research paper review report

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

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

Formal Structure

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

In Both Cases

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

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

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

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

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

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

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

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

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

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

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

You might examine:

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

Major Flaws in Information

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

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

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

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

The First Paragraph

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

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

The Second Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

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

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

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

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

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

You may also wish to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

On Grammar and Punctuation

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

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

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

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

Originality and Topicality

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

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

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

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

2. Materials and Methods

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

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

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

Repeatable Methods

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

Robust Research

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

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

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

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

3. Results and Discussion

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

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

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

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

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

Where information is clear, you should check that:

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

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

6. List of References

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

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

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

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

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

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

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

7. Plagiarism

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

Identified Concern

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

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

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

Suspected Concern

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

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

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

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

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Issues

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

Minor Issues

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

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

You should also:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommending Acceptance

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

Recommending Revision

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

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

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

Recommending Rejection

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

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

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

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

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

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

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

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

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

How to Structure a Review Report

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

Helen Eassom, Copywriter, Wiley

January 18, 2018

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

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

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

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

Major Issues

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

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

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

Minor Issues

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit: mrmohock/Shutterstock

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

Introducing Wiley’s Better Peer Review Self-Assessment

Wiley's Better Peer Review Assessment: 5 Essential Standards

Integrity: An Essential Area for Better Peer Review

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

Why We Launched Wiley's CME for Peer Reviewers Program

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

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

Celebrating 1 Million Wiley Reviews on Publons

6 Tips for Surviving Peer Review

Related articles.

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

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

What is Better Peer Review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch our Webinar on Trust in Peer Review

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

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

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

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

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

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

• SpringerLink shop

Writing a reviewer report

Whether you recommend accepting or rejecting the manuscript, keep in mind that one of your goals is to help the authors improve this and future manuscripts—not to make them give up in despair. Avoid overly negative wording or personal comments, point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses, and suggest specific ways to fix the problems you identify. Also, avoid making overly brief and direct comments, as these can give your report an unfriendly tone. Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors.

If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific instructions, the reviewer report should be divided into two parts:

• comments to be read only by the editor, and
• comments to be read by both the editor and the authors.

Comments for only the editor:

In this section, give the editor your recommendation for the manuscript and, more importantly, your reasons behind it. These usually have to do with the manuscript’s scientific soundness, novelty, quality, importance, and suitability for the journal. Editors take many factors into consideration when deciding whether a paper is right for their journal so providing evidence or reasoning for your recommendation is extremely helpful.

TIP: Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major improvements are made, or to reject the paper.

Comments for both the editor and authors:

In this section, write a detailed report reviewing the different parts of the manuscript. Start with the short summary of the manuscript you wrote after your first reading. Then, in a numbered list, explain each of the issues you found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into two sections: major issues and minor issues. First, write about the major issues, including problems with the study’s method or analysis. Next, write about the minor issues, which might include tables or figures that are difficult to read, parts that need more explanation, and suggestions to delete unnecessary text. If you think the English language of the manuscript is not suitable for publication, try to give specific examples so that the authors know what and how to address the problems. Be as specific as you can about the manuscript’s weaknesses and how to address them. If the manuscript has line numbers, include the page and line number(s) specific to the part of the study you are discussing. This will help both the authors and the editor, who may later need to judge if the authors have fixed the problems in their revised manuscript. For example, instead of, “ The explanation of the proposed mechanism is not clear. ” You might write,  “The explanation of the proposed mechanism should be more detailed. Consider referring to the work of Li and Smith, et al. (2008) and Stein and Burdak, et al. (2010). ”

Keep in mind that the authors – and even the editor – may not be native English speakers. Read over your comments after you finish writing them to check that you’ve used clear, simple wording, and that the reasons for your proposed changes are clear.

Back  │  Next

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

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

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

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

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

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

Collection: Careers toolkit

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

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

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

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

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

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

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

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

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

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

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

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

Careers Collection: Publishing

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

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

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

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

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

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

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

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

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

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

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

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

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

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

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

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

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

Tools and techniques

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

Reference managers

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

Collaborative writing tools

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

‘There’s a lot of privilege masquerading as merit’: why inclusion matters in academia

Career Q&A 19 AUG 24

Gender bias might be working at level of whole disciplines

Nature Index 19 AUG 24

How to win funding to talk about your science

Career Feature 15 AUG 24

Cash for catching scientific errors

Technology Feature 19 AUG 24

The need for equity in Brazilian scientific funding

Correspondence 13 AUG 24

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

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

Career Column 14 AUG 24

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

Career Column 09 AUG 24

Postdoc Fellow / Senior Scientist

The Yakoub and Sulzer labs at Harvard Medical School-Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Columbia University

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Postdoctoral Research Fellows at Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

ISM, based on this program, is implementing the reserve talent strategy with postdoctoral researchers.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Career Opportunities at the Yazhouwan National Laboratory, Hainan, China

YNL recruits leading scientists in agriculture: crop/animal genetics, biotech, photosynthesis, disease resistance, data analysis, and more.

Sanya, Hainan, China

Yazhouwan National Laboratory

Global Recruitment for Center Directors and Principal Investigators, GIBH

We aim to foster cutting-edge scientific and technological advancements in the field of molecular tissue biology at the single-cell level.

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health(GIBH), Chinese Academy of Sciences

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

Quick links

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

• Conferences
• Editorial Process
• Recent Advances
• Sustainability
• Academic Resources

4 Steps to the Perfect Peer Review Report

It’s Peer Review Week, an incredibly important week for us here at MDPI.

High-quality peer review helps to ensure the credibility of our journals and the research they publish. Our article, What We’ve Learned About Peer Review Reports , explains the role of the peer reviewer and provides some general tips on how to write a peer review report. For How to Write the Perfect Peer Review Report: An Interview , last year, we spoke to Prof. Dr. Stelian Alexandru Borz, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania, and Dr. Maricar Aguilos, North Carolina State University, NC, USA, who won Forests ’ 2021 Outstanding Reviewer Award, to gain an expert insight into what goes into writing a peer review report.

In this article, we will outline the 4 main steps in MDPI’s general guidelines that will help you on your way to successfully writing a peer review report when reviewing academic literature. Although recommendations are different for every publisher, most have some variant of the following:

1. Peer Review Report Structure

For MDPI, review reports should be structured in the following way:

A brief summary

In short, reviewers should provide a short paragraph detailing the aim and main contributions of the paper and aspects that stood out to them as being positive or negative.

General concept comments about peer review reports

For articles, elements that should be noted include the weaker aspects of the paper, the testability of the author’s hypothesis, methodology inaccuracies, a lack of controls, and repeatability, among other factors.

For reviews, the reviewer should draw attention to the relevance of the review topic, how complete the review topic is, the legitimacy of the gap in the knowledge identified by the authors, the appropriateness of references, etc.

Note that these comments should not refer to the quality of the English language within the text, nor should they refer to spelling or formatting issues

Specific comments for your peer review report

These should refer to scientific inaccuracies within the text, and reviewers should be specific about the line number, table, or figure in which they have detected these inaccuracies, as well as sentences that may have an unclear meaning.

2. Evaluation

When evaluating the quality of a manuscript in your peer review report, several aspects are rated, namely, novelty, scope, significance, quality, scientific soundness, interest to readers, overall merit, and English level.

The reviewer must determine whether the research question that a manuscript is based around is original and well-defined, as well as if the results expand upon and say something different to the current knowledge on the topic.

They must then ask the question as to whether the work contained within the paper fits the scope of the journal. A journal’s scope can be found on the MDPI webpage for that specific journal.

Significance

Hypotheses should be clearly laid out. The results should be significant and interpreted appropriately. And all conclusions should be justified and supported by the results of the investigation.

The manuscript must be written in an appropriate manner, presenting the data and analyses in a clear and relevant way. When presenting their results, authors must ensure high standards are maintained.

Scientific soundness

It is crucial that the study has been correctly designed and is technically sound, and that the analyses have been performed in line with the highest technical standards. The data must be sufficiently robust so that significant conclusions can be drawn. The descriptions of the methods, tools, software, and reagents should be detailed. Other researchers should be able to conduct the same study and reproduce the results. The raw data should be correct and, where applicable, available to the reader.

Interest to readers

The conclusions of the paper should be interesting to the readership. It should also be decided whether the paper is likely to attract a wide readership or will it only appeal to a limited number of readers. This can be judged based on the Aims and Scope of the journal, which are provided on the journal’s webpage.

Overall merit

The peer review report should identify an overall benefit to the work being published and available to readers. This can be determined by asking whether the authors address an important or long-standing question in their experiments, or whether they advance what is currently known about the subject.

English level

Basically, the level of English in the paper should be clear, and the language should be appropriate.

If, after considering any of these criteria, the reviewer thinks that a manuscript may be more suitable for publication in a different MDPI journal to the one they have submitted to, they can suggest the alternative journal at this stage. The author then has the option to request that peer review reports be transferred to their newly selected journal.

3. Publication ethics and peer review reports

We take publication ethics very seriously, and hold all our manuscripts to the highest standards. They must, therefore, meet the following criteria: authors should only present results that have not been submitted previously; the information given must be original and must not replicate text from another source without citing it appropriately; widely accepted ethical research standards should be adhered to throughout all studies.

At this stage, the reviewer should report any scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or any other behaviour which they deem to be unethical to the in-house editor as soon as they become aware of it.

4. Providing an Overall Recommendation in your Peer Review Report

Now, a final recommendation should be provided in terms of how, or if, the article should proceed to the next processing stage. This decision must be justified and backed up with sound reasoning. This recommendation can only be seen by the journal editors and not the authors.

Accept in Present Form

This status means that the paper can be accepted, and no further revisions are required.

Accept after Minor Revisions

If the author makes revisions in accordance with the peer review report, the paper should be valid for acceptance. The editor will allow authors 5 days for these revisions to be completed.

Reconsider after Major Revisions

This means that the acceptance of the manuscript would depend on how effectively the recommended revisions are made. The author must provide a clearly laid out response. It should detail a counterargument for each of the reviewer’s comments that cannot be revised. The author is allowed up to 2 rounds of major revisions for each manuscript. Authors must resubmit their paper after they have made revisions within 10 days. This is then returned to the reviewer to allow them to make further comments.

An article can be rejected if it has detrimental errors or does not present original findings.

Recording Your Peer Review Report Activities

If a reviewer’s ORCID account is connected to their MDPI Submission System (SuSy) account, they can deposit records of their review activities manually into an ORCID iD.

Additionally, reviewers can also register and update their review history on SciProfiles, MDPI’s social network for researchers and scholars.

Want to Learn More about Peer Review Week and Peer Review Reports?

This article has been written in order to help support people in the peer review process. For more information about Peer Review Week , we encourage you to read some of our other articles. And if you want to learn more about our content this week, please take a look at our deep dive on Peer Review Week.

Related posts

Open Science , Academic Resources , Open Access

6 Benefits of Open Access

Open Science , Academic Resources , English Resources

Author Services Guide To Sentence Structure

Open Access in Switzerland

Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Academic Editors?

Academic Resources , Interviews , Open Science

Interview With Our Academic Editors

Why Open Data is Important

Academic Resources , Editorial Process , Open Science

What Are The Benefits of Academic Editing?

Open Access in South Korea

Open Science , Academic Resources , Journals

Why Journal Metrics are Important and How to Use Them

Author Services Guide To Word Classes

Add comment cancel reply.

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

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

From sharing the latest MDPI blog news, to showcasing our most popular articles, the newsletters will keep you in the loop with everything good going on in the science world.

• Insights blog

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 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.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: July 27, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,130,791 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

How to write a review report

Below you will find our 10-step guide with links and resources on how to write reviews for journals. Some elements may be applicable to other review activities (i.e., preprints, conferences, grants) and you are welcome to adapt them. At the end of the page we also provided links to external guides on the same topic.

• Check the reviewer guidelines
• Read the paper
• Check data and declarations
• Check reporting adherence
• Develop your comments
• Specify major vs minor comments
• Support your statements
• Add any confidential comments
• Respect transparency
• Finalise the report

EASE 10-step guide

1.   check the reviewer guidelines.

Check the journal’s reviewer guidelines which will outline what reviewing for this journal entails and the journal’s peer review model (e.g. closed or open review). If you have any questions or uncertainties about the journal’s review approach, communicate with the editor before you start. In particular, make sure to check whether the journal allows you to use generative AI or other automated tools to assist in preparing your review report and/or whether the journal allows you to  and co-review it with a colleague.

Several examples of reviewer guidelines can be found here:

• GIE Journal’ ‘How to review’ A light read, from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, covering the basic dos and don’ts of peer review with 13 rules offering some sound advice.
• PLOS One – Guidelines for Reviewers This comprehensive guide provides best practices for reviewers, including specifics of reviewing registered reports, lab and study protocols.

2.   Read the paper

Read the paper in full and make comments; it sometimes helps to read the paper first and comment on a second read. Focus on important study aspects the journal requests your input on, or consider the following:

• Any serious flaws to the hypothesis, methods, results or conclusions?
• Are the sample size and the statistical methods applied appropriate?
• Does the data support the conclusions?
• Does the reporting allow you to fully understand the research?
• Are there any concerns related to research integrity?

3.   Check data and declarations

Check information about the authors and the study provided with the paper e.g. competing interests, author contributions, ethical approval. Is sufficient data provided or accessible to enable a full review of the study? If applicable, is a protocol for the study available?

4.   Check reporting adherence

Check the reporting: where relevant, does the information provided allow the work to be reproduced and replicated? Do the aims and analyses match the pre-specified study protocol (if applicable)? Are any limitations discussed?

Reporting guidelines for specific study types can help assess if the paper reports the necessary information, you can find a wide range of reporting guidelines for different study types at the EQUATOR network . A couple of widely adopted reporting guidelines are CONSORT for clinical trials and PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

5.   Develop your comments

You can develop free-text comments, or use a structured format following manuscript sections – Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Some journals will ask you to follow specific templates.

Ensure the comments are clear, concise and constructive, and remember to be kind to the authors when providing your feedback.

6.   Specify major vs minor comments

Specify whether issues raised are:

Major: items fundamental to the study that must be addressed and might need re-review

Minor: improvements or clarifications that do not affect the overall conclusions.

7.   Support your statements

Be specific so that the requests are clear for the authors; justify any recommendations or critiques with evidence and examples.

8.   Add any confidential comments

Many journals will have a section in their review form for confidential comments to the editor, that is, comments to raise with the editor but which will not be included in the review shared with the author. Consider whether you have any comments you’d like to share only with the editor, items in this section may include ethical concerns about the study or competing interests to declare as a reviewer.

9. Respect transparency

Some journals publish the reviews with accepted articles. If the journal does not publish reviews but you’d like to share your review publicly, you can request their permission to post it as a comment on the article (or the preprint, if applicable) or via a third-party platform such as Publons, Zenodo or ScienceOpen.

If the review provides an option to sign your review, consider whether you would like to sign your report; note that some journals operate peer review models that require reviewers to sign their reviews (e.g. the BMJ).

10.   Finalise the report

Re-read the report to check for clarity, and to ensure the tone is professional and respectful. If requested by the journal, provide your recommendation on publication (e.g. accept, revision, reject). Once ready, submit your review.

Additional guides on how to write review reports can be found here:

Detailed journal guides:

• Participating in the Peer Review Process

Publisher guides:

• How to conduct a review by Elsevier
• How to write a peer review by Clarivate
•  Dr Esther Freeman: How to become a peer reviewer

Examples of (structured peer review) templates can be found here:

• Peer review report template by Authorea
• Excellence in Peer Review checklist by Taylor and Francis
• Peer Review templates by CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology journal

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. 

From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we’ll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these insights will streamline your writing journey.

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

What Is A Review Paper?

Diving into the realm of scholarly communication, you might have stumbled upon a research review article.

This unique genre serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic. 

Unlike a standard research article that presents original experiments, a review paper delves into published literature, aiming to: 

• clarify, and
• evaluate previous findings.

Imagine you’re tasked to write a review article. The starting point is often a burning research question. Your mission? To scour various journals, piecing together a well-structured narrative that not only summarises key findings but also identifies gaps in existing literature.

This is where the magic of review writing shines – it’s about creating a roadmap for future research, highlighting areas ripe for exploration.

Review articles come in different flavours, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses being the gold standards. The methodology here is meticulous, with a clear protocol for selecting and evaluating studies.

This rigorous approach ensures that your review is more than just an overview; it’s a critical analysis that adds depth to the understanding of the subject.

Crafting a good review requires mastering the art of citation. Every claim or observation you make needs to be backed by relevant literature. This not only lends credibility to your work but also provides a treasure trove of information for readers eager to delve deeper.

Types Of Review Paper

Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions.

Systematic Review Paper

First up is the systematic review, the crème de la crème of review types. It’s known for its rigorous methodology, involving a detailed plan for:

• identifying,
• selecting, and
• critically appraising relevant research. 

The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses, where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions. This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.

Literature Review Paper

Then there’s the literature review, a broader type you might encounter.

Here, the goal is to give an overview of the main points and debates on a topic, without the stringent methodological framework of a systematic review.

Literature reviews are great for getting a grasp of the field and identifying where future research might head. Often reading literature review papers can help you to learn about a topic rather quickly.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews allow for a more flexible approach. Authors of narrative reviews draw on existing literature to provide insights or critique a certain area of research.

This is generally done with a less formal structure than systematic reviews. This type is particularly useful for areas where it’s difficult to quantify findings across studies.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are gaining traction for their ability to map out the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying:

• key concepts,
• theories, and

Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews have a more exploratory approach, which can be particularly useful in emerging fields or for topics that haven’t been comprehensively reviewed before.

Each type of review serves a unique purpose and requires a specific skill set. Whether you’re looking to summarise existing findings, synthesise data for evidence-based practice, or explore new research territories, there’s a review type that fits the bill. 

Knowing how to write, read, and interpret these reviews can significantly enhance your understanding of any research area.

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

A review paper has a pretty set structure, with minor changes here and there to suit the topic covered. The format not only organises your thoughts but also guides your readers through the complexities of your topic.

Title & Abstract

Starting with the title and abstract, you set the stage. The title should be a concise indicator of the content, making it easier for others to quickly tell what your article content is about.

As for the abstract, it should act as a descriptive summary, offering a snapshot of your review’s scope and findings. 

Introduction

The introduction lays the groundwork, presenting the research question that drives your review. It’s here you:

• justify the importance of your review,
• delineating the current state of knowledge and
• highlighting gaps.

This section aims to articulate the significance of the topic and your objective in exploring it.

Methodology

The methodology section is the backbone of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, detailing the research methods employed to select, assess, and synthesise studies. 

This transparency allows readers to gauge the rigour and reproducibility of your review. It’s a testament to the integrity of your work, showing how you’ve minimised bias.

The heart of your review lies in the body, where you:

• analyse, and
• critique existing literature.

This is where you synthesise evidence, draw connections, and present both sides of any argument. Well-structured paragraphs and clear subheadings guide readers through your analysis, offering insights and fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.

Discussion & Conclusion

The discussion or conclusion section is where you weave together the main points, reflecting on what your findings mean for the field.

It’s about connecting the dots, offering a synthesis of evidence that answers your initial research question. This part often hints at future research directions, suggesting areas that need further exploration due to gaps in existing knowledge.

Lastly, the citation list is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others. Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

Writing a review article quickly without sacrificing quality might seem like a tall order, but with the right approach, it’s entirely achievable. 

Clearly Define Your Research Question

Clearly define your research question. A focused question not only narrows down the scope of your literature search but also keeps your review concise and on track.

By honing in on a specific aspect of a broader topic, you can avoid the common pitfall of becoming overwhelmed by the vast expanse of available literature. This specificity allows you to zero in on the most relevant studies, making your review more impactful.

Efficient Literature Searching

Utilise databases specific to your field and employ advanced search techniques like Boolean operators. This can drastically reduce the time you spend sifting through irrelevant articles.

Additionally, leveraging citation chains—looking at who has cited a pivotal paper in your area and who it cites—can uncover valuable sources you might otherwise miss.

Organise Your Findings Systematically

Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies. This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant.

Tools like citation management software can be invaluable here, helping you keep track of your sources and their key points. We list out some of the best AI tools for academic research here. 

Build An Outline Before Writing

Don’t underestimate the power of a well-structured outline. A clear blueprint of your article can guide your writing process, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.

This roadmap not only speeds up the writing process by providing a clear direction but also helps maintain coherence, ensuring your review article delivers a compelling narrative that advances understanding in your field.

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

When it’s time to write, start with sections you find easiest. This might be the methodology or a particular thematic section where you feel most confident.

Getting words on the page can build momentum, making it easier to tackle more challenging sections later.

Remember, your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect; the goal is to start articulating your synthesis of the literature.

Learn How To Write An Article Review

Mastering the review paper format is a crucial step towards efficient academic writing. By adhering to the structured components outlined, you can streamline the creation of a compelling review article.

Embracing these guidelines not only speeds up the writing process but also enhances the clarity and impact of your work, ensuring your contributions to scholarly discourse are both valuable and timely.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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.

How to Write a Thorough Peer Review Report

As a peer reviewer, your job is to uphold the quality of published science by ensuring that academic papers are accurate and clearly articulated. Young scientists eager to publish their hard work will appreciate the quality feedback to help them improve their manuscript. Therefore, to be a good peer reviewer you need to be an expert in your field, be fair to the author and journal, meet deadlines, be honest in your opinion, and kind in your criticism.

How to Evaluate a Manuscript as a Peer Reviewer

Before you accept to peer review a manuscript, ensure that you:

• are familiar with the field and the methods used in the paper.
• have no conflicts of interest.
• have the time to review the paper within the given timelines.

Once you have accepted to peer review, the next step is to evaluate the manuscript. To evaluate the manuscript as a peer reviewer, experienced reviewers recommend you read the paper three times. Give yourself time to think about the research in between each reading.

First Reading

This is a quick overview of the paper. Is the manuscript publishable in the specified journal? Write a summary of the paper including the paper’s main research question and whether this question was answered. Furthermore, were the methods appropriate to address the question. If you feel the paper is unpublishable at this point, then there is no need to review it any further. Reject the paper and give your reasons. These may include discredited methods used in the paper, disagreement with the conclusion, or unreadable grammar.

Second Reading

Read the paper in detail and note down your comments, both positive and negative for each section. Here you will assess whether the author has addressed each section appropriately . Questions you should ask:

• Is the research novel?
• Was the necessary background and relevance clearly articulated?
• Was the research question appropriately addressed?
• Are the results (including figures) easy to understand and interpret?
• Were other considerations omitted?
• Were key papers in the field referenced?

Third Reading

Assess the flow, grammar, headings, references, and general organization of the paper. If the journal has their own copy-editors, then focus on the science since any grammar issues will be dealt with by the publisher.

How to Format a Peer Review Report

The format of the peer review report will vary depending on the journal’s requirements – any reviewing instructions can be checked on the journal’s website before you start. Number your comments for easy reference. A common peer review report has the following format:

Briefly describe the main research question and conclusion, as well as the relevance to the journal. Give its overall strengths and quality as well as any major weaknesses. Start with your positive comments.

Major Issues

These could be flawed research, previously published research, major grammar corrections, insufficient evidence for their conclusions, or ethical issues.

Minor Issues

These include minor corrections such as ambiguous meanings, errors in references, minor factual errors, and suggested modifications to tables and figures.

Recommendation

Give your recommendation with reasons.

Be the Author’s Friend

Keep in mind that not all research is perfect and often a paper may have minor flaws in the data. Your expertise in the field and methodology will make you aware of what kind of imperfections are common and acceptable.

Although the paper will have answered some questions, more questions may be exposed that can be answered in subsequent research. This is how the field of science grows and knowledge is built.

Help the author publish their work and if it is not suitable for the journal, then recommend they submit to a more appropriate journal. Keep your comments constructive and offer helpful suggestions. Avoid bias and unreasonable demands.

Being asked to peer review your first article may be daunting. Do you have any other suggestions for peer reviewers?

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• News & Events

Peer Review Week 2024 With Enago — Innovate, empower, and revolutionize the future of publishing

As the tenth edition of Peer Review Week (PRW) is on the horizon, Enago —…

Empowering Peer Reviewers: A roadmap for effective manuscript evaluation

Peer review has always been an essential part of scholarly publishing; serving as a rigorous…

• Publishing Research
• Thought Leadership

Redefining Academic Publishing: Discussing a new metric for time from first submission to acceptance

Publishing research has been a necessary component of academic research; it has long enabled scholars…

• Understanding Ethics

Ensuring Ethical Peer Review: A comparative analysis of COPE, ICMJE, and NISO guidelines

Peer review is a cornerstone of the academic and scientific publishing process which ensures the…

• Understanding Reviews

Nurturing Peer Review Excellence: The significance of early career researchers (ECRs)

Recently, I came across a tweet posted by my colleague expressing his frustration as his…

Redefining Academic Publishing: Discussing a new metric for time from first…

Ensuring Ethical Peer Review: A comparative analysis of COPE, ICMJE, and NISO…

Will ChatGPT Disrupt Peer Review? Impact of AI on the Hallmark of Science Vigilance

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.

Literature Review

The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.

Methodology

The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.

The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.

The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.

The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.

The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.

Research Paper

Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Technical Report

A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.

Progress Report

A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.

Feasibility Report

A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.

Field Report

A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.

Experimental Report

An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.

Case Study Report

A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.

Literature Review Report

A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.

Introduction:

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).

Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.

Methodology:

The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.

The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.

Discussion:

The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.

Limitations:

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.

Implications:

The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.

References:

• Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
• Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 1-19.
• Pantic, I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 652-657.
• Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.

Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

• Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field.
• Informing policy and practice : Research reports can inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers. For example, a research report on the effectiveness of a new drug could inform regulatory agencies in their decision-making process.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research in a particular area. Other researchers may use the findings and methodology of a report to develop new research questions or to build on existing research.
• Evaluating programs and interventions : Research reports can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. For example, a research report on a new educational program could provide evidence of its impact on student performance.
• Demonstrating impact : Research reports can be used to demonstrate the impact of research funding or to evaluate the success of research projects. By presenting the findings and outcomes of a study, research reports can show the value of research to funders and stakeholders.
• Enhancing professional development : Research reports can be used to enhance professional development by providing a source of information and learning for researchers and practitioners in a particular field. For example, a research report on a new teaching methodology could provide insights and ideas for educators to incorporate into their own practice.

How to write Research Report

Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:

• Identify the research question: The first step in writing a research report is to identify your research question. This will help you focus your research and organize your findings.
• Conduct research : Once you have identified your research question, you will need to conduct research to gather relevant data and information. This can involve conducting experiments, reviewing literature, or analyzing data.
• Organize your findings: Once you have gathered all of your data, you will need to organize your findings in a way that is clear and understandable. This can involve creating tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate your results.
• Write the report: Once you have organized your findings, you can begin writing the report. Start with an introduction that provides background information and explains the purpose of your research. Next, provide a detailed description of your research methods and findings. Finally, summarize your results and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Proofread and edit: After you have written your report, be sure to proofread and edit it carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and make sure that your report is well-organized and easy to read.
• Include a reference list: Be sure to include a list of references that you used in your research. This will give credit to your sources and allow readers to further explore the topic if they choose.
• Format your report: Finally, format your report according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or organization. This may include formatting requirements for headings, margins, fonts, and spacing.

Purpose of Research Report

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.

Some common purposes of a research report include:

• Sharing knowledge: A research report allows researchers to share their findings and knowledge with others in their field. This helps to advance the field and improve the understanding of a particular topic.
• Identifying trends: A research report can identify trends and patterns in data, which can help guide future research and inform decision-making.
• Addressing problems: A research report can provide insights into problems or issues and suggest solutions or recommendations for addressing them.
• Evaluating programs or interventions : A research report can evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions, which can inform decision-making about whether to continue, modify, or discontinue them.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies.

When to Write Research Report

A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.

In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.

Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

Characteristics of Research Report

There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:

• Objective: A research report should be written in an objective and unbiased manner. It should present the facts and findings of the research study without any personal opinions or biases.
• Systematic: A research report should be written in a systematic manner. It should follow a clear and logical structure, and the information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand and follow.
• Detailed: A research report should be detailed and comprehensive. It should provide a thorough description of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research report should be accurate and based on sound research methods. The findings and conclusions should be supported by data and evidence.
• Organized: A research report should be well-organized. It should include headings and subheadings to help the reader navigate the report and understand the main points.
• Clear and concise: A research report should be written in clear and concise language. The information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, and unnecessary jargon should be avoided.
• Citations and references: A research report should include citations and references to support the findings and conclusions. This helps to give credit to other researchers and to provide readers with the opportunity to further explore the topic.

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

• Communicating research findings: Research reports allow researchers to communicate their findings to a wider audience, including other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public. This helps to disseminate knowledge and advance the understanding of a particular topic.
• Providing evidence for decision-making : Research reports can provide evidence to inform decision-making, such as in the case of policy-making, program planning, or product development. The findings and conclusions can help guide decisions and improve outcomes.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research on a particular topic. Other researchers can build on the findings and conclusions of the report, which can lead to further discoveries and advancements in the field.
• Demonstrating expertise: Research reports can demonstrate the expertise of the researchers and their ability to conduct rigorous and high-quality research. This can be important for securing funding, promotions, and other professional opportunities.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies. Producing a high-quality research report can help ensure compliance with these requirements.

Limitations of Research Report

Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:

• Time-consuming: Conducting research and writing a report can be a time-consuming process, particularly for large-scale studies. This can limit the frequency and speed of producing research reports.
• Expensive: Conducting research and producing a report can be expensive, particularly for studies that require specialized equipment, personnel, or data. This can limit the scope and feasibility of some research studies.
• Limited generalizability: Research studies often focus on a specific population or context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts.
• Potential bias : Researchers may have biases or conflicts of interest that can influence the findings and conclusions of the research study. Additionally, participants may also have biases or may not be representative of the larger population, which can limit the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Accessibility: Research reports may be written in technical or academic language, which can limit their accessibility to a wider audience. Additionally, some research may be behind paywalls or require specialized access, which can limit the ability of others to read and use the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to...

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and...

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Integrating blockchain, iot, and xbrl in accounting information systems: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 2.1. definition of the research question, 2.2. search for literature, 2.3. applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2.4. quality assessment, 3.1. journal analysis, 3.2. blockchain studies, 3.2.1. overview analysis, 3.2.2. blockchain as an accounting system, blockchain as a triple-entry accounting system, blockchain as a single accounting system, 3.2.3. blockchain and the quality of accounting information, 3.3. internet of things technology studies, 3.3.1. overview analysis, 3.3.2. using the internet of things (iot) in the accounting field, 3.4. extensible business reporting language (xbrl) studies, 3.4.1. overview analysis, 3.4.2. the benefits of extensible business reporting language (xbrl) in accounting, 3.5. the integration of blockchain, the internet of things, and xbrl, 4. discussion, 5. the limitations of the study, 6. future research directions, 7. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Adamopoulos, Panagiotis, Vilma Todri, and Anindya Ghose. 2021. Demand effects of the internet-of-things sales channel: Evidence from automating the purchase process. Information Systems Research 32: 238–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alay, Hazal Koray. 2022. Evaluating Research Trends on The Emerging Blockchain Technology in The Fields of Business And Management: A Systematic Review. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy 7: 409–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alkafaji, Bashaer Khudhair Abbas, Mahmoud Lari Dashtbayaz, and Mahdi Salehi. 2023. The Impact of Blockchain on the Quality of Accounting Information: An Iraqi Case Study. Risks 11: 58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alkayed, Hani, Saad Zighan, Majed Qabajeh, and Mohammad I Almaharmeh. 2023. The role of XBRL adoption on enhancing transparency of information disclosure: A case study of Jordanian financial companies. Cogent Business and Management 10: 2265082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alles, Michael, and Maciej Piechock. 2012. Will XBRL improve corporate governance? A framework for enhancing governance decision making using interactive data. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13: 91–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arshad, Ameena, Faisal Shahzad, Ijaz Ur Rehman, and Bruno S Sergi. 2023. A systematic literature review of blockchain technology and environmental sustainability: Status quo and future research. International Review of Economics & Finance 88: 1602–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atzori, Marcella. 2018. Blockchain-Based Architectures for the Internet of Things: A Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beerbaum, Dirk. 2018. Blockchain A Business Case for XBRL: A Beast or a Lame Duck? SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bellucci, Marco, Damiano Cesa Bianchi, and Giacomo Manetti. 2022. Blockchain in accounting practice and research: Systematic literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research 30: 121–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benedetti, Hugo, Ehsan Nikbakht, Sayan Sarkar, and Andrew Craig Spieler. 2020. Blockchain and corporate fraud. Journal of Financial Crime 28: 702–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blankespoor, Elizabeth, Brian P. Miller, and Hal D. White. 2014. Initial evidence on the market impact of the XBRL mandate. Review of Accounting Studies 19: 1468–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boixo, Ignacio, Javier Mora, and Jesús Ruiz. 2019. Proof of Concept for an XBRL Report Indexer with Integrity and Non-Repudiation Secured by Blockchain Using a Smart Contract: XBRLchain Demo. 44th World Continuous Auditing and Reporting Symposium. 1–12. Available online: http://www.openfiling.info/wp-content/upLoads/data/ReportIndexerSecuredbyBlockchain.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2024).
• Bonsón, Enrique, and Michaela Bednárová. 2019. Blockchain and its implications for accounting and auditing. Meditari Accountancy Research 27: 725–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonsón, Enrique, Virginia Cortijo, and Tomás Escobar. 2009. Towards the global adoption of XBRL using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10: 46–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borgi, Hela, and Vincent Tawiah. 2022. Determinants of eXtensible business reporting language adoption: An institutional perspective. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 30: 352–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byström, Hans. 2019. Blockchains, real-time accounting, and the future of credit risk modeling. Ledger 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, Cynthia Weiyi. 2021. Triple-entry accounting with blockchain: How far have we come? Accounting & Finance 61: 71–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carlin, Tyrone. 2019. Blockchain and the Journey Beyond Double Entry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 305–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Centobelli, Piera, Roberto Cerchione, Pasquale Del Vecchio, Eugenio Oropallo, and Giustina Secundo. 2022. Blockchain technology design in accounting: Game changer to tackle fraud or technological fairy tale? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 35: 1566–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Shanzhi, Hui Xu, Dake Liu, Bo Hu, and Hucheng Wang. 2014. A vision of IoT: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with China Perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1: 349–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Songsheng, Jun Guo, Qingqing Liu, and Xiaoxiao Tong. 2021. The impact of XBRL on real earnings management: Unexpected consequences of the XBRL implementation in China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 56: 479–504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, Emon Kalyan, Iffat Ishrat Khan, and Bablu Kumar Dhar. 2023. Strategy for implementing blockchain technology in accounting: Perspectives of stakeholders in a developing nation. Business Strategy and Development 6: 477–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christidis, Konstantinos, and Michael Devetsikiotis. 2016. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 4: 2292–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christoffersen, Jeppe. 2013. A review of antecedents of international strategic alliance performance: Synthesized evidence and new directions for core constructs. International Journal of Management Reviews 15: 66–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cormier, Denis, Dominique Dufour, Philippe Luu, Pierre Teller, and Robert Teller. 2019. The Relevance of XBRL Voluntary Disclosure for Stock Market Valuation: The Role of Corporate Governance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36: 113–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2016. Imagineering audit 4.0. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 13: 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2017. Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems 31: 5–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debreceny, Roger, and Glen L. Gray. 2001. The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2: 47–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debreceny, Roger, Stephanie Farewell, Maciej Piechocki, Carsten Felden, and André Gräning. 2010. Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the SEC. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29: 296–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demirkan, Sebahattin, Irem Demirkan, and Andrew McKee. 2020. Blockchain technology in the future of business cyber security and accounting. Journal of Management Analytics 7: 189–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desplebin, Olivier, Gulliver Lux, and Nicolas Petit. 2021. To Be or Not to Be: Blockchain and the Future of Accounting and Auditing*. Accounting Perspectives 20: 743–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desyatnyuk, Oksana, Volodymyr Muravskyi, Oleg Shevchuk, and Mykhailo Oleksiiv. 2022. Dual Use of Internet of Things Technology in Accounting Automation and Cybersecurity. Paper presented at 2022 12th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, ACIT 2022, Ruzomberok, Slovakia, September 26–28; pp. 360–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Yi, Oliver Zhen Li, Yupeng Lin, and Chenkai Ni. 2016. Does Information-Processing Cost Affect Firm-Specific Information Acquisition? Evidence from XBRL Adoption. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 51: 435–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, Jing, Yun Shi, Wanfu Li, and Ying Chen. 2023. Can blockchain technology be effectively integrated into the real economy? Evidence from corporate investment efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Research 16: 100292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dumay, John, and Linlin Cai. 2015. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16: 121–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edquist, Harald, Peter Goodridge, and Jonathan Haskel. 2021. The Internet of Things and economic growth in a panel of countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 30: 262–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, and Narcisa Roxana Mosteanu. 2019. Accounting and blockchain technology: From double-entry to triple-entry. The Business and Management Review 10: 108–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faccia, Alessio, and Pythagoras Petratos. 2021. Blockchain, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and accounting information systems (AIS): Research on e-procurement and system integration. Applied Sciences 11: 6792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, Mohamed Yousif Khamis Al Naqbi, and Saeed Ahmad Lootah. 2019. Integrated cloud financial accounting cycle. How artificial intelligence, blockchain, and XBRL will change the accounting, fiscal and auditing practices. Paper presented at ICCBDC ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Oxford, UK, August 28–30; pp. 31–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, Narcisa Roxana Moşteanu, and Luigi Pio Leonardo. 2020. Blockchain Hash, the Missing Axis of the Accounts to Settle the Triple Entry Bookkeeping System. Paper presented at 2020 12th International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 16–18; pp. 18–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, Bin, Xinming Liu, Chen Ma, and Yusang Zhuo. 2023. Blockchain technology adoption and accounting information quality. Accounting and Finance 63: 4125–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fanning, Kurt, and David P. Centers. 2016. Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial Services. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 27: 53–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fullana, Olga, and Javier Ruiz. 2021. Accounting information systems in the blockchain era. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management 11: 63–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garman, Amy D. 2022. Does Blockchain Technology Constrain Real Earnings Management? Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, and Ashley Stampone. 2019. A transaction on the blockchain: An AIS perspective, intro case to explain transactions on the ERP and the role of the internal and external auditor. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 47–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, Salem L. Boumediene, and Magdy S. Farag. 2023. The creation of one truth: Single-ledger entries for multiple stakeholders using blockchain technology to address the reconciliation problem. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 20: 59–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greenhalgh, Trisha, Glenn Robert, Fraser Macfarlane, Paul Bate, and Olivia Kyriakidou. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 82: 581–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grigg, Ian. 2024. Triple entry accounting. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17: 76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haddud, Abubaker, Arthur DeSouza, Anshuman Khare, and Huei Lee. 2017. Examining potential benefits and challenges associated with the Internet of Things integration in supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28: 1055–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, James A. 2007. Accounting Information Systems , 5th ed. Issues in Accounting Education. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, vol. 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodge, Frank D., Jane Jollineau Kennedy, and Laureen A. Maines. 2004. Does search-facilitating technology improve the transparency of financial reporting? Accounting Review 79: 687–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoitash, Rani, and Udi Hoitash. 2018. Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. Accounting Review 93: 259–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iansiti, Marco, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2017. The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review 95: 118–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibañez, Juan Ignacio, Chris N. Bayer, Paolo Tasca, and Jiahua Xu. 2023. REA, Triple-Entry Accounting and Blockchain: Converging Paths to Shared Ledger Systems. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Inghirami, Iacopo Ennio. 2020. Accounting Information Systems: The Scope of Blockchain Accounting. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation 38: 107–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jarašūnienė, Aldona, Kristina Čižiūnienė, and Audrius Čereška. 2023. Research on Impact of IoT on Warehouse Management. Sensors 23: 2213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karajovic, Maria, Henry M. Kim, and Marek Laskowski. 2019. Thinking Outside the Block: Projected Phases of Blockchain Integration in the Accounting Industry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 319–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karmańska, Anna. 2021. Internet of Things in the Accounting Field. Benefits and Challenges. Operations Research and Decisions 31: 23–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Jeong-Bon, Joung W. Kim, and Jee-Hae Lim. 2019. Does XBRL Adoption Constrain Earnings Management? Early Evidence from Mandated U.S. Filers. Contemporary Accounting Research 36: 2610–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kitchenham, Barbara. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering . Technical Report, Ver. 2.3. EBSE. Staffordshire: Keele University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokina, Julia, Ruben Mancha, and Dessislava Pachamanova. 2017. Blockchain: Emergent industry adoption and implications for accounting. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14: 91–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, Van Thanh, Claus Pahl, Nabil El Ioini, and Gianfranco D’Atri. 2019. Enabling Financial Reports Transparency and Trustworthiness using Blockchain Technology. International Journal on Advances in Securiity 12: 236–47. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Pahl/publication/338622025_Enabling_Financial_Reports_Transparency_and_Trustworthiness_using_Blockchain_Technology/links/5e2008b6a6fdcc10156c35f5/Enabling-Financial-Reports-Transparency-and-Trustworthiness-using- (accessed on 28 March 2024).
• Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C. Gøtzsche, John PA Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Philip J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6: e1000100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, Chunhui, Xin Robert Luo, and Fu Lee Wang. 2017. An empirical investigation on the impact of XBRL adoption on information asymmetry: Evidence from Europe. Decision Support Systems 93: 42–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lombardi, Rosa, and Giustina Secundo. 2020. The digital transformation of corporate reporting–a systematic literature review and avenues for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research 29: 1179–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Yang. 2018. Blockchain and the related issues: A review of current research topics. Journal of Management Analytics 5: 231–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mainelli, Michael, and Mike Smith. 2015. Sharing Ledgers for Sharing Economies: An Exploration of Mutual Distributed Ledgers (Aka Blockchain Technology). Journal of Financial Perspectives 3: 38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maiti, Moinak, Ivan Kotliarov, and Vitalii Lipatnikov. 2021. A future triple entry accounting framework using blockchain technology. Blockchain: Research and Applications 2: 100037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mashayekhy, Yasaman, Amir Babaei, Xue-Ming Yuan, and Anrong Xue. 2022. Impact of Internet of Things (IoT) on Inventory Management: A Literature Survey. Logistics 6: 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Massaro, Maurizio, John Dumay, and James Guthrie. 2016. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 29: 767–801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayapada, Arung Gihna, Muhammad Afdhal, and Rahmi Syafitri. 2020. Earnings Management in the Pre and Post eXtensible Business Reporting Language Period in Indonesia. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research 23: 29–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, Qingfei, Yangguang Lu, Zhiyong Liu, Chao Su, and Bo Wang. 2019. Machine Learning based Digital Twin Framework for Production Optimization in Petrochemical Industry. International Journal of Information Management 49: 502–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mistry, Ishan, Sudeep Tanwar, Sudhanshu Tyagi, and Neeraj Kumar. 2020. Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for industrial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 135: 106382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and T. PRISMA Group*. 2009. Reprint-Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moll, Jodie, and Ogan Yigitbasioglu. 2019. The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. British Accounting Review 51: 100833. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muthulakshmi, S., and R. Chitra. 2022. IoT technologies, applications and challenges, blockchain and its role in IoT: A survey. International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions 12: 321–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available online: https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2024).
• Nord, Jeretta Horn, Alex Koohang, and Joanna Paliszkiewicz. 2019. The Internet of Things: Review and theoretical framework. Expert Systems with Applications 133: 97–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Leary, Daniel E. 2017. Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 24: 138–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palas, Rimona, and Amos Baranes. 2019. Making investment decisions using XBRL filing data. Accounting Research Journal 32: 587–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palmaccio, Matteo, Grazia Dicuonzo, and Zhanna S. Belyaeva. 2021. The internet of things and corporate business models: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research 131: 610–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, Justin, and Alex Rialp Criado. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review 29: 101717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Payne, Rick. 2019. The Internet of Things and Accounting: Lessons from China . London: ICAEW thought Leadership Business and Management Faculty. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, Gareth W., and Efstathios Panayi. 2016. Understanding Modern Banking Ledgers through Blockchain Technologies: Future of Transaction Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money . New Economic Windows. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilkington, Marc. 2016. Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. In Research Handbook on Digital Transformations . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinsker, Robert, and Shaomin Li. 2008. Costs and benefits of XBRL adoption: Early evidence. Communications of the ACM 51: 47–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pizzi, Simone, Andrea Caputo, Andrea Venturelli, and Fabio Caputo. 2022. Embedding and managing blockchain in sustainability reporting: A practical framework. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 13: 545–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romney, Marshall, Paul Steinbart, Joseph Mula, Ray McNamara, and Trevor Tonkin. 2012. Accounting Information Systems Australasian Edition . Frenchs Forest: Pearson Higher Education AU. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roszkowska, Paulina. 2021. Fintech in financial reporting and audit for fraud prevention and safeguarding equity investments. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 17: 164–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rozario, Andrea M., and Chanta Thomas. 2019. Reengineering the audit with blockchain and smart contracts. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 21–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruan, Lei, Heng Liu, and Sang-Bing Jason Tsai. 2021. XBRL Adoption and Capital Market Information Efficiency. Journal of Global Information Management 29: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salah, Khaled, M. Habib Ur Rehman, Nishara Nizamuddin, and Ala Al-Fuqaha. 2019. Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges. IEEE Access 7: 10127–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saraiva, Helena IB, and Paulo AA Vieira. 2023. Accounting systems with smart contracts: Building accounting records in blockchain step by step. In Accounting and Financial Reporting Challenges for Government, Non-Profits, and the Private Sector . Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 58–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmitz, Jana, and Giulia Leoni. 2019. Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda. Australian Accounting Review 29: 331–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serag, Asmaa. 2022. A proposed framework for integrating XBRL and blockchain to improve financial reporting transparency and integrity: XBRL Chain. Scientific Journal of Financial and Commercial Studies and Research 3: 497–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shapovalova, Alla, Olena Kuzmenko, Oleh Polishchuk, Tetyana Larikova, and Zoriana Myronchuk. 2023. Modernisation of the National Accounting and Auditing System Using Digital Transformation Tools. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 4: 33–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sherif, Karma, and Hania Mohsin. 2021. The effect of emergent technologies on accountant`s ethical blindness. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 21: 61–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Li. 2022. Construction of Accounting Internal Control Management Platform Based on IoT Cloud Computing. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2022: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swan, Melanie. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis . Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, Boon Seng, and Kin Yew Low. 2019. Blockchain as the Database Engine in the Accounting System. Australian Accounting Review 29: 312–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tawiah, Vincent, and Hela Borg. 2022. Impact of XBRL adoption on financial reporting quality: A global evidence. Accounting Research Journal 35: 815–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thies, Simon, Marko Kureljusic, Erik Karger, and Thilo Krämer. 2023. Blockchain-Based Triple-Entry Accounting: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Information Systems 37: 101–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thorpe, Richard, Robin Holt, Allan Macpherson, and Luke Pittaway. 2005. Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 7: 257–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uckelmann, Dieter, and Mark Harrison. 2010. Integrated billing mechanisms in the Internet of Things to support information sharing and enable new business opportunities. International Journal of RF Technologies: Research and Applications 2: 73–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valentinetti, Diego, and Francisco Flores Muñoz. 2021. Internet of things: Emerging impacts on digital reporting. Journal of Business Research 131: 549–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Niekerk, Anja, and Riaan Rudman. 2019. Risks, controls and governance associated with internet of things technologies on accounting information. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research 21: 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varriale, Vincenzo, Antonello Cammarano, Francesca Michelino, and Mauro Caputo. 2023. Integrating blockchain, RFID and IoT within a cheese supply chain: A cost analysis. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 34: 100486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahab, Z. Abd. 2019. Integrating XBRL and Block Chain to Improve Corporate Transparency Integrity and Availability in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1194–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Xiongyuan, Luofan Bu, and Xuan Peng. 2021. Internet of things adoption, earnings management, and resource allocation efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Studies 9: 333–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Yunsen, and Alexander Kogan. 2018. Designing confidentiality-preserving Blockchain-based transaction processing systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 30: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Zhenkun, and Simon S. Gao. 2012. Are XBRL-based Financial Reports Better than Non-XBRL Reports? A Quality Assessment. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 6: 511–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, Richard T., and Jane Webster. 2020. Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. Journal of Decision Systems 29: 129–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26: xiii–xxiii. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Jiapeng, Feng Xiong, and Cheng Li. 2019. Application of internet of things and blockchain technologies to improve accounting information quality. IEEE Access 7: 100090–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Zhiliang. 2017. A Comparative Study on the Architecture Internet of Things and its’ Implementation method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 81: 012192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yermack, David. 2017. Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance 21: 7–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoon, Hyungwook, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek. 2011. Does XBRL adoption reduce information asymmetry? Journal of Business Research 64: 157–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Ting, Zhiwei Lin, and Qingliang Tang. 2018. Blockchain: The Introduction and Its Application in Financial Accounting. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 29: 37–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zghaibeh, Manaf. 2023. A Blockchain-Based, Smart Contract and IoT-Enabled Recycling System. The Journal of The British Blockchain Association 7: 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Fan, Ethan Cecchetti, Kyle Croman, Ari Juels, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Town crier: An authenticated data feed for smart contracts. Paper presented at ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Yanan, Yuyan Guan, and Jeong-Bon Kim. 2019. XBRL adoption and expected crash risk. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 38: 31–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Yu, and Jiangtao Wen. 2017. The IoT electric business model: Using blockchain technology for the internet of things. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 10: 983–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Yuan, and Cuiping Guan. 2023. Research on the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Real Earnings Management of Listed Companies. Open Journal of Accounting 12: 85–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Nofel, M.; Marzouk, M.; Elbardan, H.; Saleh, R.; Mogahed, A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2024 , 17 , 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel M, Marzouk M, Elbardan H, Saleh R, Mogahed A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management . 2024; 17(8):372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel, Mohamed, Mahmoud Marzouk, Hany Elbardan, Reda Saleh, and Aly Mogahed. 2024. "Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17, no. 8: 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 1249 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals