conducting literature review in research methodology

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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 September 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

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.

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  

775 Accesses

1 Citations

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

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

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

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

Conducting a Literature Review: Home

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )

Print Resources

Many resources on research methodology include a chapter on literature review. Try these titles:

• SAGE Research Methods "SAGE Research Methods (SRM) is a research tool supported by a newly devised taxonomy that links content and methods terms. It provides the most comprehensive picture available today of research methods (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods)across the social and behavioural sciences."

There are many resources available on the internet and in print to help you conduct a literature review. For graduate students working on a thesis, the most important resource is your graduate committee chair. Also, if you are an ILR student, don't forget to speak with one of Catherwood's reference librarians. They have subject matter expertise and can help you find research materials, as well as show you relevant databases and resources, including Zotero , an online bibliographic management system. Cornell students can also take advantage of the  John S. Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines , which offers a walk-in tutoring Service.

Additional Resources for Writing Literature Reviews

• Library Research at Cornell by Michael Engle Last Updated Sep 4, 2024 10631 views this year
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting Writing Advice from the University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.
• Write a Literature Review Research guide from the University Library, UC Santa Cruz
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature From the Writing Center at University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Searching the Library Catalog

Conducting a guided keyword search from the  Cornell University Library Catalog , using the terms "research methodology" or "qualitative research" will provide additional results, and adding the term "social sciences" to the search will help narrow the results. You can also use this list of the classification numbers for theses by department . We also offer a finding guide to dissertations and theses that you may find useful!

We also recommend you look through other theses - often your graduate chair will have copies.

• Last Updated: Feb 4, 2021 9:22 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/ilrlitreview

Public Health Research Guide

• Web Resources
• Conduct a Literature Review
• Citation Style Guides and Management Tools

Literature Review Overview

A literature review involves both the literature searching and the writing. The purpose of the literature search is to:

• reveal existing knowledge
• identify areas of consensus and debate
• identify gaps in knowledge
• identify approaches to research design and methodology
• identify other researchers with similar interests
• clarify your future directions for research

List above from Conducting A Literature Search , Information Research Methods and Systems, Penn State University Libraries

A literature review provides an evaluative review and documentation of what has been published by scholars and researchers on a given topic. In reviewing the published literature, the aim is to explain what ideas and knowledge have been gained and shared to date (i.e., hypotheses tested, scientific methods used, results and conclusions), the weakness and strengths of these previous works, and to identify remaining research questions: A literature review provides the context for your research, making clear why your topic deserves further investigation.

Before You Search

• Select and understand your research topic and question.
• Identify the major concepts in your topic and question.
• Brainstorm potential keywords/terms that correspond to those concepts.
• Identify alternative keywords/terms (narrower, broader, or related) to use if your first set of keywords do not work.
• Determine (Boolean*) relationships between terms.
• Begin your search.
• Review your search results.
• Revise & refine your search based on the initial findings.

*Boolean logic provides three ways search terms/phrases can be combined, using the following three operators: AND, OR, and NOT.

Search Process

The type of information you want to find and the practices of your discipline(s) drive the types of sources you seek and where you search. For most research you will use multiple source types such as: annotated bibliographies; articles from journals, magazines, and newspapers; books; blogs; conference papers; data sets; dissertations; organization, company, or government reports; reference materials; systematic reviews; archival materials; and more. It can be helpful to develop a comprehensive approach to review different sources and where you will search for each. Below is an example approach.

• Annual Reviews and Bibliographies – e.g., Annual Review of Public Health review articles (Annual Reviews database)
• Internet – e.g., Listservs, Blogs, Social Networking Sites, etc. related to your topic
• Grant Databases – e.g., National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research (OEH) and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), Grants to Individuals
• Conference Proceedings and Professional Association websites – e.g., American Public Health Association, National Environmental Health Association, World Council for Health
• Research or Resource Centers – e.g., Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC)
• Citation Indexes – e.g., PubMed, Dissertations & Theses Global ProQuest, Web of Science Core Collection
• Journal Indexes/Databases and EJournal Packages – e.g., CINAHL Complete, Journals@Ovid
• Specialized Data – e.g., Disability & Health Data System (DHDS), Montana Public Health Information System
• Book Catalogs – e.g., local library catalog (OneSearch at UM), WorldCat, Google Books
• Institutional Repositories – e.g., ScholarWorks at the University of Montana (includes UM Conference on Undergraduate Research as UM Graduate Research Conference abstracts)
• Library Web Scale Discovery Service – e.g., OneSearch (main search from library homepage)
• Web Search Engines – e.g., Google
• Government websites – e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health), Missoula City-County Health Department

Additional information gathering strategies:

• Identify and browse current issues of the most relevant journals for your topic
• Identify and search for the publications of experts and new scholars
• Setup alerts, e.g., Journal Table of Contents, Saved Searches
• Contact researchers, librarians, etc. at institutions, organizations, and agencies for resources or support
• << Previous: Web Resources
• Next: Citation Style Guides and Management Tools >>
• Last Updated: Sep 9, 2024 5:31 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/publichealth

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

Chat PDF Tools Compared: SciSpace ChatPDF and Sider AI

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Affiliations.

• 1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
• 3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected].
• PMID: 30089228
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Keywords: evidence; guide; meta-analysis; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; theory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
• Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Aromataris E, et al. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015. PMID: 26360830
• RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. Wong G, et al. BMC Med. 2013 Jan 29;11:20. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-20. BMC Med. 2013. PMID: 23360661 Free PMC article.
• A Primer on Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nguyen NH, Singh S. Nguyen NH, et al. Semin Liver Dis. 2018 May;38(2):103-111. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1655776. Epub 2018 Jun 5. Semin Liver Dis. 2018. PMID: 29871017 Review.
• Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Hedin RJ, Umberham BA, Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen L, Vassar M. Hedin RJ, et al. Anesth Analg. 2016 Oct;123(4):1018-25. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001452. Anesth Analg. 2016. PMID: 27537925 Review.
• The Association between Emotional Intelligence and Prosocial Behaviors in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cao X, Chen J. Cao X, et al. J Youth Adolesc. 2024 Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s10964-024-02062-y. Online ahead of print. J Youth Adolesc. 2024. PMID: 39198344
• The impact of chemical pollution across major life transitions: a meta-analysis on oxidative stress in amphibians. Martin C, Capilla-Lasheras P, Monaghan P, Burraco P. Martin C, et al. Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Aug;291(2029):20241536. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1536. Epub 2024 Aug 28. Proc Biol Sci. 2024. PMID: 39191283 Free PMC article.
• Target mechanisms of mindfulness-based programmes and practices: a scoping review. Maloney S, Kock M, Slaghekke Y, Radley L, Lopez-Montoyo A, Montero-Marin J, Kuyken W. Maloney S, et al. BMJ Ment Health. 2024 Aug 24;27(1):e300955. doi: 10.1136/bmjment-2023-300955. BMJ Ment Health. 2024. PMID: 39181568 Free PMC article. Review.
• Bridging disciplines-key to success when implementing planetary health in medical training curricula. Malmqvist E, Oudin A. Malmqvist E, et al. Front Public Health. 2024 Aug 6;12:1454729. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1454729. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39165783 Free PMC article. Review.
• Strength of evidence for five happiness strategies. Puterman E, Zieff G, Stoner L. Puterman E, et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Aug 12. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01954-0. Online ahead of print. Nat Hum Behav. 2024. PMID: 39134738 No abstract available.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ingenta plc
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Digital Transformation of Tax Administration and Compliance: A Systematic Literature Review on E-Invoicing and Prefilled Returns

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, 1 introduction, 1.1 basic concepts and definitions, 1.2 e-invoicing, 1.3 prefilling of returns, 2 research methodology, 2.1 research question, 2.2 conducting the search.

2.3 Search Formalization

2.4 literature analysis.

3 Findings of Review Based On Major Themes from the Literature

3.1 e-invoicing and efficiency of taxation, 3.1.1 e-invoicing for vat., 3.1.2 e-invoicing and smes., 3.1.3 e-invoicing and tax fraud., 3.2 prefilling of returns and effectiveness of taxation, 3.2.1 prefilling of tax returns and compliance/administrative cost., 3.2.2 prefilling of tax returns for smes., 3.2.3 prefilling of returns to minimize tax fraud., 4 discussion, 4.1 e-invoicing, 4.2 prefilling of returns, 5 conclusion, 5.1 limitations, 5.2 future research, a.1 list of articles (appendix a ).

• Terán L Vaca C Riofrio D Stürmer M (2024) Introduction to the Special Issue on Smart Government Development and Applications Digital Government: Research and Practice 10.1145/3691353 5 :3 (1-9) Online publication date: 13-Sep-2024 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3691353

Index Terms

Applied computing

Computers in other domains

Computing in government

General and reference

Document types

General literature

Surveys and overviews

Recommendations

A case of the governance of digital technology in tax administration.

Despite the growing importance of digital technology in recent years, a holistic view of its governance in tax administration is yet to be clearly articulated. This shortcoming is attributed to the lack of empirical research in this sensitive, yet ...

Public value creation through digital transformation in tax administration: a conceptual model proposal

The present research aims to propose a conceptual model to evaluate the public value creation that can be achieved when tax administration implements digital transformation. In order to construct this conceptual model, we propose to combine two ...

Modernization of tax information system for improved e-government services

In this case study, we summarize current e-government initiatives in Mongolia and highlight the needs for modernizing tax information system of Mongolia, initiatives contributing to modernization of tax information system such as data-sharing protocol ...

Information

Published in.

• Guest Editors:
• Luis Terán ,
• Carmen Vaca ,
• Daniel Riofrío ,
• Matthias Stürmer

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, author tags.

• e-invoicing
• prefilling of returns
• tax administration
• tax technology
• Research-article

Funding Sources

Contributors, other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 1 Total Citations View Citations
• 1,155 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 1,155
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 235

View options

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol

• Lauren McCaffrey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2524-977X 1 ,
• Bryan McCann 1 ,
• Maria Giné-Garriga 2 ,
• Qingfan An 3 ,
• Greet Cardon 4 ,
• Sebastien François Martin Chastin 1 , 4 ,
• Rabab Chrifou 4 ,
• Sonia Lippke 5 ,
• Quentin Loisel 1 ,
• Giuliana Raffaella Longworth 2 ,
• Katrina Messiha 6 ,
• Mira Vogelsang 1 ,
• Emily Whyte 1 &
• Philippa Margaret Dall 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  231 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

63 Accesses

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is a growing investment in the use of co-creation, reflected by an increase in co-created products, services, and interventions. At the same time, a growing recognition of the significance of co-creators’ experience can be detected but there is a gap in the aggregation of the literature with regard to experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined and assessed, and its key emotional and psychological characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults.

The development of the search strategy was guided by the research question, Arksey, and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology guidelines, and through collaboration with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. Scopus) will be conducted to identify relevant papers. Snowball searches to identify additional papers through included full-text papers will be done using the artificial intelligence tool, namely, Connected Papers. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Studies in English, Dutch, Chinese, Spanish, and French, published from the year 1970 onwards, will be considered. Microsoft Excel software will be used to record and chart extracted data.

The resulting scoping review could provide useful insights into adult co-creators’ experience of participating in the co-creation process. An increased understanding of the role of emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the co-creation process and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators and co-created outcome.

Systematic review registration

10.5281/zenodo.7665851.

Peer Review reports

Co-creation can be defined as “any act of collective creativity that involves a broad range of relevant and affected actors in creative problem-solving that aims to produce a desired outcome” [ 1 ]. Co-creation is increasingly acknowledged as a promising approach to address complex ‘wicked’ societal problems and develop more contextually relevant interventions to improve outcomes in a variety of settings [ 2 ]. By facilitating communication across sectors, integrating diverse forms of knowledge and expertise, and enabling local ownership, co-creation can be useful in a broad range of fields including, healthcare, community, and education [ 3 ].

The co-creation process is guided by participatory methodologies [ 4 ]. The goal of participatory research is to engage all those who are the subject of the research in all stages of the research [ 5 ]. Participatory research acknowledges the value of their contribution in a practical and collaborative way [ 5 ]. Co-creation builds on these participatory methodologies, to address the power imbalances stemming from social inequities and uses empowerment approaches to address and meet the needs of citizens [ 3 ]. Co-creation is more specific than the broad concept of participation, which also refers to passive involvement [ 6 ]. The ultimate goal of co-creation is to actively involve all relevant and affected stakeholders in all aspects of the co-creation process, such as planning or conducting [ 7 ].

Whilst the co-creation behaviour of participants in a co-creation process is mostly documented in the co-creation literature, the emotional and psychological experience of participating in the co-creation process has been given less attention [ 8 , 9 ]. Co-creation behaviour is argued to comprise multiple behavioural dimensions that fall under two higher-order factors, namely, participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour [ 10 ]. The behavioural dimensions of participation behaviour include information seeking and sharing, responsible behaviour, and personal interaction. The dimensions of citizenship behaviour include feedback, advocacy, helping, and tolerance [ 10 ]. On the other hand, the co-creators’ experiences of participating in the co-creation process, hereby shortened to co-creation experience, capture co-creators’ emotional and psychological states; highlight the interactive component; and involve a continuous process as opposed to a single fixed-time event [ 9 ]. In brief, the co-creation experience, as defined for the purposes of this review, is the co-creators’ emotional and psychological states during active participation and interaction when engaging in the co-creation process [ 9 ]. Co-creation experience differs from co-creation behaviour due to its focus on the feelings and cognitions derived from the act of undertaking the co-creation behaviour [ 9 ].

Research indicates that active involvement in the co-creation process can have profound positive effects on increased health and performance outcomes, satisfaction, and well-being [ 11 , 12 ]. For example, Leask et al. [ 13 ] reported older adults having positive experiences engaging with the co-creation of a health intervention, describing that participants’ role as co-researchers made it enjoyable, interesting, and rewarding. Similar findings from Rooijen et al. [ 14 ] indicated that participants felt empowered, liked the interactive characteristic of meetings, and felt they were valued contributors with a shared responsibility for the project. Positive emotional states like happiness or gratitude can foster trust, which is important for building relationships, whereas negative emotional states, like anger, uncertainty, and frustration, can decrease trust [ 15 ]. Building relationships is an important aspect of the co-creation process, in which experiencing positive emotions helps to create new relationships [ 16 ]. Therefore, positive emotions could also contribute to the functioning of the co-creation group(s) and the successful development of products like intervention components, tools, and further actions.

There are instances when co-creators can experience the co-creation process negatively. There exists some research to indicate how failed co-created services recovered can impact co-creators in terms of future intention to co-create, role clarity, and motivation [ 17 ]. However, there might be a lack of, or a lack of visibility of, literature documenting the negative emotional and psychological experiences associated with the co-creation process because of publication bias. Individual and interpersonal experience including group dynamics are central to the creation of value and innovation and this justifies the need to study the role of human experience in the context of co-creation [ 18 , 19 ]. Figure  1 provides a visual depiction of the proposed connection between co-creation experience and the other elements of co-creation.

Suggested model of the relationship between co-creation experience, processes, behaviour, outcomes, impact, and future co-creation

However, so far, there is a gap regarding the aggregation of the literature pertaining to co-creation experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined, and assessed and its key characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults. As the focus is on the participant’s experience of the process and not the outcome, no limits have been applied to the co-creation context. Scoping reviews are exploratory in nature and systematically map available literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and research gaps [ 20 ]. A scoping review has been identified as an appropriate means to address this broad research question given that, to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of co-creation experience literature, the phenomenon is not well understood or utilised, and studies span a wide variety of fields. The aim of the current scoping review is to deliver an evidence-based review of co-creators’ experiences of co-creating. This review will guide future research to advance evidence-based co-creation methods and inform guidance aimed at enhancing positive experiences for those participating in co-creation.

Research question

What is the current state of the science regarding adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation?

The objectives of this review are to:

Determine the extent of research on co-creation experience.

Uncover the range of and key characteristics of emotional and psychological experiences documented in the literature to date.

Identify any explicit or implicit underlying psychological theories drawn upon to explain the potential mechanism of the experience of co-creation.

Document any tools or technology used during the co-creation process that impacted the experience during co-creation or to make co-creation more successful .

Methodology

This scoping review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (see Additional file 1).

Search strategy

The search strategy comprises three main stages (see Fig.  2 ). The first stage involved searching the newly created Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. This database was created by members of the Health CASCADE network and was aimed at collecting in one place the entire corpus of literature pertaining to participatory research and co-creation (1). This database was created using CINAHL, PubMed and all databases accessible via ProQuest through Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) institutional licence (17 databases in total, APA PsycArticles®, APA PsycInfo®, Art, Design & Architecture Collection, British Periodicals, Coronavirus Research Database, Early Modern Books, Ebook Central, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive, Humanities Index, Periodicals Archive Online, ProQuest One AcademicTrial-Limited time only, PTSDpubs, SciTech Premium Collection, Social Science Premium Collection, Sports Medicine & Education Index, The Vogue Archive, and The Women's Wear Daily Archive). The key search terms used in this search strategy are found in Table  1 . ASReview, an artificial intelligence (AI) aided platform that helps find relevant records was used for screening the records to be included in this database. The AI performs a textual analysis of the provided records, based on active learning and prioritization. Given the large volume of records retrieved from PubMed, CINAHL, and all databases available through ProQuest with GCU access, AI was necessary to speed up the screening process. There are over 13,000 records contained in this database, with all titles and abstracts containing at least one of the search terms.

Stages of search strategy

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database was searched using free-text terms relating to co-creation experience (see Table  2 ). Search terms have been developed in reference to the research question and through consultation with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The search will be piloted to check the appropriateness of keywords and to ensure known studies are identified.

The second stage of the search strategy is to use both sets of search terms (see Tables  1 and 2 ) in Scopus using the Boolean operator AND to combine the two sets. This is to provide additional robustness to the search. Due to the large volume of records retrieved (> 35,000) when combining the two sets of search terms, it is necessary to omit some search terms used to create the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Four search terms will be retained “co-creat*”, “co-production”, “co-design” and “experience-based design”. These search terms are specifically chosen because co-production and co-design are commonly used interchangeably with the term co-creation [ 21 ]. In addition, “experience-based design” is retained due to the obvious focus on the experience. We will include articles that meet our inclusion criteria for co-creation, regardless of the terminology used to describe the methodology. For pragmatic reasons, sources of unpublished empirical studies (including grey literature, theses, and dissertations) will not be searched for. The draft search strategy for Scopus is available in Additional file 2.

The final stage of the search is to employ snowballing to capture any additional articles that may be potentially missed. An artificial intelligence tool called Connected Papers [ 22 ] will be used to identify papers that (1) the included paper has cited (backward reference searching), and (2) papers that have since cited the included paper (forward reference searching).

The article selection process is considered an iterative process, whereby the search strategy will be initially broad and then refined based on abstracts retrieved and as reviewer familiarity with the literature increases. The concept of co-creation is defined differently depending on the setting and context and is often used interchangeably with similar, yet distinct concepts, but equally lacking a clear universal understanding [ 21 ]. Therefore, to account for the overlaps in terminology a broad scope will be initially implemented.

As recommended by Arksey and O’Malley [ 23 ], decisions on how to set search parameters will be made after a general scope of the field has been gained. Hence, this stage will require the reviewer(s) to engage in a reflexive way and repeat steps to ensure a comprehensive literature search with more sensitive searches [ 23 , 24 ].

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

All study participants in the included papers must be adults, described as people aged 18 years and over with no upper limit. Children/adolescents are not included in this study as research indicates that there are differences between their emotional experiences in terms of emotional intensity and stability [ 25 ].

Empirical articles (i.e. primary research studies) include any qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research designs that include a description of the co-created product, service, or intervention and an evaluation of the co-creators’ co-creation experience. Although scoping reviews can draw on evidence from non-empirical sources, this review imposes limits to include empirical sources only as empirical sources would be most useful and appropriate for contributing to an evidence-based understanding of co-creation methods.

Any context that involves the co-creation of a product, service, or intervention will be considered.

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to searching records between 1st January 1970 and 1st December 2021. The search in Scopus will include records from 1st January 1970 until the date of the search.

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to only include materials that are written in English. However, for the search conducted in Scopus, publications in English, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Chinese languages will also be considered, as the research team has proficient fluency in these languages.

Data extraction

Following the database search, articles will be exported as a CSV file for removal of duplicates in Excel. The articles will be imported and screened in Rayyan. The title and abstract of all studies will be screened independently by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, and MV) and irrelevant studies will be removed. All titles and abstracts will be double-screened. Full-text articles of studies identified as potentially relevant for inclusion will subsequently be sought and screened by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, MV, and KM) against the agreed set of criteria. Differences of opinion regarding inclusion or exclusion will be resolved by discussion and reaching a consensus or by a third reviewer. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram.

To determine the extent of research on co-creation experience (objective 1), details about co-creation more generally will first be extracted. This includes:

Study’s definition of co-creation and co-creation experience (if available).

The context or setting.

Data about the participants (number, type, and characteristics of co-creators’ involved).

Description of the co-creation process undertaken (including number of sessions, level of participation).

Purpose of co-creation.

Outcome of the co-created intervention, service, or product.

The key characteristics of psychological and emotional experience including positive and negative components (objective 2) will be extracted.

The psychological theory underpinning the co-creation experience identified by the authors of the studies (objective 3) will be recorded.

Information about the technology or tools that had an impact on the co-creation experience (objective 4) will be extracted.

Additional descriptive information such as discipline and date of publication will also be extracted.

The above-extracted information will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet developed by the authors. This data extraction Excel spreadsheet may be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from the included evidence sources to ensure that key findings relevant to the review question are addressed.

Quality assessment

There exists debate as to whether a scoping review should contain an assessment of study quality [ 26 ]. A quality assessment component will be included in this review in relation to the sufficiency of reporting the process of co-creating an intervention, service, or product. This tool (see Table  3 ) has been adapted from Leask et al.’s [ 4 ] ‘checklist for reporting intervention co-creation’ and Eyles et al.’s [ 27 ] amended version of a checklist for reporting non-pharmacological interventions. The reason for including this checklist is two-fold. Firstly, the scoping review may contain a variety of study designs and the focus is not solely on the outcomes, but rather on the process [ 27 ]. Secondly, as explained above, the concept of co-creation is used interchangeably with other similar overlapping concepts, such that some processes may be described as co-creation when they are in fact not (according to the definition used in this review) or vice versa. Therefore, by incorporating this checklist, it will become clearer as to the type or extent of co-creation processes that were implemented and whether they were clearly reported within each individual source of empirical evidence. However, given that a scoping review aims to present an overview of the extant literature on a particular topic without synthesis from individual studies, no study will be excluded on the basis of the quality of reporting co-created interventions.

Strategy for data analysis

The PRISMA-ScR will be used to guide the reporting of the scoping review [ 28 ]. Whilst, the synthesis of the results from included sources of evidence is more appropriately done with a systematic review, the analysis of data in scoping reviews is generally descriptive in nature [ 29 ]. A narrative summary of extracted data will be produced along with the tabulated and/or charted results described in relation to the review question and objectives. Descriptive techniques, such as basic coding of data to particular categories, are recommended as a useful approach when the purpose is to identify concepts or key characteristics related to the concept [ 20 ]. Data will be analysed using the well-established method of thematic analysis [ 30 ]. This method is characterised by identifying and reporting recurring themes within the data and is a suitable analytic method because it allows for patterns of experience to be recorded, such as understanding adults’ experiences of participating in co-creation. We intend to extract relevant co-creation experience data from the result sections of articles, including verbatim participant quotations. For quantitative data, such as questionnaires, we will attempt to extract the item statements and code them alongside the qualitative data.

The purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience with a focus on emotional aspects and from a psychological perspective. An increased understanding of the role of experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the development and use of co-creation processes and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators’ and co-created outcome.

This scoping review has some limitations, which reflect the balance between conducting a wide search to discover the breadth of existing literature and the pragmatic constraints of conducting the review. This scoping review searches for published peer-reviewed work from SCOPUS and the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Other databases could be searched but for pragmatic reasons, these two databases were selected for their breadth and relevancy. Another limitation is that it was necessary to restrict the search terms for capturing ‘co-creation’ for the search in Scopus to maintain a manageable number of records retrieved to screen by the research team. However, authors may use different terms or descriptions. For instance, variations of terms like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, whether written with a dash or space can affect the number of articles retrieved. Boundaries on the search terms relating to experience were also formed, for example, specific emotions were not included in the search string, due to the large range of possible emotions that can be experienced, which would make the search unwieldy. We also have not used any of the advanced search features of the databases, such as proximity searching, which could potentially improve the specificity.

A strength of this review is the comprehensive snowballing search strategy to capture additional relevant papers. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and to scientific conferences. The plan for dissemination includes digital science communication platforms and presentations.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Artificial intelligence

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis–extension for scoping reviews

Agnello DM, Loisel QEA, An Q, et al. Establishing a health CASCADE–curated open-access database to consolidate knowledge about co-creation: novel artificial intelligence–assisted methodology based on systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25(1): e45059. https://doi.org/10.2196/45059 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

von Heimburg D, Cluley V. Advancing complexity-informed health promotion: a scoping review to link health promotion and co-creation. Health Promot Int. 2020;36(2):581–600.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sherriff S, Miller H, Tong A, Williamson A, Muthayya S, Sally R, et al. Building trust and sharing power for co-creation in Aboriginal health research: a stakeholder interview study. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2019.

Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Altenburg TM, Cardon G, Chinapaw MJM, et al. Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):2.

Wright MT, Springett J, Kongats K. What is participatory health research? In: Wright MT, Kongats K, editors. Participatory Health Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.

Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(9):1333–57.

Torfing J, Sørensen E, Røiseland A. Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Adm Soc. 2016;51(5):795–825.

Leclercq T, Hammedi W, Poncin I. Ten years of value cocreation: an integrative review. Rech Appl En Mark Engl Ed. 2016;31(3):26–60.

Google Scholar  

Zhang P, Meng F, So KKF. Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: Conceptualization and scale development. J Travel Res. 2021;60(6):1333–51.

Yi Y, Gong T. Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation. J Bus Res. 2012;66(9):1279–84.

Partouche-Sebban J, Rezaee Vessal S, Bernhard F. When co-creation pays off: the effect of co-creation on well-being, work performance and team resilience. J Bus Ind Mark. 2021;37(8).

Sharma S, Conduit J, Rao HS. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers. J Serv Mark. 2017;31(4/5):397–411.

Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Chastin SF. Co-creating a tailored public health intervention to reduce older adults’ sedentary behaviour. Health Educ J. 2017;76(5):595–608.

van Rooijen M, Lenzen S, Dalemans R, Beurskens A, Moser A. Stakeholder engagement from problem analysis to implementation strategies for a patient-reported experience measure in disability care: a qualitative study on the process and experiences. Health Expect. 2021;24(1):53–65.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME. Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Personal Soc Psychol Manag Proc. 2005;88(5):736–48.

Waugh CE, Fredrickson BL. Nice to know you: positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. J Posit Psychol. 2006;1(2):93–106.

Dong B, Evans KR, Zou S. The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):123–37.

Ramaswamy V. It’s about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation. Ind Mark Manag. 2011;40(2):195–6.

Ramaswamy V. Co-creation of value — towards an expanded paradigm of value creation. Mark Rev St Gallen. 2009;26(6):11–7.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020Oct;18(10):2119–26.

Halvorsrud K, Kucharska J, Adlington K, Rüdell K, Brown Hajdukova E, Nazroo J, et al. Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature. J Public Health. 2021;43(1):197–208.

Tarnavsky-Eitan, A, Smolyansky E, Knaan-Harpaz I, Perets S. Connected Papers. 2020. https://www.connectedpapers.com/about . Accessed 26 May 2022.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

Bailen NH, Green LM, Thompson RJ. Understanding emotion in adolescents: a review of emotional frequency, intensity, instability, and clarity. Emot Rev. 2019;11(1):63–73.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

Eyles H, Jull A, Dobson R, Firestone R, Whittaker R, Te Morenga L, et al. Co-design of mHealth delivered interventions: a systematic review to assess key methods and processes. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):160–7.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020.

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Health CASCADE consortium.

The PhD studies of Lauren McCaffrey are funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement n° 956501.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Lauren McCaffrey, Bryan McCann, Sebastien François Martin Chastin, Quentin Loisel, Mira Vogelsang, Emily Whyte & Philippa Margaret Dall

Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain

Maria Giné-Garriga & Giuliana Raffaella Longworth

Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Greet Cardon, Sebastien François Martin Chastin & Rabab Chrifou

Department of Psychology and Methods, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Sonia Lippke

Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Katrina Messiha

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LMcC coordinated and conceived the study. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, and MGG have made substantive contributions to developing this protocol and the review question. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, MGG, QA, QL, EW, GRL, MV, RC, and KM jointly developed the search strategy. LMcC drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren McCaffrey .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: prisma-p 2015 checklist., additional file 2: search strategy–scopus., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

McCaffrey, L., McCann, B., Giné-Garriga, M. et al. Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 13 , 231 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Download citation

Received : 10 August 2022

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Co-creation experience
• Psychological response
• Scoping review

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

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

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

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

The Literature Review Defined

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

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

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

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approaching the Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Locating and Organizing the Literature

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

Human Resources

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

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

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

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

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

Box Information Resources

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

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

Getting Organized

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

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

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

Putting It All Together

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

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

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

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Sustainability in global agri-food supply chains: insights from a comprehensive literature review and the abcde framework.

1. Introduction

2. research methods and data sources, 2.1. research methods, 2.2. data sources, 3. visualization and analysis of publication trends, 3.1. analysis of publication volume trends over time, 3.2. analysis of authors’ publication patterns, 3.3. institutions and countries analysis, 3.4. global sustainable agri-food supply chain hotspot analysis, 3.4.1. high-frequency keyword co-occurrence analysis, 3.4.2. keyword cluster analysis, 3.4.3. keyword burst analysis, 4. optimizing sustainability in the global agri-food supply chain through the abcde framework, 4.1. antecedents, 4.2. barriers and challenges, 4.3. driving factors, 4.4. effects, 4.5. summary of the abcde framework for global agri-food sustainable supply chains, 5. discussion, 5.1. significance of the research, 5.2. research hotspots, 5.3. research agenda, 6. conclusions and future outlook, 6.1. conclusions, 6.2. limitations and outlook, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Garnett, T. Three perspectives on sustainable food security: Efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 2014 , 73 , 10–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, T.; Cole, M.; Farber, J.M.; Eisenbrand, G.; Zabaras, D.; Fox, E.M.; Hill, J.P. Food safety for food security: Relationship between global megatrends and developments in food safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017 , 68 , 160–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahumada, O.; Villalobos, J.R. Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009 , 196 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mortada, S.; Abou Najm, M.; Yassine, A.; El Fadel, M.; Alamiddine, I. Towards sustainable water-food nexus: An optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 178 , 408–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McKenzie, F.C.; Williams, J. Sustainable food production: Constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Secur. 2015 , 7 , 221–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huisingh, D.; Zhang, Z.; Moore, J.C.; Qiao, Q.; Li, Q. Recent advances in carbon emissions reduction: Policies, technologies, monitoring, assessment and modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 103 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, S.A.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Impacts of booming concrete production on water resources worldwide. Nat. Sustain. 2018 , 1 , 69–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, Z.; Wang, S.; Boussemart, J.P.; Hao, Y. Digital transition and green growth in Chinese agriculture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022 , 181 , 121742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kummu, M.; De Moel, H.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O.; Ward, P.J. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 2012 , 438 , 477–489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Augustin, M.A.; Riley, M.; Stockmann, R.; Augustin, M.A.; Riley, M.; Stockmann, R.; Bennett, L.; Kahl, A.; Lockett, T.; Osmond, M.; et al. Role of food processing in food and nutrition security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016 , 56 , 115–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marc, W.; Mark, R. The essential link between ESG targets & financial performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2022 , 100 , 128–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soytas, U.; Sari, R.; Ewing, B.T. Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2007 , 62 , 482–489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.P.; Cheng, X.M. Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Ecol. Econ. 2009 , 68 , 2706–2712. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, H.; Duan, L.; Guo, Y.; Yu, K. The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Econ. Model. 2016 , 58 , 237–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mendelson, H.; Tunca, T.I. Strategic spot trading in supply chains. Manag. Sci. 2007 , 53 , 742–759. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, O.; Musa, S.N. Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011 , 133 , 25–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamilaris, A.; Fonts, A.; Prenafeta-Boldύ, F.X. The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 640–652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casino, F.; Dasaklis, T.K.; Patsakis, C. A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telemat. Inform. 2019 , 36 , 55–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.K.; Padhi, S.S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 162 , 299–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Büyüközkan, G.; Göçer, F. Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a proposed framework for future research. Comput. Ind. 2018 , 97 , 157–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mastos, T.; Gotzamani, K. Sustainable supply chain management in the food industry: A conceptual model from a literature review and a case study. Foods 2022 , 11 , 2295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koberg, E.; Longoni, A. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 207 , 1084–1098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghadge, A.; Wurtmann, H.; Seuring, S. Managing climate change risks in global supply chains: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 44–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shukla, M.; Jharkharia, S. Agri-Fresh produce supply chain management: A state -of -the -art literature review. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013 , 33 , 114–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borodin, V.; Bourtembourg, J.; Hnaien, F.; Labadie, N. Handling uncertainty in agricultural supply chain management: A state of the art. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016 , 254 , 348–359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Gawankar, S.A. Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020 , 219 , 179–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dania, W.A.P.; Xing, K.; Amer, Y. Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 186 , 851–864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nematollahi, M.; Tajbakhsh, A. Past, present, and prospective themes of sustainable agricultural supply chains: A content analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 271 , 122201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paciarotti, C.; Torregiani, F. The logistics of the short food supply chain: A literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 26 , 428–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Hou, Y.; Shin, C. A Visual Knowledge Map Analysis of Cross-Border Agri-Food Supply Chain Research Based on CiteSpace. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 10763. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dou, Y.Q.; Dai, F.; Zhang, X.M. Analysis of the Current Status and Hotspots of National Park Research Based on Bibliometrics and CiteSpace. For. Econ. 2020 , 42 , 12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailón-Moreno, R.; Jurado-Alameda, E.; Ruiz-Baños, R.; Courtial, J.P. Analysis of the field of physical chemistry of surfactants with the Unified Scienctometric Model. Fit of relational and activity indicators. Scientometrics 2005 , 63 , 259–276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Ibekwe-Sanjuan, F.; Hou, J. The structure and dynamics of co-citation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010 , 61 , 1386–1409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, N. Analysis of the Knowledge Map of Domestic Reading Promotion Research. Libr. Work Study 2018 , 2 , 77–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.; Chen, C.M.; Liu, Z.Y.; Hu, Z.G.; Wang, X.W. Methodological function of CiteSpace knowledge map. Sci. Sci. 2015 , 33 , 242–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, P.; Zhi, F.W.; Shen, T.; Wang, L. Visualization Analysis of International Competitive Intelligence Research Based on Knowledge Graph. Inf. Sci. 2012 , 30 , 925–929. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, T. Hotspot comparison, logical evolution and trend outlook of agricultural modernization research-based on CiteSpace quantitative analysis. Price Theory Pract. 2023 , 7 , 148–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu, J.P.; Shen, G.C.; Song, Y.H. Progress and Trends in Domestic and International Econometrics Research in the Past Decade: A Visual Comparative Study Based on CiteSpace. Mod. Inf. 2019 , 39 , 26–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosentrater, K.A.; Kongar, E. Modeling the effects of pelleting on the logistics of distillers grains shipping. Bioresour. Technol. 2009 , 100 , 6550–6558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alonso, R.S.; Sittón-Candanedo, I.; García, Ó.; Prieto, J.; Rodríguez-González, S. An intelligent Edge-IoT platform for monitoring livestock and crops in a dairy farming scenario. Ad Hoc Netw. 2020 , 98 , 102047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, T.T.; Kieu, X.H.; Behl, A.; Pereira, V. Building up more sustainable food supply chains: Implications for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 378 , 134650. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, Z.L.; Li, B.; Zhang, K.L.; Li, X. Knowledge mapping analysis of China’s marine economic research based on CiteSpace. Geogr. Sci. 2016 , 36 , 643–652. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou, Y.P.; Yin, Y.; Chen, H.Y. Analysis of China’s Patent Cooperation Network Research Based on CiteSpace. J. Shandong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022 , 24 , 55–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Havlík, P.; Schneider, U.A.; Schmid, E.; Böttcher, H.; Fritz, S.; Skalský, R.; Obersteiner, M. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 2011 , 39 , 5690–5702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lezoche, M.; Hernandez, J.E.; Díaz, M.M.E.A.; Panetto, H.; Kacprzyk, J. Agri-food 4.0: A survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture. Comput. Ind. 2020 , 117 , 103187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grubler, A.; Wilson, C.; Bento, N.; Boza-Kiss, B.; Krey, V.; McCollum, D.L.; Valin, H. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 2018 , 3 , 515–527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019 , 2 , 805–814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernandez-Mena, H.; Nesme, T.; Pellerin, S. Towards an Agro-Industrial Ecology: A review of nutrient flow modelling and assessment tools in agri-food systems at the local scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2016 , 543 , 467–479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Birner, R.; Resnick, D. The political economy of policies for smallholder agriculture. World Dev. 2010 , 38 , 1442–1452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Ansari, T.; Korre, A.; Nie, Z.; Shah, N. Development of a life cycle assessment tool for the assessment of food production systems within the energy, water and food nexus. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2015 , 2 , 52–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Furstenau, L.B.; Rodrigues, Y.P.R.; Sott, M.K.; Leivas, P.; Dohan, M.S.; López-Robles, J.R.; Cobo, M.J.; Bragazzi, N.L.; Choo, K.K.R. Internet of things: Conceptual network structure, main challenges and future directions. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2023 , 9 , 677–687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jacxsens, L.; Kussaga, J.; Luning, P.A.; Van der Spiegel, M.; Devlieghere, F.; Uyttendaele, M. A microbial assessment scheme to measure microbial performance of food safety management systems. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009 , 134 , 113–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sumrin, S.; Gupta, S.; Asaad, Y.; Wang, Y.; Bhattacharya, S.; Foroudi, P. Eco-innovation for environment and waste prevention. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 122 , 627–639. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valdramidis, V.P.; Koutsoumanis, K.P. Challenges and perspectives of advanced technologies in processing, distribution and storage for improving food safety. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2016 , 12 , 63–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parashar, S.; Sood, G.; Agrawal, N. Modelling the enablers of food supply chain for reduction in carbon footprint. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 275 , 122932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gee, I.M.; Heard, B.R.; Webber, M.E.; Miller, S.A. The future of food: Environmental lessons from E-commerce. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 54 , 14776–14784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Y.D. Research on Internet Finance in China Based on Bibliometrics (2011–2014). Mod. Inf. 2015 , 35 , 93–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, H.; An, H.; Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Gao, X. Evolutionary features of academic articles co-keyword network and keywords cooccurrence network: Based on two-mode affiliation network. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2016 , 450 , 657–669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qu, H.; Masud, M.H.; Islam, M.; Khan, M.I.H.; Ananno, A.A.; Karim, A. Sustainable food drying technologies based on renewable energy sources. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022 , 62 , 6872–6886. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Rich, N.; Kumar, D.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018 , 203 , 379–393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Godde, C.M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Mayberry, D.E.; Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence. Glob. Food Secur. 2021 , 28 , 100488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, J.; Gereffi, G.; Beauvais, J. Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 12326–12331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sala, S.; McLaren, S.J.; Notarnicola, B.; Saouter, E.; Sonesson, U. In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 140 , 387–398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, Y.; Hai, F.; Popp, J.; Oláh, J. Minimizing Waste in the Food Supply Chain: Role of Information System, Supply Chain Strategy, and Network Design. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 11515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benyam, A.A.; Soma, T.; Fraser, E. Digital agricultural technologies for food loss and waste prevention and reduction: Global trends, adoption opportunities and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 323 , 129099. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banasik, A.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Claassen, G.D.H. Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food supply chains: A case study for mushroom production planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 216 , 249–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, M.; Sharma, M.; Raut, R.D.; Mangla, S.K.; Choubey, V.K. Performance assessment of circular driven sustainable agri-food supply chain towards achieving sustainable consumption and production. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 372 , 133698. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savary, S.; Bregaglio, S.; Willocquet, L.; Gustafson, D.; Mason D’Croz, D.; Sparks, A.; Garrett, K. Crop health and its global impacts on the components of food security. Food Secur. 2017 , 9 , 311–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davila, F.; Bourke, R.M.; McWilliam, A.; Crimp, S.; Robins, L.; Van Wensveen, M.; Butler, J.R. COVID-19 and food systems in Pacific Island Countries, Papua New Guinea, and TimorLeste: Opportunities for actions towards the sustainable development goals. Agric. Syst. 2021 , 191 , 103137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, P.; Zhang, L.; Hao, Y.; Liang, S.; Liu, G.; Xiong, X.; Tang, W. Understanding the tele-coupling mechanism of urban food-energy-water nexus: Critical sources, nodes, and supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 235 , 297–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Medici, M.; Pedersen, S.M.; Canavari, M.; Anken, T.; Stamatelopoulos, P.; Tsiropoulos, Z.; Zotos, A.; Tohidloo, G. A web-tool for calculating the economic performance of precision agriculture technology. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021 , 181 , 105930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mc Carthy, U.; Uysal, I.; Badia-Melis, R.; Mercier, S.; O’Donnell, C.; Ktenioudaki, A. Global food security–Issues, challenges and technological solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018 , 77 , 11–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, S.; Ballot, E.; Fontane, F. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from freight transport by pooling supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013 , 143 , 86–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goucher, L.; Bruce, R.; Cameron, D.D.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Horton, P. The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nat. Plants 2017 , 3 , 17012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Krishnan, R.; Agarwal, R.; Bajada, C.; Arshinder, K. Redesigning a food supply chain for environmental sustainability–An analysis of resource use and recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 242 , 118374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kallas, Z.; Alba, M.F.; Casellas, K.; Berges, M.; Degreef, G.; Gil, J.M. The development of short food supply chain for locally produced honey: Understanding consumers’ opinions and willingness to pay in Argentina. Br. Food J. 2021 , 123 , 1664–1680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borrás, L.; Caballero-Rothar, N.N.; Saenz, E.; Segui, M.; Gerde, J.A. Challenges and opportunities of hard endosperm food grade maize sourced from South America to Europe. Eur. J. Agron. 2022 , 140 , 126596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, J.W.; Zuo, M.; Zhu, W.Y.; Zuo, J.H.; Lü, E.L.; Yang, X.T. A comprehensive review of cold chain logistics for fresh agricultural products: Current status, challenges, and future trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 109 , 536–551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eskandarpour, M.; Dejax, P.; Miemczyk, J.; Péton, O. Sustainable supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review. Omega 2015 , 54 , 11–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, M. Identifying critical thresholds for resilient regional food flows: A case study from the US upper midwest. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021 , 5 , 684159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ancín, M.; Pindado, E.; Sánchez, M. New trends in the global digital transformation process of the agri-food sector: An exploratory study based on Twitter. Agric. Syst. 2022 , 203 , 103520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lulovicova, A.; Bouissou, S. Environmental Assessment of Local Food Policies through a Territorial Life Cycle Approach. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 4740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blackstone, N.T.; Rodríguez-Huerta, E.; Battaglia, K.; Jackson, B.; Jackson, E.; Benoit Norris, C.; Decker Sparks, J.L. Forced labour risk is pervasive in the US land-based food supply. Nat. Food 2023 , 4 , 596–606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, P.; Calvin, K.; Nkem, J.; Campbell, D.; Cherubini, F.; Grassi, G.; Arneth, A. Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? Glob. Change Biol. 2020 , 26 , 1532–1575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Swinnen, J.F.M.; Maertens, M. Globalization, privatization, and vertical coordination in food value chains in developing and transition countries. Agric. Econ. 2007 , 37 , 89–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kong, J.; Yang, C.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zuo, M.; Lin, X.; Lin, S. Deep-stacking network approach by multisource data mining for hazardous risk identification in IoT-based intelligent food management systems. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2021 , 2021 , 1194565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koh, L.; Orzes, G.; Jia, F.J. The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): Technologies disruption on operations and supply chain management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019 , 39 , 817–828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manteghi, Y.; Arkat, J.; Mahmoodi, A.; Farvaresh, H. A multi-period bi-level model for a competitive food supply chain with sustainability considerations. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 325 , 129260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbhuiya, R.I.; Singha, P.; Singh, S.K. A comprehensive review on impact of non-thermal processing on the structural changes of food components. Food Res. Int. 2021 , 149 , 110647. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Y.; Xu, X. Post-disaster grain supply chain resilience with government aid. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015 , 76 , 139–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yazdani, M.; Torkayesh, A.E.; Chatterjee, P.; Fallahpour, A.; Montero-Simo, M.J.; Araque-Padilla, R.A.; Wong, K.Y. A fuzzy group decision-making model to measure resiliency in a food supply chain: A case study in Spain. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022 , 82 , 101257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chakuu, S.; Masi, D.; Godsell, J. Exploring the relationship between mechanisms, actors and instruments in supply chain finance: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019 , 216 , 35–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huong Tran, T.T.; Childerhouse, P.; Deakins, E. Supply chain information sharing: Challenges and risk mitigation strategies. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2016 , 27 , 1102–1126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Li, S.; Yi, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shin, C. Digital Technology Increases the Sustainability of Cross-Border Agro-Food Supply Chains: A Review. Agriculture 2024 , 14 , 900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, H.; Wang, X.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X. Applying blockchain technology to improve agri-food traceability: A review of development methods, benefits and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 260 , 121031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glover, D.; Poole, N. Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia. Food Policy 2019 , 82 , 63–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kinnunen, P.; Guillaume, J.H.A.; Taka, M.; D’odorico, P.; Siebert, S.; Puma, M.J.; Kummu, M. Local food crop production can fulfil demand for less than one-third of the population. Nat. Food 2020 , 1 , 229–237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Zhang, Z.; Li, S.; Shin, C. Research on the Influencing Factors of Sustainable Supply Chain Development of Agri-Food Products Based on Cross-Border Live-Streaming E-Commerce in China. Foods 2023 , 12 , 3323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deng, C.; Wang, H.; Hong, S.; Zhao, W.; Wang, C. Meeting the challenges of food-energy-water systems in typical mega-urban regions from final demands and supply chains: A case study of the Bohai mega-urban region, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 320 , 128663. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xue, L.; Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Cheng, G.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J.; Liu, G. China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing environmental impacts. Nat. Food 2021 , 2 , 519–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, W.; Jafarzadeh, S.; Thakur, M.; Ólafsdóttir, G.; Mehta, S.; Bogason, S.; Holden, N.M. Environmental impacts of animal-based food supply chains with market characteristics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 783 , 147077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brennan, L.; Langley, S.; Verghese, K.; Lockrey, S.; Ryder, M.; Francis, C.; Phan-Le, N.T.; Hill, A. The role of packaging in fighting food waste: A systematised review of consumer perceptions of packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 281 , 125276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, V.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Gathala, M.K.; Malik, R.K.; Kamboj, B.R.; McDonald, A. Can productivity and profitability be enhanced in intensively managed cereal systems while reducing the environmental footprint of production? Assessing sustainable intensification options in the breadbasket of India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018 , 252 , 132–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Hou, Y.; Shin, C. Exploring Sustainable Development Pathways for Agri-Food Supply Chains Empowered by Cross-Border E-Commerce Platforms: A Hybrid Grounded Theory and DEMATEL-ISM-MICMAC Approach. Foods 2023 , 12 , 3916. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Virah-Sawmy, M.; Duran, A.P.; Green, J.M.; Guerrero, A.M.; Biggs, D.; West, C.D. Sustainability gridlock in a global agricultural commodity chain: Reframing the soy–meat food system. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019 , 18 , 210–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaitán-Cremaschi, D.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. Total Factor Productivity: A Framework for Measuring Agri food Supply Chain Performance Towards Sustainability. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2017 , 39 , 259–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deng, L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C.; Ma, W.; Zhu, A.; Zhang, F.; Jiao, X. Improving the sustainability of the wheat supply chain through multi-stakeholder engagement. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 321 , 128837. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pourhejazy, P.; Kwon, O.K. The new generation of operations research methods in supply chain optimization: A review. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 1033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pagell, M.; Wu, Z. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2009 , 45 , 37–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seuring, S. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decis. Support Syst. 2013 , 54 , 1513–1520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.H. Green supply chain management: Pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2007 , 15 , 1041–1052. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ageron, B.; Gunasekaran, A.; Spalanzani, A. Sustainable supply management: An empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012 , 140 , 168–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kouhizadeh, M.; Saberi, S.; Sarkis, J. Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 231 , 107831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, L.; Zhao, X.; Tang, O.; Price, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhu, W. Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017 , 194 , 73–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolfert, S.; Ge, L.; Verdouw, C.; Bogaardt, M.J. Big data in smart farming–a review. Agric. Syst. 2017 , 153 , 69–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Sharma, R. Modeling the blockchain enabled traceability in agriculture supply chain. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 52 , 101967. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banerjee, O.; Cicowiez, M.; Horridge, M.; Vargas, R. Evaluating synergies and trade-offs in achieving the SDGs of zero hunger and clean water and sanitation: An application of the IEEM Platform to Guatemala. Ecol. Econ. 2019 , 161 , 280–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Griggs, D.; Smith, M.S.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Gaffney, O.; Glaser, G.; Shyamsundar, P. An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecol. Soc. 2014 , 19 , 49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lim, M.M.; Jørgensen, P.S.; Wyborn, C.A. Reframing the sustainable development goals to achieve sustainable development in the Anthropocene—A systems approach. Ecol. Soc. 2018 , 23 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Myers, S.S.; Smith, M.R.; Guth, S.; Golden, C.D.; Vaitla, B.; Mueller, N.D.; Huybers, P. Climate change and global food systems: Potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2017 , 38 , 259–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fanzo, J.; Davis, C.; McLaren, R.; Choufani, J. The effect of climate change across food systems: Implications for nutrition outcomes. Glob. Food Secur. 2018 , 18 , 12–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matos, S.; Hall, J. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: The case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. J. Oper. Manag. 2007 , 25 , 1083–1102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Notarnicola, B.; Sala, S.; Anton, A.; McLaren, S.J.; Saouter, E.; Sonesson, U. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 140 , 399–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Urbinati, A.; Chiaroni, D.; Chiesa, V. Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 168 , 487–498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018 , 143 , 37–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Misra, N.N.; Dixit, Y.; Al-Mallahi, A.; Bhullar, M.S.; Upadhyay, R.; Martynenko, A. IoT, big data, and artificial intelligence in agriculture and food industry. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020 , 9 , 6305–6324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, J.; Xiao, Y.; Li, S.; Liang, W.; Chen, C.P. Cyber security and privacy issues in smart grids. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2012 , 14 , 981–997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swinnen, J.F. The political economy of agricultural and food policies: Recent contributions, new insights, and areas for further research. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2010 , 32 , 33–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Galanakis, C.M. The “vertigo” of the food sector within the triangle of climate change, the post-pandemic world, and the Russian-Ukrainian war. Foods 2023 , 12 , 721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirabelli, G.; Solina, V. Blockchain and agricultural supply chains traceability: Research trends and future challenges. Procedia Manuf. 2020 , 42 , 414–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, J.; Hull, V.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Tilman, D.; Gleick, P.; Hoff, H.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Xu, Z.; Chung, M.G.; Sun, J. Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2018 , 1 , 466–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Behzadi, G.; O’Sullivan, M.J.; Olsen, T.L.; Zhang, A. Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega 2018 , 79 , 21–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Höhler, J.; Kühl, R. Position and performance of farmer cooperatives in the food supply chain of the EU-27. Ann. Public. Coop. Econ. 2014 , 85 , 579–595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Astill, J.; Dara, R.A.; Campbell, M.; Farber, J.M.; Fraser, E.D.; Sharif, S.; Yada, R.Y. Transparency in food supply chains: A review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019 , 91 , 240–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Çelik, D.; Meral, M.E.; Waseem, M. Investigation and analysis of effective approaches, opportunities, bottlenecks and future potential capabilities for digitalization of energy systems and sustainable development goals. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2022 , 211 , 108251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gardner, T.A.; Benzie, M.; Börner, J.; Dawkins, E.; Fick, S.; Garrett, R.; Wolvekamp, P. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 2019 , 121 , 163–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lei, Z.; Lim, M.K.; Cui, L.; Wang, Y. Modelling of risk transmission and control strategy in the transnational supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 148–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riggins, F.J.; Dewan, S. The digital divide: Current and future research directions. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005 , 6 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qader, G.; Junaid, M.; Abbas, Q.; Mubarik, M.S. Industry 4.0 enables supply chain resilience and supply chain performance. Technol. Forecast. Social. Change 2022 , 185 , 122026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hellegers, P. Food security vulnerability due to trade dependencies on Russia and Ukraine. Food Secur. 2022 , 14 , 1503–1510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sullivan, C. EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2019 , 35 , 380–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bali Swain, R.; Yang-Wallentin, F. Achieving sustainable development goals: Predicaments and strategies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2020 , 27 , 96–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, Y.; Jia, F.; Manogaran, G. Efficient traceability systems of steel products using blockchain-based industrial Internet of Things. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019 , 16 , 6004–6012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, J.; Jin, Y.; Liang, Q. Effects of regulatory policy mixes on traceability adoption in wholesale markets: Food safety inspection and information disclosure. Food Policy 2022 , 107 , 102218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pournader, M.; Ghaderi, H.; Hassanzadegan, A.; Fahimnia, B. Artificial intelligence applications in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021 , 241 , 108250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamayo-Torres, I.; Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.; Ruiz-Moreno, A. Boosting sustainability and financial performance: The role of supply chain controversies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 57 , 3719–3734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, X.; Mi, Y.; Zhao, C.; Wei, Q. A comprehensive review on carbon source effect of microalgae lipid accumulation for biofuel production. Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 806 , 151387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.H.; Chen, J.M. Optimizing supply chain collaboration based on joint replenishment and channel coordination. Transp. Res. Part. E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2005 , 41 , 261–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leal Filho, W.; Tripathi, S.K.; Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O.D.; Giné-Garriga, R.; Orlovic Lovren, V.; Willats, J. Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019 , 26 , 179–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Wang, G.; Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Yi, Y.; Li, C.; Shin, C. Sustainability in Global Agri-Food Supply Chains: Insights from a Comprehensive Literature Review and the ABCDE Framework. Foods 2024 , 13 , 2914. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13182914

Wang G, Wang Y, Li S, Yi Y, Li C, Shin C. Sustainability in Global Agri-Food Supply Chains: Insights from a Comprehensive Literature Review and the ABCDE Framework. Foods . 2024; 13(18):2914. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13182914

Wang, Gaofeng, Yingying Wang, Shuai Li, Yang Yi, Chenming Li, and Changhoon Shin. 2024. "Sustainability in Global Agri-Food Supply Chains: Insights from a Comprehensive Literature Review and the ABCDE Framework" Foods 13, no. 18: 2914. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13182914

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals