what happens to research without review of related literature

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

Neal Haddaway

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

3 comments | 315 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

About the author

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

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

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

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

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

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

November 16th, 2020.

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

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

Affiliations.

• 1 Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany. [email protected].
• 2 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected].
• 3 Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected].
• 4 College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK.
• 5 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
• 6 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
• 7 Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK.
• 8 Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
• 9 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
• 10 Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
• 11 Liljus ltd, London, UK.
• 12 Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
• 13 Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
• PMID: 33046871
• DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

• Environment
• Research Design
• Systematic Reviews as Topic*

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 10:11 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

• Phillips Library
• Library Guides

Literature Reviews

• What if There is No Literature on My Topic?
• What is a Literature Review?
• What does a Lit Review Look Like?
• Where do I Search for Literature?
• How do I Search for Literature?
• What if I Need More Help?

Out of Date

Some of this material is out of date! We are working to update it. In the meantime, check out these other resources if something doesn't seem right.

• Tutorials by Evangeline Reid Last Updated Dec 6, 2023 112 views this year
• A Guide to the Research Process by Evangeline Reid Last Updated Apr 8, 2024 515 views this year

Searching and Researching

You started searching in the Phillips Library databases or even with a free search engine (like Google) and you retrieve 0 results.

You are writing a dissertation, you want your topic to be unique, so you hope nobody has written on your exact topic . How are you supposed to find resources on your topic AND find a unique topic to write about?

Check Your Spelling:

Do Not Overuse Keywords and Subject Terms:

Circle the Wagons Around Your Topic

What aspects of your topic does have written research? Think about how research on each of the components of your topic would be valuable to your thesis. There may not be substantial research on your specific question, but there could be research on aspects of your topic.

• << Previous: How do I Search for Literature?
• Next: What if I Need More Help? >>

Writing A Literature Review  

7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid ☠️.

By: David Phair (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Crafting a high-quality literature review is critical to earning marks and developing a strong dissertation, thesis or research project. But, it’s no simple task. Here at Grad Coach, we’ve reviewed thousands of literature reviews and seen a recurring set of mistakes and issues that drag students down.

In this post, we’ll unpack 7 common literature review mistakes , so that you can avoid these pitfalls and submit a literature review that impresses.

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

• Over-reliance on low-quality sources
• A lack of landmark/seminal literature
• A lack of current literature
• Description instead of integration and synthesis
• Irrelevant or unfocused content
• Poor chapter structure and layout
• Plagiarism and poor referencing

Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources . This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles.

Of course, just because a piece of content takes the form of a blog post doesn’t automatically mean it is low-quality . However, it’s (generally) unlikely to be as academically sound (i.e., well-researched, objective and scientific) as a journal article, so you need to be a lot more sceptical when considering this content and make sure that it has a strong, well-reasoned foundation. As a rule of thumb, your literature review shouldn’t rely heavily on these types of content – they should be used sparingly.

Ideally, your literature review should be built on a strong base of journal articles , ideally from well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals with a high H index . You can also draw on books written by well-established subject matter experts. When considering books, try to focus on those that are published by academic publishers , for example, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Routledge. You can also draw on government websites, provided they have a strong reputation for objectivity and data quality. As with any other source, be wary of any government website that seems to be pushing an agenda.

Source: UCCS

As I mentioned, this doesn’t mean that your literature review can’t include the occasional blog post or news article. These types of content have their place , especially when setting the context for your study. For example, you may want to cite a collection of newspaper articles to demonstrate the emergence of a recent trend. However, your core arguments and theoretical foundations shouldn’t rely on these. Build your foundation on credible academic literature to ensure that your study stands on the proverbial shoulders of giants.

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Another issue we see in weaker literature reviews is an absence of landmark literature for the research topic . Landmark literature (sometimes also referred to as seminal or pivotal work) refers to the articles that initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. In other words, the articles that put the specific area of research “on the map”, so to speak.

The reason for the absence of landmark literature in poor literature reviews is most commonly that either the student isn’t aware of the literature (because they haven’t sufficiently immersed themselves in the existing research), or that they feel that they should only present the most up to date studies. Whatever the cause, it’s a problem, as a good literature review should always acknowledge the seminal writing in the field.

But, how do you find landmark literature?

Well, you can usually spot these by searching for the topic in Google Scholar and identifying the handful of articles with high citation counts. They’ll also be the studies most commonly cited in textbooks and, of course, Wikipedia (but please don’t use Wikipedia as a source!).

So, when you’re piecing your literature review together, remember to pay homage to the classics , even if only briefly. Seminal works are the theoretical foundation of a strong literature review.

Mistake #3: A lack of current literature

As I mentioned, it’s incredibly important to acknowledge the landmark studies and research in your literature review. However, a strong literature review should also incorporate the current literature . It should, ideally, compare and contrast the “classics” with the more up to date research, and briefly comment on the evolution.

Of course, you don’t want to burn precious word count providing an in-depth history lesson regarding the evolution of the topic (unless that’s one of your research aims, of course), but you should at least acknowledge any key differences between the old and the new.

But, how do you find current literature?

To find current literature in your research area, you can once again use Google Scholar by simply selecting the “Since…” link on the left-hand side. Depending on your area of study, recent may mean the last year or two, or a fair deal longer.

So, as you develop your catalogue of literature, remember to incorporate both the classics and the more up to date research. By doing this, you’ll achieve a comprehensive literature base that is both well-rooted in tried and tested theory and current.

Mistake #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

This one is a big one. And, unfortunately, it’s a very common one. In fact, it’s probably the most common issue we encounter in literature reviews.

All too often, students think that a literature review is simply a summary of what each researcher has said. A lengthy, detailed “he said, she said”. This is incorrect . A good literature review needs to go beyond just describing all the relevant literature. It needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together.

A good literature review should also highlight what areas don’t fit together , and which pieces are missing . In other words, what do researchers disagree on and why might that be. It’s seldom the case that everyone agrees on everything because the “truth” is typically very nuanced and intricate in reality. A strong literature review is a balanced one , with a mix of different perspectives and findings that give the reader a clear view of the current state of knowledge.

A good analogy is that of a jigsaw puzzle. The various findings and arguments from each piece of literature form the individual puzzle pieces, and you then put these together to develop a picture of the current state of knowledge . Importantly, that puzzle will in all likelihood have pieces that don’t fit well together, and pieces that are missing. It’s seldom a pretty puzzle!

By the end of this process of critical review and synthesis of the existing literature , it should be clear what’s missing – in other words, the gaps that exist in the current research . These gaps then form the foundation for your proposed study. In other words, your study will attempt to contribute a missing puzzle piece (or get two pieces to fit together).

So, when you’re crafting your literature review chapter, remember that this chapter needs to go well beyond a basic description of the existing research – it needs to synthesise it (bring it all together) and form the foundation for your study.

Mistake #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Another common mistake we see in literature review chapters is quite simply the inclusion of irrelevant content . Some chapters can waffle on for pages and pages and leave the reader thinking, “so what?”

So, how do you decide what’s relevant?

Well, to ensure you stay on-topic and focus, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions . Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to build the theoretical foundation that will help you achieve your research aims and objectives, and answer your research questions . Therefore, relevant content is the relatively narrow body of content that relates directly to those three components .

Let’s look at an example.

If your research aims to identify factors that cultivate employee loyalty and commitment, your literature review needs to focus on existing research that identifies such factors. Simple enough, right? Well, during your review process, you will invariably come across plenty of research relating to employee loyalty and commitment, including things like:

• The benefits of high employee commitment
• The different types of commitment
• The impact of commitment on corporate culture
• The links between commitment and productivity

While all of these relate to employee commitment, they’re not focused on the research aims , objectives and questions, as they’re not identifying factors that foster employee commitment. Of course, they may still be useful in helping you justify your topic, so they’ll likely have a place somewhere in your dissertation or thesis. However, for your literature review, you need to keep things focused.

So, as you work through your literature review, always circle back to your research aims, objective and research questions and use them as a litmus test for article relevance.

Need a helping hand?

Mistake #6: Poor chapter structure and layout

Even the best content can fail to earn marks when the literature review chapter is poorly structured . Unfortunately, this is a fairly common issue, resulting in disjointed, poorly-flowing arguments that are difficult for the reader (the marker…) to follow.

The most common reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature review chapter without a plan or structure . Of course, as we’ve discussed before, writing is a form of thinking , so you don’t need to plan out every detail before you start writing. However, you should at least have an outline structure penned down before you hit the keyboard.

So, how should you structure your literature review?

We’ve covered literature review structure in detail previously , so I won’t go into it here. However, as a quick overview, your literature review should consist of three core sections :

• The introduction section – where you outline your topic, introduce any definitions and jargon and define the scope of your literature review.
• The body section – where you sink your teeth into the existing research. This can be arranged in various ways (e.g. thematically, chronologically or methodologically).
• The conclusion section – where you present the key takeaways and highlight the research gap (or gaps), which lays the foundation for your study.

Another reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature chapter prematurely . In other words, they start writing before they’ve finished digesting the literature. This is a costly mistake, as it always results in extensive rewriting , which takes a lot longer than just doing it one step at a time. Again, it’s completely natural to do a little extra reading as thoughts crop up during the writing process, but you should complete your core reading before you start writing.

Long story short – don’t start writing your literature review without some sort of structural plan. This structure can (and likely will) evolve as you write, but you need some sort of outline as a starting point. Pro tip – check out our free literature review template to fast-track your structural outline.

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

This one is by far the most unforgivable literature review mistake, as it carries one of the heaviest penalties , while it is so easily avoidable .

All too often, we encounter literature reviews that, at first glance, look pretty good. However, a quick run through a plagiarism checker and it quickly becomes apparent that the student has failed to fully digest the literature they’ve reviewed and put it into their own words.

“But, the original author said it perfectly…”

I get it – sometimes the way an author phrased something is “just perfect” and you can’t find a better way to say it. In those (pretty rare) cases, you can use direct quotes (and a citation, of course). However, for the vast majority of your literature review, you need to put things into your own words .

The good news is that if you focus on integrating and synthesising the literature (as I mentioned in point 3), you shouldn’t run into this issue too often, as you’ll naturally be writing about the relationships between studies , not just about the studies themselves. Remember, if you can’t explain something simply (in your own words), you don’t really understand it.

A related issue that we see quite often is plain old-fashioned poor referencing . This can include citation and reference formatting issues (for example, Harvard or APA style errors), or just a straight out lack of references . In academic writing, if you fail to reference a source, you are effectively claiming the work as your own, which equates to plagiarism. This might seem harmless, but plagiarism is a serious form of academic misconduct and could cost you a lot more than just a few marks.

So, when you’re writing up your literature review, remember that you need to digest the content and put everything into your own words. You also need to reference the sources of any and all ideas, theories, frameworks and models you draw on.

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Let’s quickly recap on the 7 most common literature review mistakes.

Now that you’re aware of these common mistakes, be sure to also check out our literature review walkthrough video , where to dissect an actual literature review chapter . This will give you a clear picture of what a high-quality literature review looks like and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

If you have any questions about these literature review mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. If you’re interested in private coaching, book an initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

Dear GradCoach,

Thank you for making our uni student lives better. Could you kindly do a video on how to use your literature review excel template? I am sure a lot of students would appreciate that.

Thank you so much for this inlightment concerning the mistakes that should be avoided while writing a literature review chapter. It is concise and precise. You have mentioned that this chapter include three main parts; introduction, body, and conclusion. Is the theoritical frameworke considered a part of the literature review chapter, or it should be written in a seperate chapter? If it is included in the literature review, should it take place at the beginning, the middle or at the end of the chapter? Thank you one again for “unpacking” things for us.

Hi I would enjoy the video on lit review. You mentioned cataloging references, I would like the template for excel. Would you please sent me this template.

on the plagiarism and referencing what is the correct way to cite the words said by the author . What are the different methods you can use

its clear, precise and understandable many thanks affectionately yours’ Godfrey

Thanks for this wonderful resource! I am final year student and will be commencing my dissertation work soon. This course has significantly improved my understanding of dissertation and has greater value in terms of its practical applicability compared to other literature works and articles out there on the internet. I will advice my colleague students more especially first time thesis writers to make good use of this course. It’s explained in simple, plain grammar and you will greatly appreciate it.

Thanks. A lot. This was excellent. I really enjoyed it. Again thank you.

The information in this article is very useful for students and very interesting I really like your article thanks for sharing this post!

Thank you for putting more knowledge in us. Thank you for using simple you’re bless.

This article is really useful. Thanks a lot for sharing this knowledge. Please continue the journey of sharing and facilitating the young researchers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Reply to Danette - Allessaysexpert - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]
• Reply to Danette - Academia Essays - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, what to do when there is little existing literature on your research topic.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 18 April, 2022

Our understanding of the world is ever evolving and constantly expanding. Our job as researchers is to contribute to this growth in understanding. However, you may well find yourself in a situation one day where you’re tasked with researching a topic about which there is little or no existing and available published literature . In this article, we discuss how to tackle this situation.

Looking deeper and beyond

1. gather and read all the publications you can .

To get an idea of how much actually is available to you in terms of published work, a good first step is to gather all the possible publications you can get your hands on. Start with established databases, such as PubMed and Web of Science , and make sure you do a thorough literature search by using any synonyms in your database search that apply to your field. Collate these into a list in a spreadsheet or reference manager , and start reading.

You will begin to get a feel for the overall attitudes towards your topic, and you may even be able to make and retain a mental identification of those who are prominent authors and publishers in the subject.

2. Use the references to determine what else you can look into

The next step is to use this initial list of references to find out more about what this body of work is based on. Look up the authors that crop up most often and see if you can find out about their research background and how they came to enter the field you are researching. This may give you clues as to what else to look into.

3. Expand your pool to non-peer-reviewed articles

You can then expand your research pool from peer-reviewed articles to other pieces these authors may have written, which are also valuable references. Just beware that as these aren’t peer-reviewed, they may include opinions and other assertions that were not subject to the usual peer review process.

You may also want to consider grey literature , which is another form of non-peer-reviewed documentation. If so, learn more about grey literature here: Understanding and using Grey Literature for your research paper

4. Look at the authors’ previous publications

Another important step is to look at the publications that a particular paper of interest is based on. Usually, authors will refer to their previous work, which may have laid the foundation for what they are currently publishing. These are valuable resources to help you understand the researchers’ processes.

Discovering that there is just not enough literature

Niche, new or emerging fields can often attract researchers as they can benefit from the potential for early breakthroughs. So, if you believe you can make an impact, this should encourage you to dive into it and give yourself over to this field.

However, there may be situations where you are merely adjacent to this topic or are simply tasked with preparing a review of the area. In these cases, it’s important to gauge whether sinking time and effort into this endeavour is appropriate when there is currently only very little published research available that deals with the area.

There could be many reasons why there are not many publications available, including a high bar to entry to the field owing to it being specific to a particular region or situation. In this case, allowing more time for the field to develop (discussed next) may be a better option as it will ultimately yield more for you to work with at a later time.

Deciding to not continue with the topic (for now)

It’s very possible for you to find yourself in a situation where the only option seems to be to move away from your topic. This option is fine but don’t be too discouraged or feel that changing your topic altogether is the only route you can take. For example…

• Consider the possibility of centering your final written work more heavily on opinion and speculation, and providing – in the form of recommendations – future directions that you expect the field might take.
• It can even be an opportunity for you (to wait) to be one of the first people to publish in the field. As it grows, you’ll gain plenty of citations as being ‘one of the first’ to publish in it, and be considered pioneering.

Finding yourself in the situation where little published work is available to you can be difficult, especially when you are trying to complete a piece of work that relies on publications. But don’t worry. There are ways of digging deeply into any topic, and reaching for more unconventional sources could be a way for you to find a reasonable body of work that you can base your own work on.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Why and How to do a literature search

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

How to Shortlist and Organise the results of your Literature Search

Charlesworth Author Services 16/09/2020 00:00:00

Understanding and using Grey Literature for your research paper

Charlesworth Author Services 28/02/2022 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 7: Write a strong theoretical framework section

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 8: Write a strong methods section

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 9:Write a strong results and discussion section

Best tips to do a PubMed search

Charlesworth Author Services 26/08/2021 00:00:00

Using Web of Science for your research and writing

Charlesworth Author Services 13/04/2022 00:00:00

All about Reference Management Tools

Charlesworth Author Services 02/09/2020 00:00:00

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
• Mater Sociomed
• v.26(2); 2014 Apr

Plagiarism in Scientific Research and Publications and How to Prevent It

Faculty of medicine, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Quality is assessed on the basis of adequate evidence, while best results of the research are accomplished through scientific knowledge. Information contained in a scientific work must always be based on scientific evidence. Guidelines for genuine scientific research should be designed based on real results. Dynamic research and use correct methods of scientific work must originate from everyday practice and the fundamentals of the research. The original work should have the proper data sources with clearly defined research goals, methods of operation which are acceptable for questions included in the study. When selecting the methods it is necessary to obtain the consent of the patients/respondents to provide data for execution of the project or so called informed consent. Only by the own efforts can be reached true results, from which can be drawn conclusions and which finally can give a valid scholarly commentary. Text may be copied from other sources, either in whole or in part and marked as a result of the other studies. For high-quality scientific work necessary are expertise and relevant scientific literature, mostly taken from publications that are stored in biomedical databases. These are scientific, professional and review articles, case reports of disease in physician practices, but the knowledge can also be acquired on scientific and expert lectures by renowned scientists. Form of text publications must meet standards on writing a paper. If the article has already been published in a scientific journal, the same article cannot be published in any other journal with a few minor adjustments, or without specifying the parts of the first article which is used in another article. Copyright infringement occurs when the author of a new article, with or without mentioning the author, uses a substantial portion of previously published articles, including past contributions in the first article. With the permission of the publisher and the author, another journal can re-publish the article already published. In that case, that is not plagiarism, because the journal states that the article was re-published with the permission of the journal in which the article is primarily released. The original can be only one, and the copy is a copy, and plagiarism is stolen copy. The aim of combating plagiarism is to improve the quality, to achieve satisfactory results and to compare the results of their own research, rather than copying the data from the results of other people's research. Copy leads to incorrect results. Nowadays the problem of plagiarism has become huge, or widespread and present in almost all spheres of human activity, particularly in science.

Scientific institutions and universities should have a center for surveillance, security, promotion and development of quality research. Establishment of rules and respect the rules of good practice are the obligations of each research institutions, universities and every individual researchers, regardless of which area of science is being investigated. There are misunderstandings and doubts about the criteria and standards for when and how to declare someone a plagiarist. European and World Association of Science Editors (EASE and WAME), and COPE - Committee on Publishing Ethics working on the precise definition of that institution or that the scientific committee may sanction when someone is proven plagiarism and familiarize the authors with the types of sanctions. The practice is to inform the editors about discovered plagiarism and articles are withdrawn from the database, while the authors are put on the so-called black list. So far this is the only way of preventing plagiarism, because there are no other sanctions.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND PHASES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Jacques Yves Cousteau said: “What is a scientist after all? Scientist is a curious man looking through a keyhole of nature, trying to understand what is happening” ( 1 ).

Whether it comes to young enthusiasts eager to contribute to the scientific community or, in turn, experienced scientific researchers who want to establish their name in the pillars of science for the general good of the research, from the idea to the final realization there is a certain sequence of steps to be followed ( 2 ). Scientific research in medicine is the process of implementation of systemic study within well-defined aspects which can contribute to universal mental, physical and social well-being of individuals and communities, as defined in the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO). There are several types of medical scientific research: laboratory, clinical research and public health. Scientific research contributes to the community and individuals in the community. The benefit to the community is reflected in the collection of evidence that will enhance clinical and socio-medical policies and practices, identifying health problems and methods of health promotion, prevention of disease and disability, the expansion of scientific literature that is the basis for all future scientific research, policy and practice. The well-being of the individual is acquiring new knowledge, and the development of new, improved skills, which will result in the individual academic growth ( 3 , 4 , 5 ).

1.1 Scientific research

In order that research project be valuable and recognized by the academic community and other researchers, it is essential that contains the same elements as other articles. It does not matter to which level of academic status belong the author of the study, it is essential that the steps are the same for all studies. The author Kathryn H. Jacobsen in her book “Introduction to Research Methods in Health: A Practical Guide” ( 1 ) states that the research process consists of five steps: problem identification, selection of the research manner, the choice of study design and data collection, data analysis and writing the conclusion ( 5 , 9 ).

Studies on the population level have clearly defined goals, while the most important of these are ( 5 – 10 ):

• Identifying and classifying new clinical identity;
• Detection of risk factors for disease;
• The development and testing of new protocols for the prevention or treatment of disease ( 1 , 8 ).

The process of scientific research from ideas, hypothesizing, through evidence, analysis of results, to the conclusion and publication of research results in an indexed journal can take months, even years. Unfortunately, the funds allocated for research is often provided by the researchers themselves, and it is a major limiting factor that some research can even begin or end.

1.2 Stages of scientific research

Scientific research has several stages ( 11 - 20 ):

• Determining research topics;
• The choice of scientific methods of research;
• Study design and data collection;
• Data processing, analysis and interpretation;
• Writing and publishing a scientific article;

1.3 Rules for proper research

In order that study had its purpose and effects, but also justify the intent and invested funds, it must meet certain postulates:

• Every scientific research from idea to written scientific article should go through certain phases: the review of the relevant literature on the topic of research, defining the objectives and hypotheses of research, sample selection for the study, implementation of research based on scientific methodological principles, statistical analysis, comparing the obtained own results with results of other authors published in scientific publications, conclusions and specific recommendations for any specific application in practice. Study design and project outline research are usually conducted by experienced researchers as mentors and by own work;
• Researchers and authors of scientific papers must follow the rules of the Ethics Code of Good Scientific Practice (GSP), primarily to follow the principles of honesty and integrity;
• Researchers rely on published data, and must be trained to selectively process the information, then, must be able to distinguish between original ideas and, finally, to have knowledge in order that their research results are compared with previously published in the scientific literature.

In order to achieve and realize the above mentioned:

• Authors are required to follow ethical principles and stick to moral and legal regulations acceptable by the scientific community;
• Authors must properly cite relevant publications and cite facts and conclusions, or published or unpublished ideas and words of other researchers and authors. The reader should be clearly informed of the facts from the original texts of other authors, or of recycled articles from other sources (numerical marking, following Vancouver, the Harvard, APA, PubMed and other rules of citation of articles and other sources, for example: 2,9,14,15, etc.);
• Authors should properly cite references in their original form (the author(s), article title, abbreviated journal title, year of publication, volume editions, number, initial and final page of the published article, or the other sources in accordance to the order prescribed);
• Authors should use the knowledge acquired in the lectures, conferences or other sources of scientific and technical literature, provided that each source must include full bibliographic information;
• Authors must each citation in the text indicated in the bibliography at the end of the text and put it in quotation marks copied the contents of which have more than six consecutive words;
• Authors must obtain permission from other authors or publishers of scientific reproduction of protected materials (texts, images, charts, graphs, etc.) copyright;
• If the author re-used text or attachment as another author's own observations, then published in the article, in quotation marks, should be accompanied by a quote of recycled text, published in the primary source;
• Authors and coauthors must sign a declaration of originality and authorship which provides descriptions of contribution by each of them separately in an article that is going to be published;
• Every author of the publication must respect the rules of writing an article in which he/she wants to publish the article, considering that most journals have their own rules, but in line with the principles ICMJE, COPE, etc.

1.4 Scientific publishing

Publications are the products of scientific work. Once published, scientific work becomes a source of reference, post publishing review and critique. To contribute to the largest evidence-based medicine (EBM), the paper should be credible, while honesty of each author becomes a pillar of trust in science. Researchers become responsible for what they publish and influence the future of the publication, science and education in general.

2. SCIENTOMETRICS

Scientometrics is part of Scientology (the science of science) that analyzes scientific papers and their citations in scientific journals selected sample ( 1 , 8 ).

The term scientometrics first appeared in the literature in 1969. The original definition of scientometrics is that it is a scientific discipline or field of science that deals with the study of science as an information process by applying quantitative (statistical) methods, and later Tibor Braun (who is the 1977 formed an international magazine Scientometrics) introduced the world to name Scientometrics ( 8 ). Some of the indicators used in the evaluation of scientific research ( 1 , 8 ):

• Impact Factor;
• Citing articles;
• Citing journal;
• The number and order of authors, etc.

Impact factor is the number of citations of articles published in the journal during the previous two years, divided by the total number of articles published in the journal for the same time period. Impact factor depends on: the quality of the journal, the language in which it was printed, the territory covered by the distribution system ( 8 ).

2.1 Impact factor (IF)

Given the growing number of scientific publications, there is a need among the readership to assess quality and reliable source of information. IF is the most commonly used evaluation aid. IF does not indicate quality, but high impact factor indicates the possibility of high quality ( 1 , 4 , 6 , 8 ).

In order to assessed IF and citation in general, it uses a large number of databases, such as Thomson Reuters' Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, etc. Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports are involved and the scientific citation index (Science Citation Index, SCI) and Social Scientific Citation Index (SSCI) ( 1 ).

In the use of IF there are some pitfalls to be avoided ( 1 ):

The two-year period is not long enough to assess the quality over quoting, as in many disciplines, yet these publications did not reach the top. Five-year estimate of IF gives better results.

Citing is considered as “currency” of modern science, which is why its analysis of the editors, authors and readers become indispensable. Many authors, intentionally and inappropriately, citing their previous articles to raise their rating in the research community.

SCI database covers less than one-quarter reviews of contemporary journals and shows preference to journals in the English language. As a result this reveals a serious discrepancy between the citation in English and in other languages.

In 2009 an article had 5,624 citations, which shifted IF this journal from 3 to 49.93 while all other articles in this journal had three or less citations. Because of this uneven distribution it is impossible to estimate the IF on the basis of a single article or author ( 1 , 5 ).

Incompleteness depends among other things on, the discipline, the language and location of scientists–researchers.

Articles within the fast growing discipline is more quoted than traditional scientific fields, such as mathematics and theoretician. These varieties give a distorted picture of the rating of certain journals. Also, some subject areas are additionally cited with works from other areas. Examples of medical, clinical studies that rely on the results of basic science, resulting in 3-5 times larger number of citations of articles of basic medicine in relation to the clinical part. The consequence is that the basic medical journals have higher IF of the journal Clinical Medicine, which does not give a realistic picture of any original research note. On the other hand, review articles are cited more often than the original parts, so many journals and IF it's rating rose by publishing an increasing number of review articles.

Invalid works, such articles withdrawn continue to be cited in other articles. It leads to the bias in the calculation of IF.

2.2 H-index and its application

H-index is based on the number of cited articles of an author published in a journal or other publications in relation to the number of citations of these articles in other publications. Citing provides insight into the scientific work because it encourages scientists to deal with the most current topics ( 1 , 8 ).

With regard to the respective issues when calculating the IF, the scientific community has proposed many solutions. Hirsch in 2005 suggests that every scientist has its own H-index. It is probably the simplest index, oriented on scientist and defined as the number of articles by the number of citations ≥ h. in order To raise his/hers H-index, the author must be cited additional 2h+1 times. For example, to increase its H-index from 4 to 5 must be quoted another nine times. Its only drawback is that this factor is unfavorable for young researchers who have not had enough opportunities to publish a large number of works in the short time they had available for research. Schreiber suggests that in calculating the H-index should not be used self citation because it is unethical and is subject to manipulation, and introduces the concept of “the honest h index, hh) ( 1 ). Yet, despite its many shortcomings, the Impact Factor is currently most often used metric tool for assessing the journal, which should be a message to researchers to continue their search for a reliable and applicable scientometrics method ( 1 , 22 ).

All persons who present themselves as the authors of the article must meet the following requirements: to have contributed significantly to the planning and preparation of the article, or analysis and interpretation of results and participated in writing and correcting the article, as well as to agree with the final version of the text. People engaged in collecting data or superior researchers, however, have not been active participants in the development of scientific work and cannot be authors. The editor has the right to ask the author to explain the individual contribution of each of them. The contribution of one author is 1, and if in the preparation of the article participated many authors, their contribution is 1/n. This means that the contribution of each subsequent is half the size of the contributions of previous author in order. The order is determined by agreement between the authors ( 8 , 9 ).

Citing is the way in which the author explains to the readers that certain textual content contained in particular paper is taken from another source. It also gives the reader insight they needed to find the original source, including:

Information concerning the author;

• Title of the article;
• Page numbers from which the material was taken;
• Time when some content was “downloaded” from some official sites where the content is stored and presented for public use (Open access).

Recognition of authorship by quoting is the only proper way to use the work of others and not to commit plagiarism. There are many reasons that source should be cited:

• Citing helps greatly to the one who wants to know more about the author's ideas and where these ideas came;
• Not all the sources are as good and true. Journals with a high above mentioned indices are relevant to quote;
• Citing shows how much work has gone into research;
• Citing helps the reader to distinguish between the author's and ideas of others.

Very important issues to be considered when quoting content of other authors from scientific publications are:

• When to use quotation marks;
• When to paraphrase;
• When to use an idea already expressed by someone?
• MLA (MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION);
• ACS (AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY);
• IEEE (INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS);
• NLM (NATIONAL LIBRARY OD MEDICINE);
• VANCOUVER (BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES);
• APA (AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION).

4. PLAGIARISM

4.1 definitions of plagiarism.

Plagiarism (Latin plagere =kidnap, plagiatum = “stealing people”), means the act of appropriation or copying someone else's written, artistic or other creative work as your own, either in part or in whole, without specifying the source or authorship of the original. Unlike forgery in which is questioned the authenticity of the work, plagiarism is the illegal and unethical copying of another's work, which is up as its own. Plagiarism is literary term for stealing, copying others' works. In recent years, it is interpreted as a violation of copyright. Generally speaking, plagiarism is when someone uses someone else's ideas, statements, linguistic style and does not recognize the intellectual authors. Plagiarism may be intentional or unintentional ( 1 , 4 , 6 , 12 ).

Types of plagiarism ( 12 ):

• Direct form–Fully or partially copy the text, computer files, audio or video recordings without mentioning the primary source;
• Mosaic form–Borrowing ideas and opinions from the original source, a few words and phrases without citing the source;
• Self-plagiarism–Reuse own work without specifying the primary (own) sources.
• In some ancient cultures of the Far East, certain forms of plagiarism were common.
• According to data from WAME - World Association of Medical Editors, precise definition of plagiarism is when are copied six consecutive words ( 6 , 21 ) in a continuous set of 30 used characters.

Generally speaking, plagiarism is when someone uses someone else's ideas, statements, linguistic style and does not recognize the intellectual pioneers. Plagiarism main goal is to deceive the reader. An interesting comment was made by Samuel Johnson, which one of the manuscripts received for publication characterized as follows: “Your work is good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good” ( 1 ).

It is “the tendency of literary theft and misappropriation of others spiritual property as a whole” or generally “attributed someone else's work as your own” ( 1 ).

4.2 Common causes of plagiarism

• Following trends of academic promotion and research funding, which entails the use of extensive text on the principle of “publish at all costs” or “Perish mantra”;
• Personal ambitions of poorly educated individuals;
• Financial pressure.

4.3 Types of plagiarism

Plagiarism is not always black and white issue. The boundary between plagiarism and research is sometimes unclear. Identifying different forms of plagiarism is a very important step towards its prevention.

Here are listed ten ( 10 ) most common types of plagiarism as follows:

• CLONE–Submitting someone else's work, which is just transcribed, as his/hers own;
• CTRL-C–Contains most of the text from a single source, without alterations;
• FIND–REPLACE–Changing key words and phrases, but retaining a substantial part of the content of the primary sources;
• REMIX–Paraphrasing multiple sources which are so arranged that complement each other;
• RECYCLE–The use of their own work (if the article is already published somewhere and not cited);
• HYBRID–Combine perfectly cited sources with the copied without citation;
• MASH UP–Blending the copied material which is taken from multiple sources;
• ERROR 404–Includes quoting non-existent or inaccurate source;
• AGGREGATOR–Include proper citation of sources, but contains almost nothing of their own work;
• RE–TWEET–Includes proper citation, but with too much text used from the original.

4.4 Plagiarizing others' research results

Unlike forgery in which is questioned the authenticity of the article, plagiarism when it comes to illegal and unethical taking of another's work, which is presented as its own.

Many people define plagiarism as copying someone else's work, or borrowing other people's ideas. But terms such as copying and lending may mask the seriousness of the offense.

According to Merriam–Webster dictionary plagiarism represents (1: a) The theft and use of other people's ideas or words as yours; b) Use of sources without attribution; c) Literary theft and d) presenting some ideas as own and as it is new, while this idea already exists in other source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud, involving the theft of someone else's work and presenting as own.

4.5 Is the theft of ideas and words really possible?

Statutory legislation in the academic community in the United States and other developed countries strictly protects the expression of their own ideas, which are considered intellectual property and are protected by copyrights. Almost all forms of expression are protected by Copyright as long as they are preserved in any medium (such as a book or a computer file).

4.6 That is why under plagiarism is considered ( 1 , 6 ):

• Presenting someone else's work as own;
• Copying words or ideas of another person without specifying the original authorship;
• Not using quotation marks;
• Giving incorrect information about the source that is cited;
• Changing words but copying the sentence structure of the source without specifying the source or authorship of the original;
• Copying so many words or ideas which eventually make most of the work, regardless of whether the source is acknowledged or not.

4.7 How to avoid plagiarism?

It is very easy to find information on a topic that needs to be explored, but it is not always easy to add that information to own work and do not create a plagiarism. There are ways to avoid plagiarism, and should just be followed simple steps when writing a paper.

There are several ways to avoid plagiarism ( 1 , 6 ):

• Paraphrasing - When information is found that is great for research, it is read and written with own words.
• Quote - Very efficient way to avoid plagiarism. It is literally the wording of certain authors and they sentences are always placed in quotes.
• Quotation or citation in the text marked with the number at the end of the citations while under this number is stated the reference from which the quote was taken.
• Citing own material - If the author of the material used it in an earlier paper, he/she shall quote he/she self, because if this is not done, he/she plagiarized him/herself
• References must be listed at the end of the article and includes sources where authors found the information in the given article.
• Always follow the rules to properly cite references, acknowledging ideas taken at conference and formal/informal conversations;
• Reference must include full bibliographic information;
• Any source that is specified in the text must be listed in the references;
• Quotation marks should be used if are copied more than six consecutive words;

The author must obtain permission from other authors/publishers to reproduce the tabular, graphic or picture attachments or used text under copyright ( 6 , 12 )

Unfortunately, digitizing made copy-paste plagiarism and inappropriate reuse resources from Web sites, online journals and other electronic media. Within academic institutions, plagiarism, which is made by students, professors or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud. Researchers and professors are usually punished for plagiarism by sanctions, suspension or even loss of credibility. It was easier to detect plagiarism, during the 1980s. In the last century, began to develop software for the detection of academic (“Turnitin” and “Safe Assign” software) and scientific plagiarism (“Cross Check” and “eTBlast” software) ( 1 , 7 ). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has given a detailed explanation of what is not a duplicate publication. In the U.S. in 1989, ORI proposed sanctions for plagiarism ( 4 , 6 , 8 ).

Retractions in academic publishing have reached celestial heights–even increased tenfold in the last three decades, and the biggest reason for this is plagiarism and duplications (self plagiarism). The National Science Foundation (NSF) in March 2013 stated to explore more than 100 cases of suspected plagiarism in a year. Unfortunately, this problem is not limited to NSF, but also to other academic institutions as well as other spheres of interest, which is often revealed to the public only when scandals break out. In Germany, two prominent members of the Cabinet of the Prime Minister had to withdraw from office amid allegations of alleged plagiarism in dissertations. Similar scandals rocked Canada, the Philippines, Romania and Russia. Most high-publicity scandals are illuminated in the past three years, thanks to a significant extent bringing around readership of plagiarism as well as facilitated and increased access to instruments for the detection of plagiarism. This knowledge is worrisome because it indicates that plagiarism and duplication are not problems of recent date, but are now only more easily visible ( 20 ).

The software to detect plagiarism is well tested, widely available, economically affordable and easy to use. Although it relies on human analysis, this instrument can significantly speed up the process of validation of submission originality. Publications that require the use of instruments for the detection of plagiarism as part of the review and guideline authors have significantly reduced the number of rejected or withdrawn papers. On the other hand, a large number of organizations ignore this problem. In a survey conducted by Thenticate in October 2012, one of three scientific editors said they continue to face a plagiarized work, and according to the same survey, more than half of the scientific researchers do not check their work, but leaves the editors to detect plagiarism or duplication (even those unintended) ( 20 ).

To researchers is recommended that before they even send somewhere their work, to use the software in order to identify plagiarism or self-plagiarism, which perhaps they themselves are not aware of, in order to preserve public confidence, clean professional record and the further possibility of publishing and finance works. The scientific community, with special emphasis on publishers, must be clear and consistent in finding plagiarism, deterring it, with clear sanctions for those who violate these provisions ( 12 ).

5. MEASURES TO PREVENT PLAGIARISM

Historically, the first attempts to address scientific misconduct and dishonesty were initiated in the U.S. 1992 with the establishment of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The main tasks of this organization are to promote scientific integrity, the development of guidelines for scientific research and investigation of allegations of misconduct, especially in biomedicine. Based on the American model, many national bodies for ethics in science are founded on a global level.

Another major step forward was the establishment of a Committee on Publication Ethics based in the UK (COPE, 1997). COPE has introduced the scientific principles of fairness and developed a set of diagrams which recorded occurrence of plagiarism. If plagiarism is treated after publication, editors should inform the reader about the misconduct. Also, plagiarism can be detected electronically (e.g. Cross Check) ( 21 , 22 ).

At the international level, databases with cases of plagiarism should start publishing the names of all blacklisted–plagiarist.

Scientific and academic institutions should have a unit for monitoring, research and quality development. In accordance with the principles of the GSP and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) institutions should take responsibility for the integrity of research reporting ( 23 - 26 ).

6. CONCLUSION

Modern medicine from a doctor requires continuous training, follow up of new medical discoveries and implementation of new knowledge into practice. A doctor in the PHC or in hospitals encounters with patients of different disease profiles, which are manifested in a different form, different intensity, with different response to therapy and different prognosis, so that every patient is a new experience. However, this experience and knowledge is often not sufficient for the best outcome for the patient and doctors are often forced to use additional reading and research on the problem of his/hers patient. Therefore, use of medical journals and articles that are in databases widely available to everyone who knows them properly. For this reason, it is particularly important that any research conducted revealed that published an article to be written according to the rules described above, to be conducted as meta-analyzes that will shorten “wondering” of readers trough the huge number of articles related to the problem and thus conclusions from made research combined with their knowledge and experience and to provide to the patient better service (on these principles is based Evidence Based Medicine EBM) ( 10 , 14 ).

On the other hand, thanks to the databases available on the Internet and medical journals, many researchers get ideas for their own research, and are used to compare the results of different studies, taking into account not to make plagiarism and proper citation is of utmost importance.

Finally, as more the author has been cited, his credibility is increased, indicating that the quality of its scientific research work. In literature and on various websites and blogs today is revealed a growing number of cases of plagiarism and other unethical behavior of the researchers. Described are several cases of plagiarism in the countries of the Balkan region. In the countries of former Yugoslavia, the number of plagiarism in books, articles, monographs, scientific papers and it is rapidly increasing. One important reason is that the newly introduced concept of the Bologna education requires academic staff to quickly and in large quantity publish scientific and professional articles for advancement in academic career, it has become counterproductive and degrades the quality of the published articles content. Plagiarism is now easier to detect thanks to databases and software packages specifically designed for this purpose.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: NONE DECLARED.

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 15 April 2024
• Correction 22 April 2024

Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most

• Dalmeet Singh Chawla 0

Dalmeet Singh Chawla is a freelance science journalist based in London.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Policymakers often work behind closed doors — but the documents they produce offer clues about the research that influences them. Credit: Stefan Rousseau/Getty

When David Autor co-wrote a paper on how computerization affects job skill demands more than 20 years ago, a journal took 18 months to consider it — only to reject it after review. He went on to submit it to The Quarterly Journal of Economics , which eventually published the work 1 in November 2003.

Autor’s paper is now the third most cited in policy documents worldwide, according to an analysis of data provided exclusively to Nature . It has accumulated around 1,100 citations in policy documents, show figures from the London-based firm Overton (see ‘The most-cited papers in policy’), which maintains a database of more than 12 million policy documents, think-tank papers, white papers and guidelines.

“I thought it was destined to be quite an obscure paper,” recalls Autor, a public-policy scholar and economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. “I’m excited that a lot of people are citing it.”

The most-cited papers in policy

Economics papers dominate the top ten papers that policy documents reference most.

Data from Overton as of 15 April 2024

The top ten most cited papers in policy documents are dominated by economics research; the number one most referenced study has around 1,300 citations. When economics studies are excluded, a 1997 Nature paper 2 about Earth’s ecosystem services and natural capital is second on the list, with more than 900 policy citations. The paper has also garnered more than 32,000 references from other studies, according to Google Scholar. Other highly cited non-economics studies include works on planetary boundaries, sustainable foods and the future of employment (see ‘Most-cited papers — excluding economics research’).

These lists provide insight into the types of research that politicians pay attention to, but policy citations don’t necessarily imply impact or influence, and Overton’s database has a bias towards documents published in English.

Interdisciplinary impact

Overton usually charges a licence fee to access its citation data. But last year, the firm worked with the publisher Sage to release a free web-based tool , based in Thousand Oaks, California, that allows any researcher to find out how many times policy documents have cited their papers or mention their names. Overton and Sage said they created the tool, called Sage Policy Profiles, to help researchers to demonstrate the impact or influence their work might be having on policy. This can be useful for researchers during promotion or tenure interviews and in grant applications.

Autor thinks his study stands out because his paper was different from what other economists were writing at the time. It suggested that ‘middle-skill’ work, typically done in offices or factories by people who haven’t attended university, was going to be largely automated, leaving workers with either highly skilled jobs or manual work. “It has stood the test of time,” he says, “and it got people to focus on what I think is the right problem.” That topic is just as relevant today, Autor says, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence.

Most-cited papers — excluding economics research

When economics studies are excluded, the research papers that policy documents most commonly reference cover topics including climate change and nutrition.

Walter Willett, an epidemiologist and food scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, thinks that interdisciplinary teams are most likely to gain a lot of policy citations. He co-authored a paper on the list of most cited non-economics studies: a 2019 work 3 that was part of a Lancet commission to investigate how to feed the global population a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet by 2050 and has accumulated more than 600 policy citations.

“I think it had an impact because it was clearly a multidisciplinary effort,” says Willett. The work was co-authored by 37 scientists from 17 countries. The team included researchers from disciplines including food science, health metrics, climate change, ecology and evolution and bioethics. “None of us could have done this on our own. It really did require working with people outside our fields.”

Sverker Sörlin, an environmental historian at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, agrees that papers with a diverse set of authors often attract more policy citations. “It’s the combined effect that is often the key to getting more influence,” he says.

Has your research influenced policy? Use this free tool to check

Sörlin co-authored two papers in the list of top ten non-economics papers. One of those is a 2015 Science paper 4 on planetary boundaries — a concept defining the environmental limits in which humanity can develop and thrive — which has attracted more than 750 policy citations. Sörlin thinks one reason it has been popular is that it’s a sequel to a 2009 Nature paper 5 he co-authored on the same topic, which has been cited by policy documents 575 times.

Although policy citations don’t necessarily imply influence, Willett has seen evidence that his paper is prompting changes in policy. He points to Denmark as an example, noting that the nation is reformatting its dietary guidelines in line with the study’s recommendations. “I certainly can’t say that this document is the only thing that’s changing their guidelines,” he says. But “this gave it the support and credibility that allowed them to go forward”.

Broad brush

Peter Gluckman, who was the chief science adviser to the prime minister of New Zealand between 2009 and 2018, is not surprised by the lists. He expects policymakers to refer to broad-brush papers rather than those reporting on incremental advances in a field.

Gluckman, a paediatrician and biomedical scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, notes that it’s important to consider the context in which papers are being cited, because studies reporting controversial findings sometimes attract many citations. He also warns that the list is probably not comprehensive: many policy papers are not easily accessible to tools such as Overton, which uses text mining to compile data, and so will not be included in the database.

The top 100 papers

“The thing that worries me most is the age of the papers that are involved,” Gluckman says. “Does that tell us something about just the way the analysis is done or that relatively few papers get heavily used in policymaking?”

Gluckman says it’s strange that some recent work on climate change, food security, social cohesion and similar areas hasn’t made it to the non-economics list. “Maybe it’s just because they’re not being referred to,” he says, or perhaps that work is cited, in turn, in the broad-scope papers that are most heavily referenced in policy documents.

As for Sage Policy Profiles, Gluckman says it’s always useful to get an idea of which studies are attracting attention from policymakers, but he notes that studies often take years to influence policy. “Yet the average academic is trying to make a claim here and now that their current work is having an impact,” he adds. “So there’s a disconnect there.”

Willett thinks policy citations are probably more important than scholarly citations in other papers. “In the end, we don’t want this to just sit on an academic shelf.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00660-1

Updates & Corrections

Correction 22 April 2024 : The original version of this story credited Sage, rather than Overton, as the source of the policy papers’ citation data. Sage’s location has also been updated.

Autor, D. H., Levy, F. & Murnane, R. J. Q. J. Econ. 118 , 1279–1333 (2003).

Article   Google Scholar  

Costanza, R. et al. Nature 387 , 253–260 (1997).

Willett, W. et al. Lancet 393 , 447–492 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Steffen, W. et al. Science 347 , 1259855 (2015).

Rockström, J. et al. Nature 461 , 472–475 (2009).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Will AI accelerate or delay the race to net-zero emissions?

Comment 22 APR 24

We must protect the global plastics treaty from corporate interference

World View 17 APR 24

UN plastics treaty: don’t let lobbyists drown out researchers

Editorial 17 APR 24

CERN’s impact goes way beyond tiny particles

Spotlight 17 APR 24

The economic commitment of climate change

Article 17 APR 24

Last-mile delivery increases vaccine uptake in Sierra Leone

Article 13 MAR 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Artificial Intelligence

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Position Opening for Principal Investigator GIBH

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

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

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

PostDoc grant- 3D histopathology image analysis

Join a global pharmaceutical company as a Postdoctoral researcher and advance 3D histopathology image analysis! Apply with your proposals today.

Biberach an der Riß, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH

Postdoctoral Position

We are seeking highly motivated and skilled candidates for postdoctoral fellow positions

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston Children's Hospital (BCH)

Qiushi Chair Professor

Distinguished scholars with notable achievements and extensive international influence.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Zhejiang University

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

Quick links

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

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included record numbers of both gun murders and gun suicides. Despite the increase in such fatalities, the rate of gun deaths – a statistic that accounts for the nation’s growing population – remained below the levels of earlier decades.

Here’s a closer look at gun deaths in the United States, based on a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the CDC, the FBI and other sources. You can also read key public opinion findings about U.S. gun violence and gun policy .

This Pew Research Center analysis examines the changing number and rate of gun deaths in the United States. It is based primarily on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The CDC’s statistics are based on information contained in official death certificates, while the FBI’s figures are based on information voluntarily submitted by thousands of police departments around the country.

For the number and rate of gun deaths over time, we relied on mortality statistics in the CDC’s WONDER database covering four distinct time periods:  1968 to 1978 ,  1979 to 1998 ,  1999 to 2020 , and 2021 . While these statistics are mostly comparable for the full 1968-2021 period, gun murders and suicides between 1968 and 1978 are classified by the CDC as involving firearms  and  explosives; those between 1979 and 2021 are classified as involving firearms only. Similarly, gun deaths involving law enforcement between 1968 and 1978 exclude those caused by “operations of war”; those between 1979 and 2021 include that category, which refers to gun deaths among military personnel or civilians  due to war or civil insurrection in the U.S . All CDC gun death estimates in this analysis are adjusted to account for age differences over time and across states.

The FBI’s statistics about the types of firearms used in gun murders in 2020 come from the bureau’s  Crime Data Explorer website . Specifically, they are drawn from the expanded homicide tables of the agency’s  2020 Crime in the United States report . The FBI’s statistics include murders and non-negligent manslaughters involving firearms.

How many people die from gun-related injuries in the U.S. each year?

In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were accidental, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined. The total excludes deaths in which gunshot injuries played a contributing, but not principal, role. (CDC fatality statistics are based on information contained in official death certificates, which identify a single cause of death.)

What share of U.S. gun deaths are murders and what share are suicides?

Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths . In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were accidental (549), involved law enforcement (537) or had undetermined circumstances (458).

What share of all murders and suicides in the U.S. involve a gun?

About eight-in-ten U.S. murders in 2021 – 20,958 out of 26,031, or 81% – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. More than half of all suicides in 2021 – 26,328 out of 48,183, or 55% – also involved a gun, the highest percentage since 2001.

How has the number of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?

The record 48,830 total gun deaths in 2021 reflect a 23% increase since 2019, before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic .

Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply during the pandemic, increasing 45% between 2019 and 2021, while the number of gun suicides rose 10% during that span.

The overall increase in U.S. gun deaths since the beginning of the pandemic includes an especially stark rise in such fatalities among children and teens under the age of 18. Gun deaths among children and teens rose 50% in just two years , from 1,732 in 2019 to 2,590 in 2021.

How has the rate of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?

While 2021 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 14.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2021 – the highest rate since the early 1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

The gun murder rate in the U.S. remains below its peak level despite rising sharply during the pandemic. There were 6.7 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2021, below the 7.2 recorded in 1974.

The gun suicide rate, on the other hand, is now on par with its historical peak. There were 7.5 gun suicides per 100,000 people in 2021, statistically similar to the 7.7 measured in 1977. (One caveat when considering the 1970s figures: In the CDC’s database, gun murders and gun suicides between 1968 and 1978 are classified as those caused by firearms and explosives. In subsequent years, they are classified as deaths involving firearms only.)

Which states have the highest and lowest gun death rates in the U.S.?

The rate of gun fatalities varies widely from state to state. In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).

The results are somewhat different when looking at gun murder and gun suicide rates separately. The places with the highest gun murder rates in 2021 included the District of Columbia (22.3 per 100,000 people), Mississippi (21.2), Louisiana (18.4), Alabama (13.9) and New Mexico (11.7). Those with the lowest gun murder rates included Massachusetts (1.5), Idaho (1.5), Hawaii (1.6), Utah (2.1) and Iowa (2.2). Rate estimates are not available for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont or Wyoming.

The states with the highest gun suicide rates in 2021 included Wyoming (22.8 per 100,000 people), Montana (21.1), Alaska (19.9), New Mexico (13.9) and Oklahoma (13.7). The states with the lowest gun suicide rates were Massachusetts (1.7), New Jersey (1.9), New York (2.0), Hawaii (2.8) and Connecticut (2.9). Rate estimates are not available for the District of Columbia.

How does the gun death rate in the U.S. compare with other countries?

The gun death rate in the U.S. is much higher than in most other nations, particularly developed nations. But it is still far below the rates in several Latin American countries, according to a 2018 study of 195 countries and territories by researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

The U.S. gun death rate was 10.6 per 100,000 people in 2016, the most recent year in the study, which used a somewhat different methodology from the CDC. That was far higher than in countries such as Canada (2.1 per 100,000) and Australia (1.0), as well as European nations such as France (2.7), Germany (0.9) and Spain (0.6). But the rate in the U.S. was much lower than in El Salvador (39.2 per 100,000 people), Venezuela (38.7), Guatemala (32.3), Colombia (25.9) and Honduras (22.5), the study found. Overall, the U.S. ranked 20th in its gun fatality rate that year .

How many people are killed in mass shootings in the U.S. every year?

This is a difficult question to answer because there is no single, agreed-upon definition of the term “mass shooting.” Definitions can vary depending on factors including the number of victims and the circumstances of the shooting.

The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 103 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2021 .

The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are shot, even if no one was killed (again excluding the shooters). Using this definition, 706 people died in these incidents in 2021 .

Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year.

How has the number of mass shootings in the U.S. changed over time?

The same definitional issue that makes it challenging to calculate mass shooting fatalities comes into play when trying to determine the frequency of U.S. mass shootings over time. The unpredictability of these incidents also complicates matters: As Rand Corp. noted in a research brief , “Chance variability in the annual number of mass shooting incidents makes it challenging to discern a clear trend, and trend estimates will be sensitive to outliers and to the time frame chosen for analysis.”

The FBI found an increase in active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2021. There were three such incidents in 2000. By 2021, that figure had increased to 61.

Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

It’s important to note that the FBI’s statistics do not capture the details on all gun murders in the U.S. each year. The FBI’s data is based on information voluntarily submitted by police departments around the country, and not all agencies participate or provide complete information each year.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Aug. 16, 2019.

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, key facts about americans and guns, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy