting via deep neural networks. Procedia Comput Sci 122:308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.374

He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

He Z, Shao H, Zhang X, Cheng J, Yang Y (2019) Improved deep transfer autoencoder for fault diagnosis of gearbox under variable working conditions with small training samples. IEEE Access 7:115368–115377. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936243

He YL, Chen L, Gao Y, Ma JH, Xu Y, Zhu QX (2022) Novel double-layer bidirectional LSTM network with improved attention mechanism for predicting energy consumption. ISA Trans 127:350–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.08.030

Heo YJ, Yeo WH, Kim BG (2022) DeepFake detection algorithm based on improved vision transformer. Appl Intell 53:7512–7527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03867-9

Hsu W, Zhang Y, Glass J (2016) A prioritized grid long short-term memory RNN for speech recognition. 2016 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.1109/SLT.2016.7846305

Hu L, Taylor G (2014) A novel hybrid technique for short-term electricity price forecasting in UK electricity markets. J Int Counc Electr Eng 4(2):114–120

Huang K, Wang X (2021) ADA-INCVAE: Improved data generation using variational autoencoder for imbalanced classification. Appl Intell 52:2838–28531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02566-1

Huang K, Wang X (2022) ADA-INCVAE: Improved data generation using variational autoencoder for imbalanced classification. Appl Intell 52:2838–2853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02566-1

Huang H, Li L, Ma H (2022) An improved cascade R-CNN-Based target detection algorithm for UAV Aerial Images, 7th International Conference on Image, Vision and Computing (ICIVC), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIVC55077.2022.9886321

Huang W, Gao X, Huang Y et al (2022) Improved convolutional neural network for laser welding defect prediction. Int J Precis Eng Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-022-00729-9

Isola P et al (2017) Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Jabeen G, Rahim S, Afzal W et al (2022) Machine learning techniques for software vulnerability prediction: a comparative study. Appl Intell 52:17614–17635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03350-5

Joshy AA, Rajan R (2022) Automated dysarthria severity classification: A study on acoustic features and deep learning techniques. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 30:1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3169814

Jung W et al (2019) Restructuring batch normalization to accelerate CNN training. Proc Mach Learn Syst 1:14–26

Karabayir I, Akbilgic O, Tas N (2021) A Novel Learning Algorithm to Optimize Deep Neural Networks: Evolved Gradient Direction Optimizer (EVGO). IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 32(2):685–694. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2979121

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Karras T et al (2017) Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation. International Conference on Learning Representations

Karras T, Laine S, Aila T (2021) A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 42(12):4217–4228. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2020.2970919

Khamparia A, Singh KM (2019) A systematic review on deep learning architectures and applications. Expert Systems 36:e12400. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12400

Kisan K, Jatoth RK (2021) A new training scheme for neural network based non-linear channel equalizers in wireless communication system using Cuckoo Search Algorithm. AEU-Int J Electron Commun 138:153371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeue.2020.153371

Kitchenham B, Brereton OP (2009) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering -a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 51(1):7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009

Krizhevsky A, Ilya S, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 60(6):84–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3065386

Kumar A, Kumari P (2021) A pragmatic approach to face recognition using a novel deep learning algorithm. Inernational Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE). 806–810. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACITE51222.2021.9404697 .

Kumar N, Sukavanam N (2020) An improved CNN framework for detecting and tracking human body in unconstraint environment. Knowl Based Syst 193:105198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105198

Kumar M, Mukherjee P, Verma K, Verma S, Rawat DB (2022) Improved deep convolutional neural network based malicious node detection and energy-efficient data transmission in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans Netw Sci Eng 9(5):3272–3281. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2021.3098011

Kuo PH, Huang CJ (2018) A high precision artificial neural networks model for short-term energy load forecasting. Energies 11(1):213. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11010213

Lata K, Dave M, Nishanth KN (2019) Image-to-Image translation using generative adversarial network. International conference on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA). 186–189. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECA.2019.8822195

Ledig C et al (2017) Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.19

Li X, Meng Y, Zhou M, Han Q, Wu F, Li J (2020) SAC: accelerating and structuring self-attention via sparse adaptive connection. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'20). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA. 426:16997–17008. https://doi.org/10.5555/3495724.3497150

Li Y, Zhou Z, Sun C, Chen X, Yan R (2022) Variational Attention-Based Interpretable Transformer Network for Rotary Machine Fault Diagnosis. In: IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3202234

Li J, Lu Y, Xu Z, Li S, Qian L (2022) MILP: A memory improved LSTM prediction algorithm for gradient transmission time in distributed deep learning. ICC 2022 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, 4462–4467

Li W, Chen J, Wang Z, Shen Z, Ma C and Cui X (2022). IFL-GAN: Improved federated learning generative adversarial network with maximum mean discrepancy model Aggregation. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3167482

Li C, Pan C, Chen F, Li J, Fu S, Zeng W (2022) A handwritten number recognition scheme based on improved convolutional neural network algorithm. Advances in artificial intelligence and security communications in computer and Information Science 1586. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06767-9_33

Li Y, Xiao N, Ouyang W (2018) Improved boundary equilibrium generative adversarial networks. IEEE Access 6:11342–11348. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2804278

Li J, Yao P, Guo L, Zhang W (2019) Boosted transformer for image captioning. Appl Sci 9(16):3260. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9163260

Li Q, Zhao Y, Yu F (2020) A novel multichannel long short-term memory method with time series for soil temperature modeling. IEEE Access 8:182026–182043. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028995

Li L, Kameoka H, Makino S (2022) FastMVAE2: On Improving and accelerating the fast variational autoencoder-based source separation algorithm for determined mixtures. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 31:96–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2022.3214763

Li Y, Yang S, Zheng Y, Lu H (2022) Improved point-voxel region convolutional neural network: 3D object detectors for autonomous driving. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 23(7):9311–9317. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3071790

Li X, Wei J, Jiao H (2022) Real-time tracking algorithm for aerial vehicles using improved convolutional neural network and transfer learning. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 23(3):2296–2305. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3072872

Lin M, Qiang C, Shuicheng Y (2013) Network in network. Neural and Evolutionary Computing. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1312.4400

Lin T, Wang Y, Liu X, Qiu X (2022) A survey of transformers. AI Open 3:111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiopen.2022.10.001

Liu B et al (2020) Traffic flow combination forecasting method based on improved LSTM and ARIMA. Int J Embedded Syst 12(1):22–30

Liu W, You J, Lee J (2021) HSIGAN: A Conditional hyperspectral image synthesis method with auxiliary classifier. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 14:330–3344. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3063911

Lodha I, Kolur L, Krishnan K, Dheenadayalan K, Sitaram D, Nandi S (2022) Cost-optimized video transfer using real-time super resolution convolutional neural networks. In: 5th Joint International Conference on Data Science & Management of Data (9th ACM IKDD CODS and 27th COMAD). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1145/3493700.3493731

Lu S et al (2019) Psgan: A minimax game for personalized search with limited and noisy click data. Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

Lu S, Dou Z, Jun X, Nie JY, Wen JR (2019) Psgan: A minimax game for personalized search with limited and noisy click data. Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1145/3331184.3331218

Luo X, Li J, Chen M, Yang X, Li X (2021) Ophthalmic Disease Detection via Deep Learning with a Novel Mixture Loss Function. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 25(9):3332–3339. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2021.3083605

Lv W, Xiong J, Shi J et al (2021) A deep convolution generative adversarial networks based fuzzing framework for industry control protocols. J Intell Manuf 32:441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01584-z

Ma L, Jia X, Sun Q, Schiele B, Tuytelaars T, Van G (2017) Pose guided person image generation. Advances in neural information processing systems

Ma J et al (2013) Improved GaN-based LED grown on silicon (111) substrates using stress/dislocation-engineered interlayers. J Cryst Growth 370:265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2012.10.028

Martín A, Camacho D (2022) Recent advances on effective and efficient deep learning-based solutions. Neural Comput & Applic 34:10205–10210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07344-9

Mashudi NA, Ahmad N, Noor NM (2022) LiWGAN: A Light Method to Improve the Performance of Generative Adversarial Network. IEEE Access 10:93155–93167. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3203065

McDowall TM, Ham FM (1997) Robust partial least-squares regression: A modular neural network approach. Appl Sci Artif Neural Netw 3077:344–355. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.271496

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Mirza M, Osindero S (2014) Conditional generative adversarial nets. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Mittal V, Gangodkar D, Pant B (2021) Deep Graph-Long Short-Term Memory: A Deep Learning Based Approach for Text Classification. Wireless Pers Commun 119:2287–2301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08331-4

Moon T, Choi H, Lee H, Song I (2015) Rnndrop: A novel dropout for rnns in asr. Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding. 65–70, https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU.2015.7404775

Mou L, Zhao P, Xie H, Chen H (2018) T-LSTM: A Long Short-Term Memory Neural Network Enhanced by Temporal Information for Traffic Flow Prediction. IEEE Access 7:98053–98060. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2929692

Nagabushanam P, George ST, Radha S (2020) EEG signal classification using LSTM and improved neural network algorithms. Soft Comput 24(13):9981–10003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04515-0

Neifar N, Mdhaffar A, Hamadou AB, Jmaiel M, and Freisleben B (2022) Disentangling temporal and amplitude variations in ECG synthesis using anchored GANs. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477314.3507300

Nguyen TT, Nguyen ND, Nahavandi S (2020) Deep Reinforcement Learning for Multiagent Systems: A Review of Challenges, Solutions, and Applications. IEEE Trans Cybern 50(9):3826–3839. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2977374

Ni Q, Cao X (2022) MBGAN: An improved generative adversarial network with multi-head self-attention and bidirectional RNN for time series imputation. Eng Appl Artif Intell 115:105232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105232

Odena A, Olah C, Shlens J (2017) Conditional image synthesis with auxiliary classifier gans. Int Conf Mach Learn 70(2642):2651

Ogundokun RO, Maskeliunas R, Misra S, Damaševičius R (2022). Improved CNN based on batch normalization and adam optimizer. In: Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2022 Workshops. ICCSA 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13381. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10548-7_43

Otter DW, Medina JR, Kalita JK (2021) A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 32(2):604–624. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2979670

Pal SK, Pramanik A, Maiti J et al (2021) Deep learning in multi-object detection and tracking: state of the art. Appl Intell 51:6400–6429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02293-7

Pandey A, Wang D (2022) Self-Attending RNN for speech enhancement to improve cross-corpus generalization. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 30:1374–1385. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2022.3161143

Pandey A, Wang D (2022) Self-Attending RNN for speech enhancement to improve cross-corpus generalization. ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 30:1374–1385. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2022.3161143

Playout C, Renaud D, Farida C (2018) A multitask learning architecture for simultaneous segmentation of bright and red lesions in fundus images. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention 11071. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_12

Price SR, Steven RP, and Derek TA (2019) Introducing fuzzy layers for deep learning. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858790

Qing Y, Liu W, Feng L, Gao W (2021) Improved transformer net for hyperspectral image classification. Remote Sensing 13(11):2216. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13112216

Qipeng G, Xipeng G, Pengfei L, Yunfan S, Xiangyang X, Zheng Z (2019) Star-transformer. In: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL. 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1133

Qiu D, Cheng Y, Wang X (2022) Improved generative adversarial network for retinal image super-resolution. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 225(106995):10169–12607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106995

Rakotonirina NC and Rasoanaivo A (2020) ESRGAN+ : Further improving enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial network. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 3637–3641. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP40776.2020.9054071

Reis AFD, Medjahdi Y, Chang BS, Sublime J, Brante G, Bader CF (2022) Low Complexity LSTM-NN-Based Receiver for Vehicular Communications in the Presence of High-Power Amplifier Distortions. IEEE Access 10:121985–122000. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3223113

Roy A, Saffar M, Vaswani A, Grangier D (2021) Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist 9:53–68

Sermanet P, Eigen D, Zhang X, Mathieu M, Fergus R, LeCun Y (2013) Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and detection using convolutional networks. International Conference on Learning Representations

Serradilla O, Zugasti E, Rodriguez J et al. (2022) Deep learning models for predictive maintenance: a survey, comparison, challenges and prospects. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-03004-y

She J, Gong S, Yang S, Yang H, Lu S (2022) Xigmoid: An approach to improve the gating mechanism of RNN. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892346

Shi Y, Li Y, Fan J, Wang T, Yin T (2020) A novel network architecture of decision-making for self-driving vehicles based on long short-term memory and grasshopper optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 8:155429–155440. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3019048

Shi N, Chen Z, Chen L, Lee RST (2022) CNO-LSTM: A chaotic neural oscillatory long short-term memory model for text classification. IEEE Access 10:129564–129579. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3228600

Shrestha A, Mahmood A (2019) Review of deep learning algorithms and architectures. IEEE Access 7:53040–53065. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2912200

Simonyan K, Zisserman A (2015) Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. International Conference on Learning Representations

Singh SK, Yang R, Behjat A, Rai R, Chowdhury S, Matei I (2019) PI-LSTM: Physics-infused long short-term memory network. 18th IEEE International Conference On Machine Learning And Applications (ICMLA). 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLA.2019.00015

Singh R, Mary AB, Athisayamani S (2020) Banana leaf diseased image classification using novel HEAP Autoencoder (HAE) deep learning. Multimed Tools Appl 79:30601–30613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09521-1

Song J et al (2018) Multi-agent generative adversarial imitation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 31. https://doi.org/10.5555/3305381.3305404

Song J et al (2018) Multi-agent generative adversarial imitation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

Song C, He Z, Yu Y, Zhang Z (2021) Low Resolution Face Recognition System Based on ESRGAN. 3rd International Conference on Applied Machine Learning (ICAML). 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAML54311.2021.00024

Szegedy C, Liu W, Yangqing J et al (2015) Going deeper with convolutions. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298594

Tang X (2019) Large-scale computing systems workload prediction using parallel improved LSTM neural network. IEEE Access 7:40525–40533. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2905634

Tay Y, Bahri D, Yang L, Metzler D, Juan DC (2020). Sparse sinkhorn attention. International Conference on Machine Learning. 9438–9447. https://doi.org/10.5555/3524938.3525813

Tian C, Ma J, Zhang C, Zhan C (2018) A deep neural network model for short-term load forecast based on long short-term memory network and convolutional neural network. Energies 11:12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123493

Tripathi BK (2017) On the complex domain deep machine learning for face recognition. Appl Intell 47:382–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-0902-7

Uyar K, Taşdemir S, Ülker E, Ünlükal N, Solmaz M (2022) Improving efficiency in convolutional neural networks with 3D image filters. Biomed Signal Process Control 74(03563):1746–8094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2022.103563

Valliani AAA, Ranti D, Oermann EK (2019) Deep Learning and Neurology: A Systematic Review. Neurol Ther 8:351–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-019-00153-8

Venkatachalam K, Trojovský P, Pamucar D, Bacanin N, Simic V (2022) DWFH: An improved data-driven deep weather forecasting hybrid model using Transductive Long Short Term Memory (T-LSTM). Expert Syst Appl 213(119270):0957–4174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119270

Vyas A, Katharopoulos A, Fleuret F (2020) Fast transformers with clustered attention. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 33:21665–21674

Wang Z, Pan S (2021) An improved convolutional neural network based on noise layer. Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management . KSEM 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 12816. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82147-0_6

Wang R, Zhang Y, Zhang J (2022) An efficient swin transformer-based method for underwater image enhancement. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-14228-6

Wang H, Wu W, Su Y, Duan Y, Wang P (2019) Image super-resolution using a improved generative adversarial network. IEEE 9th International Conference on Electronics Information and Emergency Communication (ICEIEC). 312–315. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEIEC.2019.8784610

Wang Z, Lin J, Wang Z (2017) Accelerating recurrent neural networks: A memory-efficient approach. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr VLSI Syst 25(10):2763–2775. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVLSI.2017.2717950

Wang X, Yu K, Gu J et al (2018) Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks. Proc European Conf Comput Vision (ECCV) 11133:63–79

Wang J, Zhang J, Wang X (2018) Bilateral LSTM: A two-dimensional long short-term memory model with multiply memory units for short-term cycle time forecasting in re-entrant manufacturing systems. IEEE Trans Ind Inf 14(2):748–758. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2017.2754641

Wang Y, Shen Y, Mao S, Chen X, Zou H (2019) LASSO and LSTM integrated temporal model for short-term solar intensity forecasting. IEEE Internet Things J 6(2):2933–2944. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2877510

Wang Q, Peng RQ, Wang JQ, Li Z, Qu HB (2020) NEWLSTM: An optimized long short-term memory language model for sequence prediction. IEEE Access 8:65395–65401. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2985418

Wang J, Hou B, Ren B, Zhang Y, Yang M, Wang S, Jiao L (2022) Parameter selection of Touzi decomposition and a distribution improved autoencoder for PolSAR image classification. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 186:246–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2022.02.003

Wei L, Li J (2022) Short-term power load forecasting based on MA-LSTM. IEEE International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering and Computer Applications (AEECA). 1370–1374. https://doi.org/10.1109/AEECA55500.2022.9918996

Wei S, Zhang Y, Park SC (2021) A novel deep Autoencoder considering energy and label constraints for categorization. Expert Systems with Applications. 176:114936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114936

Wu J, Liu J, Ma J et al (2020) Classification of power loads based on an improved denoising deconvolutional Autoencoder. Applied Soft Computing 87:105959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105959

Chen Xi, Duan Y, Houthooft R et al (2016) Infogan: Interpretable representation learning by information maximizing generative adversarial nets. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2180–2188

Xia L, Diao L, Jiang Z et al (2019) PAI-FCNN: FPGA based inference system for complex CNN models. 2019 IEEE 30th International Conference on Application-specific Systems, Architectures and Processors (ASAP). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASAP.2019.00-21

Xiong Y, Zeng Z, Chakraborty R, Tan M, Fung G, Li Y, Singh V (2021) Nyströmformer: A nyström-based algorithm for approximating self-attention. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 35(16):14138–14148

Xu K, Shen X, Yao T, Tian X, Mei T (2018) Greedy layer-wise training of long short term memory networks. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMEW.2018.8551584

Xu T, Zhang H, Li H et al (2017) Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.629

Xu X, Lu Y, Liu X et al (2020) Intelligent collision avoidance algorithms for USVs via deep reinforcement learning under COLREGs. Ocean Engineering 217:107704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107704

Xu X, Xu H, Wang Y et al (2021) AENEA: A novel autoencoder-based network embedding algorithm. Peer-to-Peer Netw Appl 14:1829–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-020-01043-9

Yang M, Xu S (2021) Orthogonal nonnegative matrix factorization using a novel deep autoencoder network. Knowledge-Based Systems 227:107236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107236

Yang R, Xu M, Wang Z (2017) Decoder-side HEVC quality enhancement with scalable convolutional neural network. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). 817-822. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2017.8019299

Yang S, Yang J, Ge X, Wang X (2022) Medium and short-term prediction of power system load based on improved LSTM Algorithm. International Conference on Communications, Computing, Cybersecurity, and Informatics (CCCI). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCCI55352.2022.9926584

Yang Y, Zheng K, Wu C, Yang Z (2019) Improving the classification effectiveness of intrusion detection by using improved conditional variational autoencoder and deep neural network. Sensors 19(11):2528. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19112528

Yang M, Nazir S, Xu Q et al (2020) Deep learning algorithms and multicriteria decision-making used in big data: A systematic literature review. Complexity 2020:1076–2787. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2836064

Yao L, Yazhuo G (2018) An improved LSTM structure for natural language processing. IEEE International Conference of Safety Produce Informatization (IICSPI). https://doi.org/10.1109/IICSPI.2018.8690387

Yin A, Zheng F, Tan J, Wang Y (2021) An improved variational autoencoder with reverse supervision for the obstacles recognition of UGVs. IEEE Sens J 21(10):11791–11798. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2020.3013668

Yuan X, He P, Zhu Q, Li X (2019) Adversarial examples: Attacks and defenses for deep learning. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 30(9):2805–2824. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2018.2886017

Yuqian C, Song Y, Liu W, Zhang YJ et al (2021) CellTrack R-CNN: A novel end-to-end deep neural network for cell segmentation and tracking in microscopy images. 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. 779–782. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9434057

Yuzhen L, and Salem FM (2017) Simplified gating in long short-term memory (lstm) recurrent neural networks. 2017 IEEE 60th International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS). 1601–1604. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWSCAS.2017.8053244

Zabalza J, Ren J, Zheng J et al (2016) Novel segmented stacked autoencoder for effective dimensionality reduction and feature extraction in hyperspectral imaging. Neurocomputing 185:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2015.11.044

Zhang L, Suganthan PN (2017) Visual tracking with convolutional random vector functional link network. IEEE Trans Cybern 47:3243–3253. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2016.2588526

Zhang Z, Luo J, Liu J, Chen M, Zhang S, Zhu L (2022) DGGCNN: An improved generative grasping convolutional neural networks. 2022 Asia Conference on Advanced Robotics, Automation, and Control Engineering. 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARACE56528.2022.00019

Zhang Z, Luo J, Liu J et al (2022) DGGCNN: An improved generative grasping convolutional neural networks. 2022 Asia Conference on Advanced Robotics, Automation, and Control Engineering. 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARACE56528.2022.00019

Zhang H et al (2017) StackGAN: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversarial networks. IEEE Int Conf Comput Vision (ICCV) 2017:5908–5916. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.629

Zhang H, Xu T, Li H, Zhang S, Wang X, Huang X, Metaxas DN (2018) StackGAN++: Realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversarial networks. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 41(8):1947–1962. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2856256

Zhang Y, Cheng Y, Xu T, Wang G, Chen C, Yang T (2022) Fault prediction of railway turnout systems based on improved sparse autoencoder and gated recurrent unit network. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 23(8):12711–12723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3116966

Zhao J, Michael M, LeCun Y (2017) Energy-based generative adversarial network. 5th International Conference on Learning Representations

Zhao H, Zenget X, Zhang J et al (2011) Pipelined functional link artificial recurrent neural network with the decision feedback structure for nonlinear channel equalization. Inf Sci 181(17):3677–3692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.04.033

Zhao R, Dong D, Wang Y et al (2022) Image-based crowd stability analysis using improved multi-column convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 23(6):5480–5489. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3054376

Zheng C et al (2019) A novel equivalent model of active distribution networks based on LSTM. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 30(9):2611–2624. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2018.2885219

Zhong H, Wu J (2022) Image dehazing algorithm based on improved generative adversarial network. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Cyber Security and Information Engineering. 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1145/3558819.3565120

Zhou H, Zhang S, Peng J, Zhang S, Li J, Xiong H, Zhang W (2021) Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 35(12):11106–11115

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Software Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Ruchika Malhotra & Priya Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

For the Systematic Literature Review-

1. Ruchika Malhotra proposed the idea for the article.

2. Primary Study selection was done by Priya Singh followed by a review by Dr. Ruchika Malhotra.

3. Data Extraction was done by Ruchika Malhotra and Priya Singh both separately, resolving differences where applicable at the time of merging.

4. Result Reporting was done by Priya Singh and reviewed by Ruchika Malhotra.

5. Proofreading and final review were done by Ruchika Malhotra and Priya Singh.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priya Singh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

The authors provide consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that this manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration and it has not been published previously (partly or in full). The authors also certify that no funding has been received for the conduct of this study and the preparation of this manuscript. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1.1 Quality assessment results

We provide the quality scores to 166 studies selected after Inclusion–Exclusion criteria according to 16 quality assessment questions stated in Table 2 . Table 10 reports the percentage of candidate studies that answered a given quality question as “Yes”, “Partly” or “No”.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Malhotra, R., Singh, P. Recent advances in deep learning models: a systematic literature review. Multimed Tools Appl 82 , 44977–45060 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-15295-z

Download citation

Received : 08 September 2022

Revised : 10 January 2023

Accepted : 06 April 2023

Published : 25 April 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-15295-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination and Intramuscular Vaccine Administration

Vaccines are a public health success story, as they have prevented or lessened the effects of many infectious diseases. To address concerns around potential vaccine injuries, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provide compensation to those who assert that they were injured by routine vaccines or medical countermeasures, respectively. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have contributed to the scientific basis for VICP compensation decisions for decades.

HRSA asked the National Academies to convene an expert committee to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence about the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and specific adverse events, as well as intramuscular administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. This report outlines the committee findings and conclusions.

Read Full Description

• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination
• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of Shoulder Injuries from Intramuscular Administration of Vaccines
• Press Release

Recent News

NAS Launches Science and Innovation Fund for Ukraine

Science Academies Issue Statements to Inform G7 Talks

Supporting Family Caregivers in STEMM

A Vision for High-Quality Preschool for All

• Load More...

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
• Case Report
• Published: 16 April 2024

Bilateral tibial fractures associated with powered exoskeleton use in complete spinal cord injury – a case report & literature review

• John Mahon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9450-7798 1 ,
• Lily Nolan 1 ,
• David O’Sullivan 1 ,
• Mark Curtin 1 ,
• Aiden Devitt 1 &
• Colin G. Murphy 1  

Spinal Cord Series and Cases volume  10 , Article number:  22 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Adverse effects
• Fracture repair
• Rehabilitation
• Risk factors

Introduction

Powered robotic exoskeleton (PRE) physiotherapy programmes are a relatively novel frontier which allow patients with reduced mobility to engage in supported walking. Research is ongoing regarding their utility, risks, and benefits. This article describes the case of two fractures occurring in one patient using a PRE.

We report the case of a 54 year old man who sustained bilateral tibial fractures while using a PRE, on a background of T10 AIS A SCI. The initial session was discontinued due to acute severe bilateral knee swelling after approximately 15 min. The patient attended their local hospital the following day, where radiographs demonstrated bilateral proximal tibial fractures. The patient was treated with manipulation under anaesthetic and long-leg casting for five weeks, at which point he was stepped down to hinged knee braces which were weaned gradually while he remained non-weight bearing for 12 weeks. The patient was investigated with DEXA scan and was diagnosed with osteoporosis. He was liaised with rheumatology services and bone protection was initiated. Fracture healing was achieved and weight-bearing precautions were discontinued, however this period of immobilisation led to significant spasticity. The patient was discharged from orthopaedic services, with ongoing rehabilitation and physiotherapy follow-up.

PRE assisted physiotherapy programmes are a promising concept in terms of rehabilitation and independence, however they are not without risk and it is important that both providers and patients are aware of this. Furthermore, SCI patients are at increased risk for osteoporosis and should be monitored and considered for bone protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 1 print issues and online access

We are sorry, but there is no personal subscription option available for your country.

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Case Report: Description of two fractures during the use of a powered exoskeleton

F. H. M. van Herpen, R. B. van Dijsseldonk, … I. J. W. van Nes

Surgical outcome of upper extremity fractures in patients with Parkinson’s disease

Te-Feng Arthur Chou, Chun-Yao Chang, … Tung-Fu Huang

Evaluation of safety and performance of the self balancing walking system Atalante in patients with complete motor spinal cord injury

Jacques Kerdraon, Jean Gabriel Previnaire, … Aaron Ames

Data availability

Information generated and analysed during the writing of this paper can be found within the text itself and referenced articles.

Bao G, Pan L, Fang H, Wu X, Yu H, Cai S, et al. Academic review and perspectives on robotic exoskeletons. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27:2294–304.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Karelis AD, Carvalho LP, Castillo MJ, Gagnon DH, Aubertin-Leheudre M. Effect on body composition and bone mineral density of walking with a robotic exoskeleton in adults with chronic spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49:84–7.

Gorgey AS, Dolbow DR, Dolbow JD, Khalil RK, Castillo C, Gater DR. Effects of spinal cord injury on body composition and metabolic profile - part I. J Spinal Cord Med. 2014;37:693–702.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Abdelrahman S, Ireland A, Winter EM, Purcell M, Coupaud S. Osteoporosis after spinal cord injury: Aetiology, effects and therapeutic approaches. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2021;21:26–50.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ma Y, de Groot S, Romviel S, Achterberg W, van Orsouw L, Janssen TWJ. Changes in body composition during and after inpatient rehabilitation in people with recent spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2021;7:88.

Asselin P, Cirnigliaro CM, Kornfeld S, Knezevic S, Lackow R, Elliott M, et al. Effect of exoskeletal-assisted walking on soft tissue body composition in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102:196–202.

Morse L. Osteoporosis prophylaxis in acute SCI. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2019;5:27.

Shackleton C, Evans R, West S, Derman W, Albertus Y. Robotic walking to mitigate bone mineral density decline and adverse body composition in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;101:931–6.

Zleik N, Weaver F, Harmon RL, Le B, Radhakrishnan R, Jirau-Rosaly WD, et al. Prevention and management of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in persons with a spinal cord injury or disorder: A systematic scoping review. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019;42:735–59.

Kim HS, Park JH, Lee HS, Lee JY, Jung JW, Park SB, et al. Effects of wearable powered exoskeletal training on functional mobility, physiological health and quality of life in non-ambulatory spinal cord injury patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36:1–15.

Google Scholar  

Miller LE, Zimmermann AK, Herbert WG. Clinical effectiveness and safety of powered exoskeleton-assisted walking in patients with spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analysis. Med Dev. 2016;9:455–66.

Rodriguez Tapia G, Doumas I, Lejeune T, Previnaire JG. Wearable powered exoskeletons for gait training in tetraplegia: a systematic review on feasibility, safety and potential health benefits. Acta Neurol Belg. 2022;122:1149–62.

Tamburella F, Lorusso M, Tramontano M, Fadlun S, Masciullo M, Scivoletto G. Overground robotic training effects on walking and secondary health conditions in individuals with spinal cord injury: systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19:27.

van Herpen FHM, van Dijsseldonk RB, Rijken H, Keijsers NLW, Louwerens JWK, van Nes IJW. Case Report: Description of two fractures during the use of a powered exoskeleton. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2019;5:99.

Bass A, Morin SN, Vermette M, Aubertin-Leheudre M, Gagnon DH. Incidental bilateral calcaneal fractures following overground walking with a wearable robotic exoskeleton in a wheelchair user with a chronic spinal cord injury: is zero risk possible? Osteoporos Int. 2020;31:1007–11.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benson I, Hart K, Tussler D, Van Middendorp JJ. Lower-limb exoskeletons for individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: Findings from a feasibility study. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30:73–84.

Galen SS, Clarke CJ, McLean AN, Allan DB, Conway BA. Isometric hip and knee torque measurements as an outcome measure in robot assisted gait training. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34:287–95.

Tow A, Lim WS, Sew S. Rehabilitation outcomes of robotic-assisted locomotor training in incomplete spinal cord injured individuals. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2011;16:109.

Thoumie P, Le Claire G, Beillot J, Dassonville J, Chevalier T, Perrouin-Verbe B, et al. Restoration of functional gait in paraplegic patients with the RGO-II hybrid orthosis. A multicenter controlled study. II: Physiological evaluation. Paraplegia 1995;33:654–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Dijsseldonk RB, van Nes IJW, Geurts ACH, Keijsers NLW. Exoskeleton home and community use in people with complete spinal cord injury. Sci Rep. 2020;10:15600.

Spungen AM, Asselin PK. Indications and contraindications for exoskeletal-assisted walking in persons with spinal cord injury using evidence-based data. PM R 2020;12:S41.

Bass A, Aubertin-Leheudre M, Morin SN, Gagnon DH. Preliminary training volume and progression algorithm to tackle fragility fracture risk during exoskeleton-assisted overground walking in individuals with a chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2022;8:29.

Bessler J, Schaake L, Kelder R, Buurke JH, Prange-Lasonder GB. Prototype Measuring Device for Assessing Interaction Forces between Human Limbs and Rehabilitation Robots - A Proof of Concept Study. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR); 2019; Toronto, ON, Canada. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2019 [cited 2023 Sep 5]. p. 1109–1114. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8779536

Bessler-Etten J, Schaake L, Prange-Lasonder GB, Buurke JH. Assessing effects of exoskeleton misalignment on knee joint load during swing using an instrumented leg simulator. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19:13.

Wan X, Liu Y, Akiyama Y, Yamada Y. Monitoring contact behavior during assisted walking with a lower limb exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28:869–77.

Xiang XN, Ding MF, Zong HY, Liu Y, Cheng H, He CQ, et al. The safety and feasibility of a new rehabilitation robotic exoskeleton for assisting individuals with lower extremity motor complete lesions following spinal cord injury (SCI): an observational study. Spinal Cord. 2020;58:787–94.

Gagnon DH, Escalona MJ, Vermette M, Carvalho LP, Karelis AD, Duclos C, et al. Locomotor training using an overground robotic exoskeleton in long-term manual wheelchair users with a chronic spinal cord injury living in the community: Lessons learned from a feasibility study in terms of recruitment, attendance, learnability, performance and safety. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15:12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Cara McDonagh and her team in the National Rehabilitation Hospital, and Dr. Kieran Kelliher of Turloughmore Medical Centre for their ongoing care of the patient in this case. We would also like to acknowledge the staff at the Dublin City University Exoskeleton Programme for their assistance and expertise in the subject matter.

This project did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University Hospital Galway, Newcastle Road, Galway, Ireland

John Mahon, Lily Nolan, David O’Sullivan, Mark Curtin, Aiden Devitt & Colin G. Murphy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JM was the main author, and was responsible for data collection and liaison with the patient, review of the literature, and writing the manuscript. LN contributed to review of the literature, data collection, and contributed to writing the manuscript. DOS and MC were involved in initial literature search, and contributed to review and feedback on the manuscript. AD and CGM are senior authors who provided feedback and final approval of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Mahon .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required for this project given that it was a case report concerning one patient, whose informed consent was obtained for production and publication of the manuscript.

Informed consent

The authors confirm that the patient is aware that data concerning his case would be submitted for publication and proceed with his informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mahon, J., Nolan, L., O’Sullivan, D. et al. Bilateral tibial fractures associated with powered exoskeleton use in complete spinal cord injury – a case report & literature review. Spinal Cord Ser Cases 10 , 22 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-024-00635-4

Download citation

Received : 02 October 2023

Revised : 31 March 2024

Accepted : 05 April 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-024-00635-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

• Open access
• Published: 16 April 2024

Approaches to locum physician recruitment and retention: a systematic review

• Nathan Ferreira 1 ,
• Odessa McKenna 1 ,
• Iain R. Lamb 2 ,
• Alanna Campbell 3 ,
• Lily DeMiglio 2 &
• Eliseo Orrantia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3023-8100 2  

Human Resources for Health volume  22 , Article number:  24 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

60 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

A robust workforce of locum tenens (LT) physicians is imperative for health service stability. A systematic review was conducted to synthesize current evidence on the strategies used to facilitate the recruitment and retention of LT physicians. English articles up to October 2023 across five databases were sourced. Original studies focusing on recruitment and retention of LT’s were included. An inductive content analysis was performed to identify strategies used to facilitate LT recruitment and retention. A separate grey literature review was conducted from June–July 2023. 12 studies were retained. Over half (58%) of studies were conducted in North America. Main strategies for facilitating LT recruitment and retention included financial incentives (83%), education and career factors (67%), personal facilitators (67%), clinical support and mentorship (33%), and familial considerations (25%). Identified subthemes were desire for flexible contracts (58%), increased income (33%), practice scouting (33%), and transitional employment needs (33%). Most (67%) studies reported deterrents to locum work, with professional isolation (42%) as the primary deterrent-related subtheme. Grey literature suggested national physician licensure could enhance license portability, thereby increasing the mobility of physicians across regions. Organizations employ five main LT recruitment facilitators and operationalize these in a variety of ways. Though these may be incumbent on local resources, the effectiveness of these approaches has not been evaluated. Consequently, future research should assess LT the efficacy of recruitment and retention facilitators. Notably, the majority of identified LT deterrents may be mitigated by modifying contextual factors such as improved onboarding practices.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The shortage of a sustainable and robust physician workforce is a significant healthcare issue across most of the world [ 1 ]. In regions that face persistent challenges in physician availability, the continuity of the healthcare system heavily relies on locum tenens (LT) physicians, commonly referred to as “locums”. These healthcare providers work in a temporary capacity to fill vacancies or provide coverage for permanent physicians [ 2 , 3 ]. Their importance was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic as the lack of locums resulted in the suspension of hospital services and emergency department closures due to insufficient staffing [ 4 ].

Physician recruitment strategies primarily focus on filling permanent positions with minimal emphasis on attracting locum providers [ 5 ]. However, strategies aimed at facilitating the recruitment of permanent physicians may not effectively attract locums given fundamental distinctions in their employment preferences and priorities. LTs, for instance, are motivated by factors such as seeking greater autonomy, working part-time, transitioning into partial retirement, and supplementing income [ 6 , 7 ]. Their attraction to working as a locum may be due to advantages including reduced administrative burdens, lower workplace stress, and flexibility for maintaining a desired work–life balance [ 6 , 7 ]. Additional advantages include competitive salaries comparable to permanent positions without a long-term commitment, travel and accommodation stipends, subsidized malpractice insurance, and lower overhead expenses [ 6 , 7 ].

Governments and communities invest substantial financial resources to attract locums in order to sustain healthcare service delivery [ 6 , 8 ]. As such, existing research has investigated locum recruitment and retention factors [ 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 ]. Despite the important role that locums play in sustaining operational healthcare systems, particularly during periods of health human resources strain, there is a lack of consolidated of evidence on the recruitment of LT physicians. Consequently, there is a need for the synthesis of current research on facilitators used in the recruitment and retention of LTs. This will serve to better inform the development of comprehensive, evidence-based recruitment guidelines tailored specifically to LT physicians. Therefore, this study systematically reviewed existing literature to identify and synthesize the approaches used to recruit locum physicians. Ensuing results will provide valuable guidance to policymakers and healthcare organizations, aiding in the development of evidence-based recruitment policies and practices to address the unique needs of locum physicians.

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [ 11 ]. This research protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022339666).

Search strategy

Between April 26th and April 27th, 2022 we performed a systematic search of the electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science-Core Collection. Examples of the medical subject headings (MeSH) applied include “Contract Services”, “Career Choice”, “Personnel Staffing and Scheduling”, “Personnel Loyalty” and “Physician Incentive Plans”. This initial search has since been followed by an updated search in October of 2023 prior to submission for publication. Keywords were used to collect non-indexed material and those terms not captured by MeSH, such as “locum”. No limits were applied to the searches. Articles not available in English were excluded. Secondary research (e.g., meta‐analyses, dissertations, systematic reviews, case reports, commentaries, grey literature) were excluded from the scholarly search. Reference lists of included studies were searched for additional articles. Details of the scholarly search strategy appear in Additional file 1 : Appendix S1. This search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian and peer-reviewed by a second librarian.

Between June 12th and July 16th, 2023 we performed an iterative systematic hand-search of grey literature. This included public search engines (e.g., Google), grey literature repositories (e.g., OpenGrey), health care quality organizations, and data facilities across five countries, Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom, Australia, and India. Examples of the search terms and headings applied include “Locum”, “Contract”, “Temporary”, and “Locum Physician''. Search parameters were restricted to include only articles published in the year 1990 or later. For database searches information beyond the first 150 or 250 search results were not incorporated in the analysis. For full search histories please see Additional file 1 : Appendix S3.

Selection and screening process

A modified version of the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) framework was used (Table  1 ) [ 12 ]. We included original qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies focused on recruitment and retention initiatives specific to locums in any country across clinical settings. There was variability in how studies defined locum physicians (Table  2 ). Articles focusing on recruitment and retention of non-locum physicians and healthcare workers without an MD designation (with the exception of medical students training in a MD programme) were excluded, including articles that combined both populations in which individual data for locums could not be extracted. Articles that exclusively incorporated the recruitment and retention of locums in the interpretive context such that locum recruitment and retention initiatives were not prospectively mentioned in the study framework or methodology were excluded.

Retrieved articles were managed using Covidence online systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Two reviewers independently performed title and abstract screening for relevance. Full texts were then reviewed against eligibility criteria (Table  1 ). In both stages of screening, discussion was used to resolve disagreements. Remaining discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction took place within Covidence using two independent reviewers. A template was developed and piloted for two studies to ensure reviewer agreement prior to utilization. Outstanding conflicts were resolved by a third author. Extraction parameters included study design, participant characteristics, context of locum assignment, and strategies used to recruit and retain locums. Two authors (NF and OM) performed an inductive content analysis to characterize recurring patterns of the locum recruitment and retention strategies discussed in each paper included in the systematic analysis. Following the identification of these strategies, they were grouped into broader, overarching themes relevant to LT recruitment and retention. Methodologic quality of each study was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 13 ]; two authors (NF and OM) conducted the appraisal independently and any discrepancies in appraisal were resolved by discussion with a third author (EO). Authors of included studies were contacted if data were missing.

Our initial search identified 5390 citations. After the removal of duplicates ( n  = 812), 4578 studies’ titles and abstracts were screened. Following this stage, 242 articles were screened using full-text, and 230 were excluded from the review. Twelve studies [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] fulfilled inclusion criteria and were retained for data extraction. The PRISMA flow diagram detailing the screening procedure is displayed in Fig.  1 . Articles reporting data from the same participant population at separate time points are reported together.

PRISMA flow diagram detailing the selection process

Study characteristics are summarized in Table  3 . Most ( n  = 11, 92%) studies [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] were published within the last 20 years of our search. Four (33%) studies [ 7 , 9 , 13 , 19 ] were from the United States and four (33%) [ 8 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] were from the United Kingdom. A smaller portion ( n  = 3, 25%) [ 2 , 3 , 17 ] originated in Canada. One (8%) study [ 18 ] was based in India. Quantitative studies [ 3 , 7 , 9 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] ( n  = 7, 58%) were cross-sectional ( n  = 6, 50%) [ 3 , 7 , 9 , 13 , 15 , 16 ] or pre–post study ( n  = 1, 8%) [ 17 ] in design. Four (33%) studies [ 8 , 14 , 18 , 19 ] used a qualitative design, including semi-structured interviews ( n  = 2, 17%) [ 18 , 19 ], focus groups ( n  = 1, 8%) [ 14 ], and content analysis ( n  = 1, 8%) [ 8 ]. One (8%) study [ 2 ] adopted a mixed-methods design.

The majority of studies [ 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 19 ] ( n  = 8, 67%) specified clinical setting, but did not indicate whether it was rural or urban (Table  3 ). A variety of specialities were reported among locum populations. The majority ( n  = 9, 75%) [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 ] included primary care physicians, and over half ( n  = 5, 42%) [ 7 , 9 , 13 , 18 , 19 ] included specialists. Three (25%) studies [ 7 , 13 , 19 ] reported a subspecialist population. Two (17%) studies [ 2 , 17 ] included physicians in training, with one (8%) [ 2 ] involving resident physicians and another (8%) [ 17 ] medical students. One (8%) study [ 8 ] did not indicate the specialty of the physician population. A total of six (50%) studies [ 7 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 ] reported years of physician practice experience.

A diversity of locum recruitment approaches were reported across studies, with some ( n  = 2, 17%) [ 7 , 8 ] using more than one method. Four (33%) studies [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 ] used a third-party recruitment agency, two (17%) [ 8 , 14 ] used a locum bank, word-of-mouth, or personal networks [ 16 ], informal means [ 7 ], and an unspecified novel recruitment software were each reported once [ 8 ] (8%). Four studies [ 2 , 15 , 18 , 19 ] (33%) did not report a specific method.

Quality assessment

The 2018 version of the MMAT was used to appraise the quality of retained articles [ 20 ]. Overall, nine (75%) of the articles [ 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] met 75–100% of the evaluated criteria, representing high quality. Three (25%) studies [ 2 , 9 , 15 ] met 50–75% of the evaluated criteria, representing moderate quality. Further details regarding the assessment of quality of retained articles appear in Additional file 1 : Appendix S2. Grey literature was assessed using the AACODS Checklist [ 21 ]. Additional information on the appraisal of grey literature can be found in Additional file 1 : Appendix S3 and in the supplemental content titled “Grey Literature Search Strategy, Data Extraction, and Evaluation”.

Facilitators of locum recruitment and retention

Six locum recruitment and retention themes were identified across retained studies (Table  4 ). Five overarching themes emerged for factors that facilitated LT recruitment and retention: financial incentives, familial considerations, educational or career-based factors, personal facilitators, and mentorship/clinical support. One theme focused on deterrents of locum work.

Ten (83%) studies [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 ] reported financial incentives with nine individual subthemes identified (Table  5 ). A significant portion ( n  = 4, 33%) of studies’ [ 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] did not provide specific details about the nature of the financial incentives provided. Four (33%) of the studies’ [ 2 , 7 , 8 , 13 ] financial incentives referred to an increase in income. Reimbursement for locum travel and lodging was reported three times (25%) [ 3 , 7 , 9 ]. Reimbursement for medical licensure ( n  = 2, 17%) and provision of malpractice insurance ( n  = 2, 17%) were also reported [ 7 , 9 ]. Augmented pay for challenging work conditions [ 18 ], payment assistance for continuing medical education (CME) [ 18 ], supplementation of retirement income [ 13 ], and guaranteed income [ 3 ] were all reported once (8%) each.

Three (25%) studies [ 2 , 7 , 14 ] reported familial considerations as facilitators to recruitment and retention which included accommodating family (17%) [ 2 , 14 ], school accessibility (8%) [ 14 ], and unspecified (8%) [ 7 ]. Furthermore, eight (67%) studies [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 ] reported education or career-based incentives. A total of 13 subthemes related to educational and career-based factors facilitating recruitment and retention were reported (Table  5 ), which included pre-permanent practice scouting [ 2 , 7 , 13 , 17 ] and temporary or transition in employment [ 2 , 7 , 13 , 16 ] both reported four (33%) times. Freedom from administrative responsibilities and transitioning into retirement were reported three (25%) times [ 7 , 13 , 16 ]. Avoiding commitment [ 2 , 16 ], increasing skills and competencies [ 2 , 8 ], and a desire to take on part-time employment [ 7 , 13 ] was reported twice (17%). The remaining career-based facilitators to recruitment and retention were each reported once (8%), including acquiring cross-provincial locum medical licensure [ 3 ], facilitation of hospital credentialing and medical licensure [ 7 ], gaining exposure to running a medical practice [ 2 ], accessing novel CME opportunities [ 3 ], assistance with maintaining medical knowledge [ 14 ], and accessing peer-facilitated educational support [ 14 ].

A total of eight (67%) studies [ 2 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] reported using personal factors as facilitators of LT recruitment and retention. Within this category, five subthemes were identified (see Table  5 ). Seven (58%) reported using flexible contracts (e.g., suitable availability, work schedule flexibility, and work–life balance) [ 2 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Having the ability to travel and experience new communities (locum tourism) was reported five (42%) times [ 2 , 7 , 13 , 16 , 17 ]. Three (25%) studies [ 7 , 14 , 15 ] reported unspecified personal incentives including stress relief [ 14 ], structured support [ 14 ], facility amenities [ 7 ], working conditions [ 7 ], personal safety [ 15 ], and overall facility quality [ 7 ]. Compatibility with post and convenience of the assignment were reported once (8%) each [ 8 ].

Four (33%) studies [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 ] reported recruitment and retention facilitators involving mentorship and clinical support with four subthemes. Having a network of supportive colleagues [ 14 , 15 ] and a chance to become familiar with the practice before arrival [ 16 , 19 ] were reported twice (17%) each. Intentional relationship building, whereby the seasoned colleague met with the incoming locum to ensure comfort in the practice was reported once (8%) [ 19 ]. Availability of a back-up physician for support was reported once (8%) [ 19 ].

A total of eight (67%) studies [ 2 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] addressed deterrents of or barriers to locum work, encompassing a total of 19 reported subthemes. Professional isolation ( n  = 5, 42%) [ 2 , 8 , 14 , 18 , 19 ] was reported most frequently followed by work unpredictability (33%) [ 2 , 8 , 16 , 19 ]. Insufficient patient continuity of care was reported three (25%) times [ 2 , 8 , 16 ]. The following deterrents/barriers were each reported twice (17%): inadequate employee onboarding and orientation [ 8 , 19 ], demanding locum work [ 2 , 17 ], poor job security [ 16 , 18 ], lack of information to make an informed decision about accepting the job post [ 8 , 9 ], and a lack of career advancement [ 16 , 18 ]. The following deterrents/barriers were reported just once (8%): excessive travelling [ 16 ], low patient volume [ 2 ], administrative burden [ 18 ], difficulty accessing time-off [ 18 ], inadequate housing [ 18 ], challenging working conditions [ 18 ], exclusion from pension plans [ 16 ], lack of equitable pay [ 18 ], low salary [ 18 ], feeling distanced from CME and limitations in staying up-to-date [ 14 ], and perceptions of inferior professional status by colleagues [ 16 ].

Facilitators of locum recruitment and retention within grey literature

Grey literature findings closely mirrored the facilitators and deterrents found in peer-reviewed literature. A notable exception captured in the ‘education and career’ theme involved the potential benefits of implementing a national physician licensure, which was absent in the primary literature but present in nearly a third ( n  = 27, 26%) of the grey literature.

Interpretation

We identified 12 English language studies that explored the recruitment and retention of locums in Canada, USA, UK, and India over a 30-year period. Finance, education, and personal factors were the most used LT recruitment strategies while family considerations and clinical/mentorship support were less frequently cited. However, almost all studies [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] ( n  = 8, 67%) reviewed reported using a combination of these recruitment approaches. While there is a paucity of evidence on whether employing multiple approaches leads to improved LT recruitment, utilizing a range of methods may still be a reasonable strategy. This approach prevents organizations from becoming overly reliant on a single approach and enables them to adapt their strategy more easily as required to maintain LT recruitment, retention and service. Further, as physicians choose locum positions based on different priorities, utilizing multiple strategies provides a range of incentives with wider appeal.

Across the five LT recruitment strategies, the diverse range of unique approaches used indicates there is no one-size-fits-all method. This suggests that organizations develop their own specific approach tailored to their available resources, location, and the anticipated needs of the LT physicians they aim to recruit. For instance, certain recruitment strategies incentives such as back-up availability, network of supportive colleagues and access to CME may not be feasible for some organizations given their size, location, and resource constraints. This may lead to the development of alternative recruitment approaches and/or increased emphasis on other strategies. Notably, we found that common recruitment and retention strategies used elsewhere, such as providing competitive salaries, were extensively used in the recruitment and retention of locums. However, approaches that seem to be specifically designed to address the unique requirements and preferences of locum physicians were also employed, such as offering reimbursements for travel and accommodation, providing support for family-related needs, offering flexible scheduling, and facilitating access to leisure activities. Although the effectiveness of these strategies is poorly defined, their implementation suggests that organizations recognize that conventional recruitment and retention approaches, effective in the broader health workforce, may not adequately address the unique aspects and challenges associated with the transient and temporary nature of locum work. For example, incentives like competitive compensation, while valued, might not be as appealing to those seeking the flexibility of short-term work assignments or lifestyle benefits. Therefore, acknowledging the appeal of locum work, creating incentives that emphasize these benefits, and addressing the related challenges are likely to enhance recruitment and retention efforts.

The finding that showed sites employed a wide range of recruitment and retention approaches highlights the complexity of this process. However, implementing such a wide range of strategies makes it challenging to identify the most effectives. Consequently, future work should identify optimal recruitment strategies within diverse health contexts and organizational structures. This would enable organizations to streamline their approach, maximizing recruitment success while efficiently utilizing their resources. This may be particularly valuable in resource poor healthcare environments where strategic asset allocation is essential.

Numerous factors were cited as deterrents of locum work, indicating that physicians’ decision to work as a LT is influenced by a variety of considerations. Although some of the cited deterrents were addressed by recruitment strategies, it is unclear whether these approaches were effective. In the studies reviewed, professional isolation and work assignment predictability were the two most cited deterrents to locum work appearing in 42% and 33% of studies, respectively. As temporary workers, there are inherent challenges in developing rapport with colleagues. Moreover, providing coverage introduces uncertainties regarding work schedules and conditions (e.g., hours worked, frequency and duration of assignments). Together these factors can contribute to lower job satisfaction, which may result in a decreased willingness to work as a locum. As a result, recruitment strategies should consider measures to address these deterrents. The wide range of deterrents emphasizes the importance for healthcare organizations to adopt comprehensive recruitment strategies that recognize and respond to the various unique needs of LT physicians. Further, many of these deterrents may be addressed by improving locum onboarding and job conditions, such as enhancing infrastructure quality and minimizing social isolation.

It is important to recognize information on locum recruitment and retention extends beyond peer-reviewed articles to include the grey literature. These non-academic resources contain potential insights into practical approaches for recruitment and retention, thus underscoring the need to evaluate the grey literature in this field. Interestingly, our review of the grey literature generally aligns with the facilitators and deterrents of locum work identified in this systematic review apart from support for a national physician license. Such a measure would enhance the portability of licensure, allowing improved mobility of physicians across regions, reducing administrative burdens and the time required for obtaining proper licensing, hospital privileges, and contractual agreements. This, in turn, may reduce barriers to locum recruitment and more effectively facilitate the transition of locums to their temporary place of practice. This finding, which was not identified in the systematic review, again reiterates the importance of assessing the grey literature to gain a comprehensive understanding on the current strategies being used for recruiting and retaining locum physicians.

Importantly, the success of LT physician recruitment relies on a collaborative effort that extends beyond responsibility of individual healthcare organizations. This is particularly important considering that facilitators of LT recruitment and retainment, such as remuneration, fall beyond the scope of health teams. Therefore, the various stakeholders in health human resources, including educational institutions, regulatory bodies, and professional associations, all play a role in LT recruitment efforts. Recognizing and embracing this shared responsibility will be crucial in fostering a robust and sustainable healthcare workforce that incorporates LT physicians.

Limitations

In the systematic and grey literature reviews, a comprehensive set of keywords related to locum recruitment and retention were used (as detailed in Additional file 1 : Appendices S1 and S3). However, some search terms, such as region-specific terminology used to describe locums, were not included. As a result, it is possible that relevant resources may have been missed during the literature search. However, the use of diverse keywords related to locum recruitment and retention would have captured relevant studies thus reducing the likelihood that relevant resources were missed. As described in the literature search strategies, date limitations were applied to both the systematic and grey literature searches, and only select databases were searched. Therefore, there is a possibility that relevant publications or grey literature produced outside of these date ranges or databases might have been missed. The quality of synthesized evidence was moderate as most of the retained quantitative studies were cross-sectional [ 3 , 7 , 9 , 13 , 15 , 16 ] (50%) or mixed-methods [ 2 ] (8%). Only one study adopted a pre–post study design [ 17 ], which is fraught with internal validity issues. Remaining studies [ 8 , 14 , 18 , 19 ] were qualitative and not inherently generalizable to broad populations. None of the studies were intervention-based, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of various recruitment and retention strategies. Inconsistent reporting on locum (LT) gender limited conclusions regarding differences in motivations for LT practice. Geographies of included studies reported were likely influenced by the methodological choice to include English only articles, limiting the generalizability of the presented findings to other regions. Further, the mix of qualitative and quantitative sources make it challenging to comprehend the cumulative size of the physician population raising each issue, and the relative significance of each issue compared to others.

Conclusions

This systematic review synthesized existing knowledge pertaining to international locum physician recruitment and retention strategies. Locum physicians are essential to the delivery of quality healthcare services across Canada and other parts of the world. We demonstrate that organizations employ five main LT recruitment strategies and deploy these in a variety of ways. Though these may be incumbent on local resources, more concerning is that the effectiveness of these approaches has not been tested. Given the present financial challenges within the global healthcare landscape there is a need to better understand recruitment and retention strategies of LTs so this limited resource can be used most effectively. Findings merit future research into the effectiveness of LT recruitment approaches via prospective methodologies.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Li JH, Scott A, McGrail M, Humphreys J, Witt J. Retaining rural doctors: doctors’ preferences for rural medical workforce incentives. Soc Sci Med. 2014;121:56–64.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Myhre DL, Konkin J, Woloschuk W, Szafran O, Hansen C, Crutcher R. Locum practice by recent family medicine graduates. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(5):E183–90.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rourke JTB, Incitti F, Rourke LL, Kennard MA. Keeping family physicians in rural practice—solutions favoured by rural physicians and family medicine residents. Can Fam Physician. 2003;49:1142–9.

Duong D. Why are emergency departments closing? Can Med Assoc J (CMAJ). 2022;194(33):E1138–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abelsen B, Strasser R, Heaney D, Berggren P, Sigurðsson S, Brandstorp H, et al. Plan, recruit, retain: a framework for local healthcare organizations to achieve a stable remote rural workforce. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18(1):63–63.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ferguson J, Tazzyman A, Walshe K, Bryce M, Boyd A, Archer J, et al. “You’re just a locum”: professional identity and temporary workers in the medical profession. Sociol Health Illn. 2021;43(1):149–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13210 .

Alonzo AA, Simon AB. Have stethoscope, will travel: contingent employment among physician health care providers in the United States. Work Employment Soc. 2008;22(4):635–54.

Theodoulou I, Reddy AM, Wong J. Is innovative workforce planning software the solution to NHS staffing and cost crisis? An exploration of the locum industry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1–13.

DiMeglio M, Furey W, Laudanski K. Content analysis of locum tenens recruitment emails for anesthesiologists. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1–7.

Waldie AC. Put out the welcome mat for locums. Can Med Assoc J (CMAJ). 1998;158(8):1009–1009.

Google Scholar  

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906–105906.

Larkin J, Foley L, Smith SM, Harrington P, Clyne B. The experience of financial burden for people with multimorbidity: a systematic review of qualitative research. Health Expect. 2021;24(2):282–95.

Simon AB, Alonzo AA. The demography, career pattern, and motivation of Locum tenens physicians in the United States. J Healthc Manag. 2004;49(6):363–75.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jenson CM, Hutchins AJ, Rowlands G. Is small-group education the key to retention of sessional GPs? Educ Prim Care. 2006;17(3):218–26.

Jenson C, Reid F, Rowlands G. Locum and salaried general practitioners: an exploratory study of recruitment, morale, professional development and clinical governance. Educ Primary Care. 2008;19(3):285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2008.11493685 .

McKevitt C, Morgan M, Hudson M. Locum doctors in general practice: motivation and experiences. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(444):519–21.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Woloschuk W, Tarrant M. Does a rural educational experience influence students’ likelihood of rural practice? Impact of student background and gender. Med Educ. 2002;36(3):241–7.

Rajbangshi PR, Nambiar D, Choudhury N, Rao KD. Rural recruitment and retention of health workers across cadres and types of contract in north-east India: a qualitative study. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2017;6(2):51–9.

Lagoo J, Berry W, Henrich N, Gawande A, Sato L, Haas S. Safely practicing in a new environment: a qualitative study to inform physician onboarding practices. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2020;46(6):314–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.03.002 .

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018; 2018.

Tyndall J. AACODS checklist. Flinders University; 2010. https://www.library.sydney.edu.au/research/systematic-review/downloads/AACODS_Checklist.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the help of Jennifer Dumond, Education Services Librarian at NOSM University, for peer-reviewing the search strategy.

Supported by Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association (NOAMA) Academic Funding Plan (AFP) Innovation Fund Project #A-22-07.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

Nathan Ferreira & Odessa McKenna

Division of Clinical Sciences, Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM) University, Marathon, ON, P0T 2E0, Canada

Iain R. Lamb, Lily DeMiglio & Eliseo Orrantia

Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM) University, Sudbury, ON, P3E 2C6, Canada

Alanna Campbell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

N.F and O.M were responsible for experimental design, the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data and writing of the manuscript. A.C was responsible for acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data. I.R.L was responsible for interpretation of data, and the writing and revising of the manuscript. L.D and E.O were responsible for conception and experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation and revising the manuscript. All authors approve of the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All persons designated as authors qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify for authorship are listed.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eliseo Orrantia .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. appendix s1.

: Search Strategy. Appendix S2 : Mixed-methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) quality assessment of included studies. Appendix S3 : Grey Literature Search Strategy, Data Extraction, and Evaluation.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ferreira, N., McKenna, O., Lamb, I.R. et al. Approaches to locum physician recruitment and retention: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health 22 , 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00906-z

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00906-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Workforce stability
• Health human resources
• Recruitment strategies
• Retention strategies

Human Resources for Health

ISSN: 1478-4491

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Surrendering the Self

The posthuman world in vandermeer's annihilation.

In his novel Annihilation , author Jeff Vandermeer provides a science-fiction narrative on nature as an unstoppable and uncontrollable environment where plants, animals, humans, and the land exist as a collective and connected entity of interactions. The novel utilizes Lovecraftian horror elements of an uncontrollable nature, human contamination, and an unknowable future controlled by nonhuman forces to portray both a multispecies environment and the posthuman future. Read through a multispecies lens and framed by Donna Haraway’s Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene , this essay is an analysis of how Annihilation ’s setting—Area X—necessitates the removal of human-centered processes and the human concept of individualism for favor of a flourishing multispecies environment. Its analysis exemplifies the genre of science fiction as a method to expand the boundaries of our perceived human-centered world. The narrative and rhetorical structures utilized by Vandermeer in his representation of real-world environments and natural processes as uncanny horrors and an off-center reality accurately represent the unknown future beyond the human species.

Dowdall, Lisa. “Figures.” Covert Plants: Vegetal Consciousness and Agency in an Anthropocentric World, edited by Prudence Gibson and Baylee Brits, Punctum Books, 2018, pp. 151–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2s2pnz3.14 .

Gormley, Sam. Review of The Southern Reach Trilogy, by Jeff VanderMeer, and: Borne, Configurations, vol. 27 no. 1, 2019, p. 111-116. Project MUSE, https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2019.0004 .

Haraway, Donna J. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, 2016, pp. 30–57. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q

Haraway, Donna. “When Species Meet: Introduction.” When Species Meet, University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Jackson, Rosemary. Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion. Routledge 2003.

Kneale, James. “From beyond: H. P. Lovecraft and the Place of Horror.” Cultural Geographies, vol. 13, no. 1, 2006, pp. 106–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44251076

Lovecraft, H. P., et al. “Letters to Farnsworth Wright.” Lovecraft Annual, no. 8, 2014, pp. 5–59. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26868482 . Accessed 9 Dec. 2023.

Lovecraft, H. P. 1890-1937. and S. T. Joshi. The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories. New York, Penguin Books, 20111999.

Murphy, Timothy S. "Physiology Is Destiny: The Fate of Eugenic Utopia in the Fiction of H. P. Lovecraft and Olaf Stapledon." Utopian Studies, vol. 29 no. 1, 2018, p. 21-43. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/688382.

Prendergast, Finola Anne. “Revising Nonhuman Ethics in Jeff VanderMeer’s Annihilation.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 58, no. 3, 2017, pp. 333–60. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26529563

Vandermeer, Jeff. Annihilation. Afarrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2024 Digital Literature Review

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Sam Allen, Lilly Elrod, Mia Godleski, Piyesone Hunthant, Jordyn Johnson, Multispecies Encounters , Digital Literature Review: Vol. 11 No. 1 (2024): Multispecies Encounters

Sponsored by Ball State University Libraries .

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
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.