scientific journals literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

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

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

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

Types of Literature Review

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

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

1. Narrative Literature Review

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

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

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

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

Define the research question or topic:

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

Conduct a thorough literature search

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

Select relevant studies

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

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

Critically analyze the literature

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

Synthesize and integrate the findings

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

Discussion and conclusion

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

Write a cohesive narrative review

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

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

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

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

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

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

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

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

Source: SciSpace

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

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

2. Systematic Review

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

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

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

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

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

Formulate a clear and focused research question

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

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

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

Screening and selecting studies

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

Data extraction

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

Critical appraisal

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

Data synthesis

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

Interpretation and conclusion

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

The final step — Report writing

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

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

Structure of a systematic literature review

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

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

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

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

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

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

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

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

3. Scoping Literature Review

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

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

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

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

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

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

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

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

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

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

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

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

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

4. Integrative Literature Review

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

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

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

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

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

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

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

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

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

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

5. Rapid Literature Review

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

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

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

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

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

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

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

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

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

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

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

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

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

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

Reference management software

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

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

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

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

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

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — ChatPDF Showdown

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

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

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

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

How to Write a Good Scientific Literature Review

Nowadays, there is a huge demand for scientific literature reviews as they are especially appreciated by scholars or researchers when designing their research proposals. While finding information is less of a problem to them, discerning which paper or publication has enough quality has become one of the biggest issues. Literature reviews narrow the current knowledge on a certain field and examine the latest publications’ strengths and weaknesses. This way, they are priceless tools not only for those who are starting their research, but also for all those interested in recent publications. To be useful, literature reviews must be written in a professional way with a clear structure. The amount of work needed to write a scientific literature review must be considered before starting one since the tasks required can overwhelm many if the working method is not the best.

Designing and Writing a Scientific Literature Review

Writing a scientific review implies both researching for relevant academic content and writing , however, writing without having a clear objective is a common mistake. Sometimes, studying the situation and defining the work’s system is so important and takes equally as much time as that required in writing the final result. Therefore, we suggest that you divide your path into three steps.

Define goals and a structure

Think about your target and narrow down your topic. If you don’t choose a well-defined topic, you can find yourself dealing with a wide subject and plenty of publications about it. Remember that researchers usually deal with really specific fields of study.

It is time to be a critic and locate only pertinent publications. While researching for content consider publications that were written 3 years ago at the most. Write notes and summarize the content of each paper as that will help you in the next step.

Time to write

Check some literature review examples to decide how to start writing a good literature review . When your goals and structure are defined, begin writing without forgetting your target at any moment.

Related: Conducting a literature survey? Wish to learn more about scientific misconduct? Check out this resourceful infographic.

Here you have a to-do list to help you write your review :

• A scientific literature review usually includes a title, abstract, index, introduction, corpus, bibliography, and appendices (if needed).
• Present the problem clearly.
• Mention the paper’s methodology, research methods, analysis, instruments, etc.
• Present literature review examples that can help you express your ideas.
• Remember to cite accurately.
• Limit your bias
• While summarizing also identify strengths and weaknesses as this is critical.

Scholars and researchers are usually the best candidates to write scientific literature reviews, not only because they are experts in a certain field, but also because they know the exigencies and needs that researchers have while writing research proposals or looking for information among thousands of academic papers. Therefore, considering your experience as a researcher can help you understand how to write a scientific literature review.

Have you faced challenges while drafting your first literature review? How do you think can these tips help you in acing your next literature review? Let us know in the comments section below! You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to copyrights answered by our team that comprises eminent researchers and publication experts.

Thank you for your information. It adds knowledge on critical review being a first time to do it, it helps a lot.

yes. i would like to ndertake the course Bio ststistics

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

• Manuscripts & Grants

Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!

Literature review is both a process and a product. It involves searching within a defined…

• AI in Academia

How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time — Why not do it with an AI-based article summarizer?

Researcher 1: “It’s flooding articles every time I switch on my laptop!” Researcher 2: “Why…

How to Master at Literature Mapping: 5 Most Recommended Tools to Use

This article is also available in: Turkish, Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Your Chances of Publication in International Peer-reviewed Journals

Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines

How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time —…

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

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

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

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
• [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
• How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
• How to write a review article. Williamson RC. Williamson RC. Hosp Med. 2001 Dec;62(12):780-2. doi: 10.12968/hosp.2001.62.12.2389. Hosp Med. 2001. PMID: 11810740 Review.
• A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
• Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
• Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
• Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
• Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
• Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
• Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

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

• UConn Library
• Scientific Research and Communication
• Science Literature Reviews

Scientific Research and Communication — Science Literature Reviews

• Essential Resources
• The Scientific Method
• Types of Scientific Papers
• Organization of a Scientific Paper
• Peer Review & Academic Journals
• Primary and Secondary Sources
• Scientific Information Literacy
• Critical Reading Methods
• Scientific Writing Guidebooks
• Searching Strategies for Science Databases
• Engineering Career Exploration
• Qualitative Research: What is it?
• Quantitative Research: What Is It?
• AI Tools for Research
• Avoiding Plagiarism

What is a literature review in the sciences?

To answer this question, please read the following content excerpted from the UCLA Undergraduate Science Journal guidelines .   Also, if you scroll down this page there is a link to a recorded webinar about science literature reviews. I have also included some links to books about engineering and STEM literature reviews at the bottom of this page.

Guide to Writing a Review Article: What is a Literature Review?

A literature review addresses a specific topic by evaluating research that others have done on it. As an author, you will weave your review article around a certain thesis or problem you wish to address, evaluate the quality and the meaning of the studies done before, and arrives at a conclusion about the problem based on the studies evaluated.

A literature review is not a summary and it is not a list. The author cannot simply cite the studies that have been done and the results that have been obtained. If you describe past research without evaluating it, then your “review” is little more than a book report. A literature review must be a synthesis of the results of your search, organized around your chosen theme.

The article should be your evaluation of the literature and of the issue at stake. This is a challenging piece of work. You must:

1. Organize information and relate it to your thesis or research question

2. Synthesize results into a summary of what is and isn’t known

3. Identify contradictions, inconsistencies, and gaps in the research

4. Identify and analyze controversy when it appears in the literature

5. Develop questions for further research

6. Draw conclusions based on your evaluation of the studies presented

Literature Review vs. Research Article

A literature review surveys research done by others in a particular area. You will read and evaluate studies done by others, instead of conducting a new study yourself. Research articles, on the other hand, present research that you have conducted yourself. A research article should contain enough background information and literature evaluation to shed light on your study, but the ultimate purpose of the paper is to report research done by you.

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

• UCLA Undergraduate Science Journal guidelines Click on the "Guide to Scientific Writing" link.

Below is a recorded webinar led by the science and engineering librarians from Western Michigan State University on science literature reviews:

Here is another video on literature reviews by Associate Professor Cecile Badenhorst of Memorial University of Newfoundland.  Dr. Badenhorst uses examples from research in the field of education, but the theoretical components she introduces are of interest to science students as well.

• How to Write a Scientific Literature Review from University of Michigan Libraries
• Engineering Literature Reviews Guide from University of Arizona

Books on Literature Reviews

Literature Review Examples

• White Paper - Literature Review on Kinematic Properties of Road Users for Use on Safety-Related Models for Automated Driving Systems
• A sensor ontology literature review
• Literature review of fuel processing: hydrogen as fuel
• << Previous: Scientific Writing Guidebooks
• Next: Searching Strategies for Science Databases >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 9:58 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/sciencecommunication

10 Best Literature Review Tools for Researchers

Boost your research game with these Best Literature Review Tools for Researchers! Uncover hidden gems, organize your findings, and ace your next research paper!

Researchers struggle to identify key sources, extract relevant information, and maintain accuracy while manually conducting literature reviews. This leads to inefficiency, errors, and difficulty in identifying gaps or trends in existing literature.

Table of Contents

Top 10 Literature Review Tools for Researchers: In A Nutshell (2023)

#1. Semantic Scholar – A free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature

Not all scholarly content may be indexed, and occasional false positives or inaccurate associations can occur. Furthermore, the tool primarily focuses on computer science and related fields, potentially limiting coverage in other disciplines. 

#2. Elicit – Research assistant using language models like GPT-3

Elicit is a game-changing literature review tool that has gained popularity among researchers worldwide. With its user-friendly interface and extensive database of scholarly articles, it streamlines the research process, saving time and effort. 

However, users should be cautious when using Elicit. It is important to verify the credibility and accuracy of the sources found through the tool, as the database encompasses a wide range of publications. 

Additionally, occasional glitches in the search function have been reported, leading to incomplete or inaccurate results. While Elicit offers tremendous benefits, researchers should remain vigilant and cross-reference information to ensure a comprehensive literature review.

#3. Scite.Ai – Your personal research assistant

Scite.Ai is a popular literature review tool that revolutionizes the research process for scholars. With its innovative citation analysis feature, researchers can evaluate the credibility and impact of scientific articles, making informed decisions about their inclusion in their own work. 

However, while Scite.Ai offers numerous advantages, there are a few aspects to be cautious about. As with any data-driven tool, occasional errors or inaccuracies may arise, necessitating researchers to cross-reference and verify results with other reputable sources. 

Rayyan offers the following paid plans:

#4. DistillerSR – Literature Review Software

Despite occasional technical glitches reported by some users, the developers actively address these issues through updates and improvements, ensuring a better user experience. 

#5. Rayyan – AI Powered Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews

However, it’s important to be aware of a few aspects. The free version of Rayyan has limitations, and upgrading to a premium subscription may be necessary for additional functionalities. 

#6. Consensus – Use AI to find you answers in scientific research

With Consensus, researchers can save significant time by efficiently organizing and accessing relevant research material.People consider Consensus for several reasons. 

Consensus offers both free and paid plans:

#7. RAx – AI-powered reading assistant

#8. lateral – advance your research with ai.

Additionally, researchers must be mindful of potential biases introduced by the tool’s algorithms and should critically evaluate and interpret the results. 

#9. Iris AI – Introducing the researcher workspace

Researchers are drawn to this tool because it saves valuable time by automating the tedious task of literature review and provides comprehensive coverage across multiple disciplines. 

#10. Scholarcy – Summarize your literature through AI

Scholarcy’s ability to extract key information and generate concise summaries makes it an attractive option for scholars looking to quickly grasp the main concepts and findings of multiple papers.

Scholarcy’s automated summarization may not capture the nuanced interpretations or contextual information presented in the full text. 

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, conducting a comprehensive literature review is a crucial aspect of any research project, and the availability of reliable and efficient tools can greatly facilitate this process for researchers. This article has explored the top 10 literature review tools that have gained popularity among researchers.

Q1. What are literature review tools for researchers?

Q2. what criteria should researchers consider when choosing literature review tools.

When choosing literature review tools, researchers should consider factors such as the tool’s search capabilities, database coverage, user interface, collaboration features, citation management, annotation and highlighting options, integration with reference management software, and data extraction capabilities. 

Q3. Are there any literature review tools specifically designed for systematic reviews or meta-analyses?

Meta-analysis support: Some literature review tools include statistical analysis features that assist in conducting meta-analyses. These features can help calculate effect sizes, perform statistical tests, and generate forest plots or other visual representations of the meta-analytic results.

Q4. Can literature review tools help with organizing and annotating collected references?

Integration with citation managers: Some literature review tools integrate with popular citation managers like Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote, allowing seamless transfer of references and annotations between platforms.

By leveraging these features, researchers can streamline the organization and annotation of their collected references, making it easier to retrieve relevant information during the literature review process.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Request Info
• Search Search Site Faculty/Staff
• Open Navigation Menu Menu Close Navigation Menu
• Literature Review Guidelines

Making sense of what has been written on your topic.

Goals of a literature review:.

Before doing work in primary sources, historians must know what has been written on their topic.  They must be familiar with theories and arguments–as well as facts–that appear in secondary sources.

Before you proceed with your research project, you too must be familiar with the literature: you do not want to waste time on theories that others have disproved and you want to take full advantage of what others have argued.  You want to be able to discuss and analyze your topic.

Your literature review will demonstrate your familiarity with your topic’s secondary literature.

GUIDELINES FOR A LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) LENGTH:  8-10 pages of text for Senior Theses (485) (consult with your professor for other classes), with either footnotes or endnotes and with a works-consulted bibliography. [See also the  citation guide  on this site.]

2) NUMBER OF WORKS REVIEWED: Depends on the assignment, but for Senior Theses (485), at least ten is typical.

3) CHOOSING WORKS:

Your literature review must include enough works to provide evidence of both the breadth and the depth of the research on your topic or, at least, one important angle of it.  The number of works necessary to do this will depend on your topic. For most topics, AT LEAST TEN works (mostly books but also significant scholarly articles) are necessary, although you will not necessarily give all of them equal treatment in your paper (e.g., some might appear in notes rather than the essay). 4) ORGANIZING/ARRANGING THE LITERATURE:

As you uncover the literature (i.e., secondary writing) on your topic, you should determine how the various pieces relate to each other.  Your ability to do so will demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of literature.

You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology.  This list is not exhaustive.  You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria.  There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.

The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle.  Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into.  How do you do that?  For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources.  Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources?  If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature.  If not, you might still have a thesis.

Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature?  For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period?  Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic?  Do interpretations change at some point?  Does the major methodology being used change?  Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

Follow these links for more help on analyzing  historiography  and  historical perspective .

5) CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients:

a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature c) A clear argument, using the works on topic as evidence, i.e., you discuss the sources in relation to your thesis, not as a separate topic.

These ingredients must be presented in an essay with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

6) ARGUING YOUR THESIS:

The thesis of a literature review should not only describe how the literature has evolved, but also provide a clear evaluation of that literature.  You should assess the literature in terms of the quality of either individual works or categories of works.  For instance, you might argue that a certain approach (e.g. social history, cultural history, or another) is better because it deals with a more complex view of the issue or because they use a wider array of source materials more effectively. You should also ensure that you integrate that evaluation throughout your argument.  Doing so might include negative assessments of some works in order to reinforce your argument regarding the positive qualities of other works and approaches to the topic.

Within each group, you should provide essential information about each work: the author’s thesis, the work’s title and date, the author’s supporting arguments and major evidence.

In most cases, arranging the sources chronologically by publication date within each section makes the most sense because earlier works influenced later ones in one way or another.  Reference to publication date also indicates that you are aware of this significant historiographical element.

As you discuss each work, DO NOT FORGET WHY YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT.  YOU ARE PRESENTING AND SUPPORTING A THESIS ABOUT THE LITERATURE.

When discussing a particular work for the first time, you should refer to it by the author’s full name, the work’s title, and year of publication (either in parentheses after the title or worked into the sentence).

For example, “The field of slavery studies has recently been transformed by Ben Johnson’s The New Slave (2001)” and “Joe Doe argues in his 1997 study, Slavery in America, that . . . .”

Your paper should always note secondary sources’ relationship to each other, particularly in terms of your thesis about the literature (e.g., “Unlike Smith’s work, Mary Brown’s analysis reaches the conclusion that . . . .” and “Because of Anderson’s reliance on the president’s personal papers, his interpretation differs from Barry’s”). The various pieces of the literature are “related” to each other, so you need to indicate to the reader some of that relationship.  (It helps the reader follow your thesis, and it convinces the reader that you know what you are talking about.)

7) DOCUMENTATION:

Each source you discuss in your paper must be documented using footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography.  Providing author and title and date in the paper is not sufficient.  Use correct Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style form.  [See  Bibliography  and  Footnotes/Endnotes  pages.]

In addition, further supporting, but less significant, sources should be included in  content foot or endnotes .  (e.g., “For a similar argument to Ben Johnson’s, see John Terry, The Slave Who Was New (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 3-45.”)

8 ) CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

Your conclusion should not only reiterate your argument (thesis), but also discuss questions that remain unanswered by the literature.  What has the literature accomplished?  What has not been studied?  What debates need to be settled?

Additional writing guidelines

History and American Studies

• About the Department
• Major Requirements & Courses
• What courses will I take as an History major?
• What can I do with my History degree?
• History 485
• Methodology
• Choosing a Topic
• Book Reviews
• Historiographic Clues
• Understanding Historical Perspective
• Sample Literature Review
• Using Quotations
• Ellipses and Brackets
• Footnotes and Endnotes
• Content Notes
• Citation Guide
• Citing Non-Print Resources
• How to Annotate
• Annotated Examples
• Journals vs. Magazines
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Historians Define Plagiarism
• Plagiarism Tutorial
• UMW Honor System
• Presentation Guidelines
• Tips for Leading Seminars
• Hints for Class Discussion
• Speaking Center
• Guidelines for a Research Paper
• Library Research Plan
• How to Use ILL
• Database Guide
• Guide to Online Research
• Writing Guidelines
• Recognizing Passive Voice
• Introduction and Conclusion
• MS Word’s Grammar and Spellcheck
• Writing Center
• What You Need to Know
• Links to Online Primary Sources by Region
• What will I learn from my American Studies major?
• What courses will I take as an American Studies major?
• What can I do with my American Studies degree?
• American Studies 485
• For Prospective Students
• Honors and Award Recipients
• Internships

Alumni Intros

How have History & American Studies majors built careers after earning their degrees? Learn more by clicking the image above.  

Recent Posts

• History and American Studies Symposium–April 26, 2024
• Fall 2024 Courses
• Fall 2023 Symposium – 12/8 – All Welcome!
• Spring ’24 Course Flyers
• Internship Opportunity – Chesapeake Gateways Ambassador
• Congratulations to our Graduates!
• History and American Studies Symposium–April 21, 2023
• View umwhistory’s profile on Facebook
• View umwhistory’s profile on Twitter

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

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

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

Something old, new, and borrowed . Rise of the systematic reviews

• Published: 24 August 2024

Cite this article

• Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi 1 &
• Ana-Maria Pop   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9958-1391 1  

102 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Systematic reviews and other types of literature reviews are more prevalent in clinical medicine than in other fields. The recurring need for improvement and updates in these disciplines has led to the Living Systematic Review (LSR) concept to enhance the effectiveness of scientific synthesis efforts. While LSR was introduced in 2014, its adoption outside clinical medicine has been limited, with one exception. However, it is anticipated that this will change in the future, prompting a detailed exploration of four key dimensions for LSR development, regardless of the scientific domain. These dimensions include (a) compliance with FAIR principles, (b) interactivity to facilitate easier access to scientific knowledge, (c) public participation for a more comprehensive review, and (d) extending the scope beyond mere updates to living systematic reviews. Each field needs to establish clear guidelines for drafting literature reviews as independent studies, with discussions centring around the central theme of the Living Systematic Review.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Aguilar Gómez, F., & Bernal, I. (2023). FAIR EVA: Bringing institutional multidisciplinary repositories into the FAIR picture. Scientific Data . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02652-8

Article   Google Scholar  

Akl, E. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L. A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

Amaral, O. B. (2022). To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature, 611 , 637. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03791-5

Breuer, C., Meerpohl, J. J., & Siemens, W. (2022). From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat Im Gesundheitswesen, 176 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.11.007

Dajani, R. (2023). Scientists in diaspora are a powerful resource for their home countries. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03300-2

Eisen, M. B., Akhmanova, A., Behrens, T. E., Harper, D. M., Weigel, D., & Zaidi, M. (2020). Implementing a “publish, then review” model of publishing. eLife, 9 , e64910. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910

Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., Salanti, G., Meerpohl, J., MacLehose, H., Hilton, J., Tovey, D., Shemilt, I., Thomas, J., Agoritsas, T., Hilton, J., Perron, C., Akl, E., Hodder, R., Pestridge, C., …, Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—The why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010

Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

Enck, P. (2018). Living systematic reviews, not only for clinical (placebo) research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 98 , 153–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.001

Gerber, L. R. (2023). Bridging the gap between science and policy for a sustainable future. Nature Water . https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00145-x

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Griebler, U., Dobrescu, A., Ledinger, D., Klingenstein, P., Sommer, I., Emprechtinger, R., Persad, E., Gadinger, A., Trivella, M., Klerings, I., & Nussbaumer-Streit, B. (2023). Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance—A mixed-methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance. Research Synthesis Methods . https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1656

Hill, J. E., Harris, C., & Clegg, A. (2023). Methods for using Bing’s AI-powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15 (2), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1689

Kahale, L. A., Piechotta, V., & McKenzie, J. E. (2022). Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): Protocol [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Research . https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75449.2

Macdonald, H., Loder, E., & Abbasi, K. (2020). Living systematic reviews at The BMJ. BMJ, 370 , m2925. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2925

Marshall, I. J., & Wallace, B. C. (2019). Toward systematic review automation: A practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Systematic Reviews . https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9

Norström, A., V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., …, Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3 , 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Paul, M., & Leeflang, M. M. (2023). Living systematic reviews: Aims and standards. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 30 (3), 265–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2023.08.005

Polonioli, A. (2019). A plea for minimally biased naturalistic philosophy. Synthese, 196 , 3841–3867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1628-0

Polonioli, A. (2020). In search of better science: On the epistemic costs of systematic reviews and the need for a pluralistic stance to literature search. Scientometrics, 122 , 1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03333-3

Riley, S. P., Swanson, B. T., Shaffer, S. M., Flowers, D. W., Cook, C. E., & Brismée, J. M. (2023). Why do ‘Trustworthy’ living systematic reviews matter? Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 31 (4), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2023.2229610

Ripberger, J., Bell, A., Fox, A., Forney, A., Livingston, W., Gaddie, C., Silva, C., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2022). Communicating probability information in weather forecasts: Findings and recommendations from a living systematic review of the research literature. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14 (2), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0034.1

Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R., & Binning, S. A. (2015). Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: How well are we doing? PLoS Biology, 13 (11), e1002295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002295

Saulnier, K. M., Bujold, D., Dyke, S. O. M., Dupras, C., Beck, S., Bourque, G., & Joly, Y. (2019). Benefits and barriers in the design of harmonized access agreements for international data sharing. Scientific Data . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0310-4

Schimidt, L., Mohamed, S., Meader, N., Bacardit, J., & Craig, D. (2023). Automated data analysis of unstructured grey literature in health research: A mapping review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15 (2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1692

Siemieniuk, R. A., Bartoszko, J. J., Zeraatkar, D., Kum, E., Qasim, A., Martinez, J. P. D., Izcovich, A., Lamontagne, F., Han, M. A., Agarwal, A., Agoritsas, T., Azab, M., Bravo, G., Chu, D. K., Couban, R., Devji, T., Escamilla, Z., Foroutan, F., Gao, Y., …, Brignardello-Petersen, R. (2020). Drug treatments for Covid-19: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis BMJ, 370 , m3536. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2980

Simmonds, M., Salanti, G., McKenzie, J., & Elliott, J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.008

Siontis, K. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Replication, duplication, and waste in a quarter million systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 11 (12), e005212. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005212

Thibault, R. T., Amaral, O. B., Argolo, F., Bandrowski, A. E., Davidson, A. R., & Drude, N. I. (2023). Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem. PLoS Biology, 21 (10), e3002362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362

Thomas, J., Noel-Storr, A., Marshall, I., Wallace, B., McDonald, S., Mavergames, C., Glasziou, P., Shemilt, I., Synnot, A., Turner, T., & Elliott, J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

Thorp, H. H. (2023). Correction is courageous. Science, 382 , 743–743. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm8205

Turk, V. (2023). Protect the ‘right to science’ for people and the planet. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03332-8

Turner, T., Lavis, J. N., Grimshaw, J. M., Green, S., & Elliott, J. (2023). Living evidence and adaptive policy: Perfect partners? Health Research Policy and Systems . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01085-4

Uttley, L., Quintana, D. S., Montgomery, P., Carroll, C., Page, M. J., Falzon, L., Sutton, A., & Moher, D. (2023). The problems with systematic reviews: A living systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 156 , 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011

Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Valdivia-Díaz, M., Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Valdivia-Díaz, M., Conde, Y. Q., Matencio García, G., Criales, A. R., Huamanñahui, F. V., Criales, S. R., Makowski, D., & Lavorel, S. (2023). Knowledge coproduction to improve assessments of nature’s contributions to people. Conservation Biology . https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14182

van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature, 623 , 466–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x

Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I., Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., ..., Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3 , 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank both reviewers for their useful and precious suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai, Facultatea de Geografie, Centrul de Geografie Regională, Str. Clinicilor 5-7, 400006, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi & Ana-Maria Pop

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi—substantial contribution to conception and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, writing the comment, revision; Ana-Maria Pop—interpretation of data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hognogi, GG., Pop, AM. Something old, new, and borrowed . Rise of the systematic reviews. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05133-w

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05133-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Living systematic reviews
• Scientific knowledge
• FAIR principles
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

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

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

The Literature Review Defined

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

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

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

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approaching the Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Locating and Organizing the Literature

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

Human Resources

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

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

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

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

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

Box Information Resources

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

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

Getting Organized

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

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

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

Putting It All Together

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

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

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

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

Library Data Resources for Social Data Analytics

• Welcome! Start here
• Plan your research project
• Find social science data
• Analyze data

Introduction: Find peer-reviewed articles

Key databases for sociology, annual reviews, social organizations & business, political/ policy related, public health, general social sciences databases, google scholar.

• Scholarly resources: books and e-books
• Writing & Citing
• More resources

Social Sciences Librarian

A key concept in conducting library research is  searching subject databases that collect peer-reviewed articles in your discipline.  You can find many sociology-related articles using general article search strategies, like BruKnow or Google Scholar. But if you want to target a specific topic area, find a more diverse range of sources and perspectives that may be difficult to spot in general-interest searches, or learn about the most up-to-date ideas in your field, you'll want to dive into the specialized world of subject databases.

Below, you will find some of the most useful sociology databases that will lead you to peer-reviewed articles.

Provides access to more than 12 million academic journal articles, books, and primary sources in 75 disciplines.

Provides image and full text online access to back issues of selected scholarly journals in history, economics, political science, demography, mathematics and other fields of the humanities and social sciences. Consult the online tables of contents for holdings, as coverage varies for each title.  If you are experiencing printing problems from JSTOR while using a Macintosh computer, please download the most recent version of Adobe Reader. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.  If you need assistance, please contact the CIS Help Desk or [email protected].

Here is a broader collection of social science holdings with a strong Sociology focus

An Annual Review provides a roundup of recent key research in a field

• Annual Review of Sociology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Public Health
• Annual Review of Financial Economics
• Annual Review of Anthropology

Business, Entrepreneurship & Organizations

See the BEO research guide/ Finding articles for secondary resources related to organizations, business, entrepreneurship, and finance.

  Encycopedia of Social Measurement    The Encyclopedia of Social Measurement captures the data, techniques, theories, designs, applications, histories, and implications of assigning numerical values to social phenomena. Provides information on transdisciplinary descriptions of quantitative and qualitative techniques, measurement, sampling, and statistical methods. Covering all core social science disciplines, the 300+ articles of the Encyclopedia of Social Measurement not only present a comprehensive summary of observational frameworks and mathematical models, but also offer tools, background information, qualitative methods, and guidelines for structuring the research process.

• << Previous: Analyze data
• Next: Scholarly resources: books and e-books >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 4:01 PM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/sda

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

High-cycle fatigue performance of laser powder bed fusion ti-6al-4v alloy with inherent internal defects: a critical literature review.

1. Introduction

2. The Internal Defects Problem of L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V

2.1. the role of internal defects on the fatigue performance.

2.2. Crack Initiation and Micro-Short Crack (MSC) Propagation

2.3. crack propagation, 3. microstructure, 3.1. microstructure in different states, 3.1.1. as-built alloys, 3.1.2. after post heat treatments, 3.1.3. after hip, 3.2. microstructure’s role in high-cycle fatigue performance, 4. post processing treatments, 4.1. machining, 4.2. heat treatment, 5. machine learning models of predicting fatigue life, 6. conclusions and perspective for future research.

• Research on different types of internal defects was extremely uneven, partially due to the occurrence frequency, detriment level, and difficulty of analysis for each defect type. As a result, gas porosity has been extensively and quantitatively investigated, recently followed by LOF defects. However, studies on other internal defect types, such as keyholes, balling, and α-phase facets, were rare. There is an urgent need for detailed research on these types of defects.
• Quantitatively correlating LOFs with fatigue life performance is challenging due to their complex topology. Recent studies suggested that LOFs can be simplified based on their main profile and most critical embedded features, using an adapted SWT method to evaluate fatigue life. Comprehensive investigations are needed to further digitalize the geometric features of LOFs with a validated analytical approach. Additionally, the influence of un-melted powders embedded in LOFs needs to be investigated and clarified.
• The microstructure composition of L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V alloy, especially in the as-built state, is distinct from conventionally manufactured Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Additionally, L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V alloy have more microstructural imperfections, such as dislocations, which introduce uncertainties in quantifying the microstructure’s role in early-stage crack evolution. To address this, the microstructures of L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V alloy under various conditions need to be standardized. Subsequently, the quantification of the microstructure’s role in fatigue life performance should be progressively investigated, starting with simple cases and advancing to more complex scenarios. This could begin with the fine α + β structure after heat treatment, progress to the α′ in the β phase of the as-built condition, and eventually include the coupling effects with internal defects.
• The surrounding microstructures around internal defects significantly influence fatigue crack initiation and MSC propagation. However, relevant research on AM Ti-6Al-4V alloy was very limited. While similar investigations on other types of metal alloys can be referenced, their findings cannot be directly applied due to distinct microstructures and properties. The CPFE approach may be an ideal solution to clarify the role of microstructures in fatigue life performance and reveal the mechanisms and behaviors of MSC propagation.
• The distribution of residual stresses in L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V alloy, in both as-built and post-treated states (e.g., machining, heat treatments, and HIP), has been investigated and visualized in recent years. Understanding the mechanism by which fatigue life performance is altered is straightforward: residual stresses superpose the remote stresses. However, there is an urgent need to quantitatively correlate residual stresses in different states with fatigue crack evolution. Numerical analysis of residual stress formation during L-PBF processing and post-processing treatments, as well as its impact on fatigue crack evolution, can be both necessary and valuable.
• Post-processing techniques have a considerable impact on the fatigue life performance of L-PBF Ti-6Al-4V alloy. There have been in-depth investigations into various post-processing parameters (e.g., heat treatment at different temperatures, HIP) and studies combining different post-processing treatments (e.g., machining, heat treatment, and HIP), as suggested by previous review papers. Further research in this direction is needed to establish standardized post-processing treatments and combinations to achieve an optimal balance of mechanical properties for various application purposes.
• Data-driven ML models seriously rely on the quantity and quality of dataset, and their contribution to the physical mechanism might be limited. Physics-informed ML models are more promising as they improve the prediction accuracy while requiring less data. In addition, they provide a deeper understanding of the physical mechanism than the pure data-driven models. FEA is an efficient solution for enlarging the dataset, on the premise of being validated.

Author Contributions

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Inagaki, I.; Takechi, T.; Shirai, Y.; Ariyasu, N. Application and features of titanium for the aerospace industry. Nippon Steel Sumitomo Met. Tech. Rep. 2014 , 106 , 22–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh, P.; Pungotra, H.; Kalsi, N.S. On the characteristics of titanium alloys for the aircraft applications. Mater. Today Proc. 2017 , 4 , 8971–8982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uhlmann, E.; Kersting, R.; Klein, T.B.; Cruz, M.F.; Borille, A.V. Additive manufacturing of titanium alloy for aircraft components. Procedia Cirp 2015 , 35 , 55–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Emmelmann, C.; Scheinemann, P.; Munsch, M.; Seyda, V. Laser additive manufacturing of modified implant surfaces with osseointegrative characteristics. Phys. Procedia 2011 , 12 , 375–384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hao, Y.-L.; Li, S.-J.; Yang, R. Biomedical titanium alloys and their additive manufacturing. Rare Met. 2016 , 35 , 661–671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giannatsis, J.; Dedoussis, V. Additive fabrication technologies applied to medicine and health care: A review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2009 , 40 , 116–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bromberger, R.K.J. Additive Manufacturing: A Long-Term Game Changer for Manufacturers ; McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murr, L.E.; Gaytan, S.M.; Ramirez, D.A.; Martinez, E.; Hernandez, J.; Amato, K.N.; Shindo, P.W.; Medina, F.R.; Wicker, R.B.; Gaytan, S.M.; et al. Metal fabrication by additive manufacturing using laser and electron beam melting technologies. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2012 , 28 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vayre, B.; Vignat, F.; Villeneuve, F. Designing for additive manufacturing. Procedia CIrP 2012 , 3 , 632–637. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thijs, L.; Verhaeghe, F.; Craeghs, T.; Van Humbeeck, J.; Kruth, J.-P. A study of the microstructural evolution during selective laser melting of Ti–6Al–4V. Acta Mater. 2010 , 58 , 3303–3312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spierings, A.B.; Schneider, M.U.; Eggenberger, R. Comparison of density measurement techniques for additive manufactured metallic parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2011 , 17 , 380–386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gong, H.; Rafi, K.; Gu, H.; Ram, G.D.J.; Starr, T.; Stucker, B. Influence of defects on mechanical properties of Ti-6Al-4V components produced by selective laser melting and electron beam melting. Mater. Des. 2015 , 86 , 545–554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solberg, K.; Berto, F. What is going on with fatigue of additively manufactured metals? Mater. Des. Process. Commun. 2019 , 1 , e84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boyer, R.R. An overview on the use of titanium in the aerospace industry. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1996 , 213 , 103–114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schijve, J. Fatigue of Structures and Materials ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1–622. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morton, P.A.; Mireles, J.; Mendoza, H.; Cordero, P.M.; Benedict, M.; Wicker, R.B. Enhancement of Low-Cycle Fatigue Performance from Tailored Microstructures Enabled by Electron Beam Melting Additive Manufacturing Technology. J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME 2015 , 137 , 114501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, P.; Warner, D.H.; Fatemi, A.; Phan, N. Critical assessment of the fatigue performance of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V and perspective for future research. Int. J. Fatigue 2016 , 85 , 130–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, X.; Tao, C.; Wu, S.; Chen, B.; Wu, S. X-ray imaging of defect population and the effect on high cycle fatigue life of laser additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloys. Int. J. Fatigue 2022 , 162 , 106979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tammas-Williams, S.; Zhao, H.; Léonard, F.; Derguti, F.; Todd, I.; Prangnell, P.B. XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti-6Al-4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting. Mater. Charact. 2015 , 102 , 47–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewandowski, J.J.; Seifi, M. Metal additive manufacturing: A review of mechanical properties. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2016 , 46 , 151–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.; Shin, Y.C. Additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V alloy: A review. Mater. Des. 2019 , 164 , 107552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pegues, J.W.; Shao, S.; Shamsaei, N.; Sanaei, N.; Fatemi, A.; Warner, D.H.; Li, P.; Phan, N. Fatigue of additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V, Part I: The effects of powder feedstock, manufacturing, and post-process conditions on the resulting microstructure and defects. Int. J. Fatigue 2020 , 132 , 105358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Molaei, R.; Fatemi, A.; Sanaei, N.; Pegues, J.; Shamsaei, N.; Shao, S.; Li, P.; Warner, D.H.; Phan, N. Fatigue of additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V, Part II: The relationship between microstructure, material cyclic properties, and component performance. Int. J. Fatigue 2020 , 132 , 105363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanaei, N.; Fatemi, A. Defects in additive manufactured metals and their effect on fatigue performance: A state-of-the-art review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2021 , 117 , 100724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Gao, S.L.; Wang, B.T.; Ma, Y.T.; Guo, Z.J.; Zhang, K.; Yang, Y.; Yue, X.Z.; Hou, J.; Huang, H.J.; et al. Recent advances in machine learning-assisted fatigue life prediction of additive manufactured metallic materials: A review. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2024 , 198 , 111–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singla, A.K.; Banerjee, M.; Sharma, A.; Singh, J.; Bansal, A.; Gupta, M.K.; Khanna, N.; Shahi, A.S.; Goyal, D.K. Selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V alloy: Process parameters, defects and post-treatments. J. Manuf. Process. 2021 , 64 , 161–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, S.; Zou, Y.; Lim, C.V.S.; Wu, X. Review of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) fabricated Ti-6Al-4V: Process, post-process treatment, microstructure, and property. Light Adv. Manuf. 2021 , 2 , 20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kan, W.H.; Chiu, L.N.S.; Lim, C.V.S.; Zhu, Y.; Tian, Y.; Jiang, D.; Huang, A. A critical review on the effects of process-induced porosity on the mechanical properties of alloys fabricated by laser powder bed fusion. J. Mater. Sci. 2022 , 57 , 9818–9865. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jamhari, F.I.; Foudzi, F.M.; Buhairi, M.A.; Muhamad, N.; Mohamed, I.F.; Sulong, A.B.; Radzuan, N.A.M. Impact of hot isostatic pressing on surface quality, porosity and performance of Ti6Al4V manufactured by laser powder bed fusion: A brief review. J. Tribol. 2023 , 36 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, H.D.; Pramanik, A.; Basak, A.K.; Dong, Y.; Prakash, C.; Debnath, S.; Shankar, S.; Jawahir, I.S.; Dixit, S.; Buddhi, D. A critical review on additive manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V alloy: Microstructure and mechanical properties. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022 , 18 , 4641–4661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jamhari, F.I.; Foudzi, F.M.; Buhairi, M.A.; Sulong, A.B.; Radzuan, N.A.M.; Muhamad, N.; Mohamed, I.F.; Jamadon, N.H.; Tan, K.S. Influence of heat treatment parameters on microstructure and mechanical performance of titanium alloy in LPBF: A brief review. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023 , 24 , 4091–4110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tusher, M.M.H.; Ince, A. High Cycle Fatigue and Very High Cycle Fatigue Performance of Selective Laser Melting Ti-6Al-4V Titanium Alloy—A Review. Mater. Perform. Charact. 2023 , 12 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teixeira, Ó.; Silva, F.J.G.; Ferreira, L.P.; Atzeni, E. A review of heat treatments on improving the quality and residual stresses of the Ti–6Al–4V parts produced by additive manufacturing. Metals 2020 , 10 , 1006. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, J.; Singh, H.; Singh, G. Effect of Post-Heat Treatment on the Properties of Additive Manufacturing Parts. In Innovative Processes and Materials in Additive Manufacturing ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 19–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanhill, R.; Barter, S. Fatigue of Beta Processed and Beta Heat-Treated Titanium Alloys ; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagiwara, M.; Kitaura, T.; Ono, Y.; Yuri, T.; Ogata, T.; Kanou, O. High cycle fatigue properties of a minor boron-modified Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Mater. Trans. 2012 , 53 , 1486–1494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hagiwara, M.; Kaieda, Y.; Kawabe, Y.; Miura, S. Fatigue property enhancement of α-β titanium alloys by blended elemental P/M approach. ISIJ Int. 1991 , 31 , 922–930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, L.; Qian, G.; Zheng, L.; Hong, Y. Influence of processing parameters of selective laser melting on high-cycle and very-high-cycle fatigue behaviour of Ti-6Al-4V. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2021 , 44 , 240–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Y.N.; Wu, S.C.; Withers, P.J.; Zhang, J.; Bao, H.Y.X.; Fu, Y.N.; Kang, G.Z. The effect of manufacturing defects on the fatigue life of selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V structures. Mater. Des. 2020 , 192 , 108708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akgun, E.; Zhang, X.; Lowe, T.; Zhang, Y.; Doré, M. Fatigue of laser powder-bed fusion additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V in presence of process-induced porosity defects. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2022 , 259 , 108140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moquin, E.; Letenneur, M.; Kreitcberg, A.; Poulin-Masson, J.R.; Brailovski, V. High cycle fatigue resistance of laser powder bed fused Ti–6Al–4V alloys with processing-induced porosity: Towards damage-tolerant design of printed components. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2023 , 884 , 145509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Y.N.; Wu, S.C.; Wu, Z.K.; Zhong, X.L.; Ahmed, S.; Karabal, S.; Xiao, X.H.; Zhang, H.O.; Withers, P.J. A new approach to correlate the defect population with the fatigue life of selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Int. J. Fatigue 2020 , 136 , 105584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Günther, J.; Krewerth, D.; Lippmann, T.; Leuders, S.; Tröster, T.; Weidner, A.; Biermann, H.; Niendorf, T. Fatigue life of additively manufactured Ti–6Al–4V in the very high cycle fatigue regime. Int. J. Fatigue 2017 , 94 , 236–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Becker, T.H.; Dhansay, N.M.; Haar, G.M.T.; Vanmeensel, K. Near-threshold fatigue crack growth rates of laser powder bed fusion produced Ti-Aal-4V. Acta Mater. 2020 , 197 , 269–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waddell, M.; Walker, K.; Bandyopadhyay, R.; Kapoor, K.; Mallory, A.; Xiao, X.; Chuang, A.C.; Liu, Q.; Phan, N.; Sangid, M.D. Small fatigue crack growth behavior of Ti-6Al-4V produced via selective laser melting: In situ characterization of a 3D crack tip interactions with defects. Int. J. Fatigue 2020 , 137 , 105638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pessard, E.; Lavialle, M.; Laheurte, P.; Didier, P.; Brochu, M. High-cycle fatigue behavior of a laser powder bed fusion additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V titanium: Effect of pores and tested volume size. Int. J. Fatigue 2021 , 149 , 106206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Z.; Liu, A.; Wang, X.; Liu, B.; Guo, M. Fatigue limit prediction model and fatigue crack growth mechanism for selective laser melting Ti6Al4V samples with inherent defects. Int. J. Fatigue 2021 , 143 , 106008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chi, W.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Xu, W.; Sun, C. Defect induced cracking and modeling of fatigue strength for an additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V alloy in very high cycle fatigue regime. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2022 , 119 , 103380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, X.; Tao, C.; Wu, S. Anisotropic high cycle fatigue property estimation for laser additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy dependence on tomographic imaging of defect population. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023 , 22 , 1971–1982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhandari, L.; Gaur, V. Different post-processing methods to improve fatigue properties of additively built Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Int. J. Fatigue 2023 , 176 , 107850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mancisidor, A.M.; García-Blanco, M.B.; Quintana, I.; Arrazola, P.J.; Espinosa, E.; Cuesta, M.; Albizuri, J.; Garciandia, F. Effect of Post-Processing Treatment on Fatigue Performance of Ti6Al4V Alloy Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2023 , 7 , 119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Önder, S.; Saklakoğlu, N.; Sever, A. Selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V alloy: Effect of post-processing on fatigue life, residual stress, microstructure, microhardness and surface roughness. Mater. Charact. 2023 , 196 , 112571. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qu, Z.; Zhang, Z.J.; Zhu, Y.K.; Liu, R.; Lu, S.L.; Li, S.J.; Duan, Q.Q.; Zhang, B.N.; Zhao, M.X.; Eckert, J.; et al. Coupling effects of microstructure and defects on the fatigue properties of laser powder bed fusion Ti-6Al-4V. Addit. Manuf. 2023 , 61 , 103355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, C.; Chen, J.; Hase, L.; Liu, Y. Image-based study on fatigue crack initiation mechanism of Ti-6Al-4V fabricated by laser-based powder bed fusion. Addit. Manuf. 2024 , 86 , 104216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Gut, A.; Burda, I.; Michel, S.; Gwerder, D.; Schuetz, P.; Romancuk, D.; Affolter, C. Investigation of individual lack-of-fusion defects in the fatigue performance of additive manufactured Ti6Al4V parts. 2024; under review . [ Google Scholar ]
• Biswal, R.; Syed, A.K.; Zhang, X. Assessment of the effect of isolated porosity defects on the fatigue performance of additive manufactured titanium alloy. Addit. Manuf. 2018 , 23 , 433–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Biswal, R.; Zhang, X.; Shamir, M.; Al Mamun, A.; Awd, M.; Walther, F.; Syed, A.K. Interrupted fatigue testing with periodic tomography to monitor porosity defects in wire + arc additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. Addit. Manuf. 2019 , 28 , 517–527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lauterbach, B.; Fieres, J.; Nigge, K.-M. Berücksichtigung von fertigungsbedingten Defekten in der strukturmechanischen Simulation. NAFEMS Mag. 2021 , 1 , 57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siddique, S.; Imran, M.; Rauer, M.; Kaloudis, M.; Wycisk, E.; Emmelmann, C.; Walther, F. Computed tomography for characterization of fatigue performance of selective laser melted parts. Mater. Des. 2015 , 83 , 661–669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wan, H.; Wang, Q.; Jia, C.; Zhang, Z. Multi-scale damage mechanics method for fatigue life prediction of additive manufacture structures of Ti-6Al-4V. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 2016 , 669 , 269–278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lukhi, M.; Kuna, M.; Hütter, G. Numerical investigation of low cycle fatigue mechanism in nodular cast iron. Int. J. Fatigue 2018 , 113 , 290–298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dinh, T.D.; Vanwalleghem, J.; Xiang, H.; Erdelyi, H.; Craeghs, T.; Paepegem, W.V. A unified approach to model the effect of porosity and high surface roughness on the fatigue properties of additively manufactured Ti6-Al4-V alloys. Addit. Manuf. 2020 , 33 , 101139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Su, Z. Effect of micro-defects on fatigue lifetime of additive manufactured 316L stainless steel under multiaxial loading. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2021 , 111 , 102849. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Gut, A.; Burda, I.; Michel, S.; Romancuk, D.; Affolter, C. The role of an individual lack-of-fusion defect in the fatigue performance of additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V parts. In Proceedings of the I-AM 2022 International Additive Manufacturing Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 19–20 October 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie, C.; Wu, S.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wang, G. Defect-correlated fatigue resistance of additively manufactured Al-Mg4.5Mn alloy with in situ micro-rolling. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2021 , 291 , 117039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shao, S.; Poudel, A.; Shamsaei, N. A linear elastic finite element approach to fatigue life estimation for defect laden materials. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2023 , 285 , 109298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murakami, Y.; Beretta, S. Small defects and inhomogeneities in fatigue strength: Experiments, models and statistical implications. Extremes 1999 , 2 , 123–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanaei, N.; Fatemi, A.; Phan, N. Defect characteristics and analysis of their variability in metal L-PBF additive manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2019 , 182 , 108091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yukitaka, M.; Masahiro, E. Quantitative evaluation of fatigue strength of metals containing various small defects or cracks. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1983 , 17 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sterling, A.J.; Torries, B.; Shamsaei, N.; Thompson, S.M.; Seely, D.W. Fatigue behavior and failure mechanisms of direct laser deposited Ti-6Al-4V. Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 2016 , 655 , 100–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vastola, G.; Pei, Q.X.; Zhang, Y.W. Predictive model for porosity in powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing at high beam energy regime. Addit. Manuf. 2018 , 22 , 817–822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wöhler, A. Versuche über die Festigkeit der Eisenbahnwagenachsen. Z. Für Bauwes. 1860 , 10 , 160–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Basquin, O.H. The exponential law of endurance tests. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Proc. 1910 , 10 , 625–630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, K.; Topper, T.; Watson, P. A stress-strain function for the fatigue of metals. J. Mater. 1970 , 5 , 767–778. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, T.L.; Anderson, T.L. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephens, R.I.; Fatemi, A.; Stephens, R.R.; Fuchs, H.O. Metal Fatigue in Engineering ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haile, J.M. Molecular Dynamics Simulation: Elementary Methods ; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirth, J.P.; Lothe, J.; Mura, T. Theory of dislocations. J. Appl. Mech. 1983 , 50 , 476–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dieter, G.E.; Bacon, D. Mechanical Metallurgy ; McGraw-hill: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, X.; Ma, W.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, S.; Tang, H. Ultra-high specific strength Ti6Al4V alloy lattice material manufactured via selective laser melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2022 , 840 , 142956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muiruri, A.; Maringa, M.; Preez, W.D. Evaluation of dislocation densities in various microstructures of additively manufactured Ti6Al4V (ELI) by the method of x-ray diffraction. Materials 2020 , 13 , 5355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shamir, M.; Syed, A.K.; Janik, V.; Biswal, R.; Zhang, X. The role of microstructure and local crystallographic orientation near porosity defects on the high cycle fatigue life of an additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V. Mater. Charact. 2020 , 169 , 110576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Signor, L.; Villechaise, P.; Ghidossi, T.; Lacoste, E.; Gueguen, M.; Courtin, S. Influence of local crystallographic configuration on microcrack initiation in fatigued 316LN stainless steel: Experiments and crystal plasticity finite elements simulations. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016 , 649 , 239–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Natkowski, E.; Durmaz, A.R.; Sonnweber-Ribic, P.; Münstermann, S. Fatigue lifetime prediction with a validated micromechanical short crack model for the ferritic steel EN 1.4003. Int. J. Fatigue 2021 , 152 , 106418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Musinski, W.D.; McDowell, D.L. Simulating the effect of grain boundaries on microstructurally small fatigue crack growth from a focused ion beam notch through a three-dimensional array of grains. Acta Mater. 2016 , 112 , 20–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farukh, F.; Zhao, L.; Jiang, R.; Reed, P.; Proprentner, D.; Shollock, B. Realistic microstructure-based modelling of cyclic deformation and crack growth using crystal plasticity. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2016 , 111 , 395–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuhn, J.; Schneider, M.; Sonnweber-Ribic, P.; Böhlke, T. Fast methods for computing centroidal Laguerre tessellations for prescribed volume fractions with applications to microstructure generation of polycrystalline materials. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2020 , 369 , 113175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDowell, D.; Dunne, F. Microstructure-sensitive computational modeling of fatigue crack formation. Int. J. Fatigue 2010 , 32 , 1521–1542. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castelluccio, G.M. A Study on the Influence of Microstructure on Small Fatigue Cracks. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrișor, S.M.; Savin, A.; Stanciu, M.D.; Prevorovsky, Z.; Soare, M.; Nový, F.; Steigmann, R. Complementary Methods for the Assessment of the Porosity of Laser Additive-Manufactured Titanium Alloy. Materials 2023 , 16 , 6383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ben, D.D.; Yang, H.J.; Ji, H.B.; Lian, D.L.; Meng, L.X.; Chen, J.; Yi, J.L.; Wang, L.; De Hosson, J.T.; Yang, R.; et al. Fatigue crack growth behavior in additive manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy with intentionally embedded spherical defect. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2023 , 885 , 145612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ansari, M.A.; Crampton, A.; Garrard, R.; Cai, B.; Attallah, M. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) classification to identify the presence of pores in powder bed fusion images. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2022 , 120 , 5133–5150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Walker, K.F.; Liu, Q.; Brandt, M. Evaluation of fatigue crack propagation behaviour in Ti-6Al-4V manufactured by selective laser melting. Int. J. Fatigue 2017 , 104 , 302–308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Toda, H.; Qu, P.C.; Sakaguchi, Y.; Kobayashi, M.; Uesugi, K.; Suzuki, Y. Three-dimensional fatigue crack growth behavior in an aluminum alloy investigated with in situ high-resolution synchrotron X-ray microtomography. Acta Mater. 2009 , 57 , 3287–3300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qian, W.; Wu, S.; Wu, Z.; Ahmed, S.; Zhang, W.; Qian, G.; Withers, P.J. In situ X-ray imaging of fatigue crack growth from multiple defects in additively manufactured AlSi10Mg alloy. Int. J. Fatigue 2022 , 155 , 106616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsay, L.; Shan, Y.-P.; Chao, Y.-H.; Shu, W. The influence of porosity on the fatigue crack growth behavior of Ti–6Al–4V laser welds. J. Mater. Sci. 2006 , 41 , 7498–7505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.; Hyun, S.; Kim, M.; Kim, M.; Ide, T.; Nakajima, H. Ductility improvement of intermetallic compound NiAl by unidirectional pores. Mater. Lett. 2012 , 74 , 213–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishurova, T.; Cabeza, S.; Artzt, K.; Haubrich, J.; Klaus, M.; Genzel, C.; Requena, G.; Bruno, G. An assessment of subsurface residual stress analysis in SLM Ti-6Al-4V. Materials 2017 , 10 , 348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhu, H.; Hu, Z.; Nagarajan, B.; Guo, L.; Zeng, X. Study of residual stress in selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V. Mater. Des. 2020 , 193 , 108846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yakout, M.; Elbestawi, M.; Veldhuis, S.C. A study of the relationship between thermal expansion and residual stresses in selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V. J. Manuf. Process. 2020 , 52 , 181–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Z.; Chen, C.; Hu, Z.; Zhu, H.; Zeng, X. Effect of rescanning cycles on the characteristics of selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V. Opt. Laser Technol. 2020 , 122 , 105890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, A.S.; Brown, D.W.; Kumar, M.; Gallegos, G.F.; King, W.E. An experimental investigation into additive manufacturing-induced residual stresses in 316L stainless steel. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2014 , 45 , 6260–6270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, C.; Liu, Z.; Fang, X.; Guo, Y. On the simulation scalability of predicting residual stress and distortion in selective laser melting. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2018 , 140 , 041013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beghini, M.; Bertini, L. Fatigue crack propagation through residual stress fields with closure phenomena. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1990 , 36 , 379–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vasudeven, A.; Sadananda, K.; Louat, N. A review of crack closure, fatigue crack threshold and related phenomena. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 1994 , 188 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murr, L.; Quinones, S.A.; Gaytan, S.M.; Lopez, M.I.; Rodela, A.; Martinez, E.Y.; Hernandez, D.H.; Martinez, E.; Medina, F.; Wicker, R.B. Microstructure and mechanical behavior of Ti–6Al–4V produced by rapid-layer manufacturing, for biomedical applications. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2009 , 2 , 20–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vandenbroucke, B.; Kruth, J.P. Selective laser melting of biocompatible metals for rapid manufacturing of medical parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2007 , 13 , 196–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vilaro, T.; Colin, C.; Bartout, J.-D. As-fabricated and heat-treated microstructures of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy processed by selective laser melting. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2011 , 42 , 3190–3199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vrancken, B.; Thijs, L.; Kruth, J.-P.; Van Humbeeck, J. Heat treatment of Ti6Al4V produced by Selective Laser Melting: Microstructure and mechanical properties. J. Alloys Compd. 2012 , 541 , 177–185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, J.; Yang, J.; Yu, H.; Yin, J.; Gao, M.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, X. Microstructure and mechanical property of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V dependence on laser energy density. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017 , 23 , 217–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.; Jia, D.; Yang, Z.; Liao, X.; Jin, H.; Cai, D.; Zhou, Y. Effect of heat treatment on microstructure evolution and mechanical properties of selective laser melted Ti–6Al–4V and TiB/Ti–6Al–4V composite: A comparative study. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2021 , 801 , 140415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, X.; Yin, S.; Chen, C.; Huang, C.; Bolot, R.; Lupoi, R.; Kuang, M.; Ma, W.; Coddet, C.; Liao, H.; et al. Effect of heat treatment on the phase transformation and mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V fabricated by selective laser melting. J. Alloys Compd. 2018 , 764 , 1056–1071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.-Y.; Fang, G.; Leeflang, S.; Böttger, A.J.; Zadpoor, A.A.; Zhou, J. Effect of subtransus heat treatment on the microstructure and mechanical properties of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2018 , 735 , 1562–1575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, S.; Lu, Y.; Gan, Y.; Huang, T.; Zhao, C.; Lin, J.; Guo, S.; Lin, J. Microstructural evolution and microhardness of a selective-laser-melted Ti–6Al–4V alloy after post heat treatments. J. Alloys Compd. 2016 , 672 , 643–652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, C.; Yu, H.; Wang, Z.; Yang, J.; Zeng, X. Controlling the tensile and fatigue properties of selective laser melted Ti–6Al–4V alloy by post treatment. J. Alloys Compd. 2021 , 857 , 157552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leyens, C.; Peters, M. Titanium and Titanium Alloys: Fundamentals and Applications ; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alegre, J.M.; Díaz, A.; García, R.; Peral, L.B.; Cuesta, I.I. Effect of HIP post-processing at 850 °C/200 MPa in the fatigue behavior of Ti-6Al-4V alloy fabricated by Selective Laser Melting. Int. J. Fatigue 2022 , 163 , 107097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simonelli, M.; Tse, Y.Y.; Tuck, C. Effect of the build orientation on the mechanical properties and fracture modes of SLM Ti–6Al–4V. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014 , 616 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lütjering, G.; Williams, J.C. Titanium Matrix Composites ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moridi, A.; Demir, A.G.; Caprio, L.; Hart, A.J.; Previtali, B.; Colosimo, B.M. Deformation and failure mechanisms of Ti–6Al–4V as built by selective laser melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019 , 768 , 138456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leuders, S.; Thöne, M.; Riemer, A.; Niendorf, T.; Tröster, T.; Richard, H.A.; Maier, H.J. On the mechanical behaviour of titanium alloy TiAl6V4 manufactured by selective laser melting: Fatigue resistance and crack growth performance. Int. J. Fatigue 2013 , 48 , 300–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Plessis, A.D.; Macdonald, E. Hot isostatic pressing in metal additive manufacturing: X-ray tomography reveals details of pore closure. Addit. Manuf. 2020 , 34 , 101191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, C.; Chi, W.; Wang, W.; Duan, Y. Characteristic and mechanism of crack initiation and early growth of an additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V in very high cycle fatigue regime. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2021 , 205 , 106591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, L.-L.; Fei, Y.-H.; Liu, X.-Y.; Li, M.-X. On the formation mechanisms of fine granular area (FGA) on the fracture surface for high strength steels in the VHCF regime. Int. J. Fatigue 2016 , 82 , 402–410. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hills, M.A.; Malcolm, J.S.; Dhansay, N.M.; Becker, T.H. High cycle fatigue strength of hot isostatically pressed and chemically etched laser powder bed fusion produced Ti-6Al-4V. Int. J. Fatigue 2023 , 175 , 107774. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, J.; Yang, Z.; Qian, G.; Berto, F. Machine learning based very-high-cycle fatigue life prediction of Ti-6Al-4V alloy fabricated by selective laser melting. Int. J. Fatigue 2022 , 158 , 106764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horňas, J.; Běhal, J.; Homola, P.; Senck, S.; Holzleitner, M.; Godja, N.; Pásztor, Z.; Hegedüs, B.; Doubrava, R.; Růžek, R.; et al. Modelling fatigue life prediction of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V samples using machine learning approach. Int. J. Fatigue 2023 , 169 , 107483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Li, B.; Xuan, F.-Z. Fatigue-life prediction of additively manufactured metals by continuous damage mechanics (CDM)-informed machine learning with sensitive features. Int. J. Fatigue 2022 , 164 , 107147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, Y.; Zhang, B.; Feng, X.; Song, Z.M.; Qi, X.B.; Li, C.P.; Chen, G.F.; Zhang, G.P. Pore-affected fatigue life scattering and prediction of additively manufactured Inconel 718: An investigation based on miniature specimen testing and machine learning approach. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2021 , 802 , 140693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhan, Z.; Hu, W.; Meng, Q. Data-driven fatigue life prediction in additive manufactured titanium alloy: A damage mechanics based machine learning framework. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2021 , 252 , 107850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhan, Z.; Li, H. Machine learning based fatigue life prediction with effects of additive manufacturing process parameters for printed SS 316L. Int. J. Fatigue 2021 , 142 , 105941. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhan, Z.; Li, H. A novel approach based on the elastoplastic fatigue damage and machine learning models for life prediction of aerospace alloy parts fabricated by additive manufacturing. Int. J. Fatigue 2021 , 145 , 106089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, Y.; Fu, R.; Ling, C.; Shen, Z.; Zheng, L.; Zhong, Z.; Hong, Y. Fatigue life prediction based on a deep learning method for Ti-6Al-4V fabricated by laser powder bed fusion up to very-high-cycle fatigue regime. Int. J. Fatigue 2023 , 172 , 107645. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salvati, E.; Tognan, A.; Laurenti, L.; Pelegatti, M.; De Bona, F. A defect-based physics-informed machine learning framework for fatigue finite life prediction in additive manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2022 , 222 , 111089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murakami, Y.; Endo, M. Effects of hardness and crack geometries on delta k sub th of small cracks emanating from small defects. In The Behaviour of Short Fatigue Cracks ; Mechanical Engineering Publications: London, UK, 1986; pp. 275–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ciampaglia, A.; Tridello, A.; Paolino, D.; Berto, F. Data driven method for predicting the effect of process parameters on the fatigue response of additive manufactured AlSi10Mg parts. Int. J. Fatigue 2023 , 170 , 107500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Li, Z.; Affolter, C. High-Cycle Fatigue Performance of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Ti-6Al-4V Alloy with Inherent Internal Defects: A Critical Literature Review. Metals 2024 , 14 , 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14090972

Li Z, Affolter C. High-Cycle Fatigue Performance of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Ti-6Al-4V Alloy with Inherent Internal Defects: A Critical Literature Review. Metals . 2024; 14(9):972. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14090972

Li, Zongchen, and Christian Affolter. 2024. "High-Cycle Fatigue Performance of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Ti-6Al-4V Alloy with Inherent Internal Defects: A Critical Literature Review" Metals 14, no. 9: 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14090972

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

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
• NEWS EXPLAINER
• 28 August 2024

Mpox is spreading rapidly. Here are the questions researchers are racing to answer

• Sara Reardon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Monkeypox virus particles (shown in this coloured electron micrograph) can spread through close contact with people and animals. Credit: NIAID/Science Photo Library

When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public-health emergency over mpox earlier this month , it was because a concerning form of the virus that causes the disease had spread to multiple African countries where it had never been seen before. Since then, two people travelling to Africa — one from Sweden and one from Thailand — have become infected with that type of virus, called clade 1b, and brought it back to their countries.

Monkeypox virus: dangerous strain gains ability to spread through sex, new data suggest

Although researchers have known about the current outbreak since late last year, the need for answers about it is now more pressing than ever. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has spent decades grappling with monkeypox clade I virus — a lineage to which Ib belongs. But in the past, clade I infections usually arose when a person came into contact with wild animals, and outbreaks would fizzle.

Clade Ib seems different, and is spreading largely through contact between humans, including through sex . Around 18,000 suspected cases of mpox, many of them among children, and at least 600 deaths potentially attributable to the disease have been reported this year in the DRC alone.

How does this emergency compare with one declared in 2022, when mpox cases spread around the globe? How is this virus behaving compared with the version that triggered that outbreak, a type called clade II? And will Africa be able to rein this one in? Nature talks with researchers about information they are rushing to gather.

Is clade Ib more deadly than the other virus types?

It’s hard to determine, says Jason Kindrachuk, a virologist at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. He says that the DRC is experiencing two outbreaks simultaneously. The clade I virus, which has been endemic in forested regions of the DRC for decades, circulates in rural regions where people get it from animals. That clade was renamed Ia after the discovery of clade Ib. Studies in animals suggest that clade I is deadlier than clade II 1 — but Kindrachuk says that it’s hard to speculate on what that means for humans at this point.

Even when not fatal, mpox can trigger fevers, aches and painful fluid-filled skin lesions.

Growing mpox outbreak prompts WHO to declare global health emergency

Although many reports state that 10% of clade I infections in humans are fatal, infectious-disease researcher Laurens Liesenborghs at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium, doubts that this figure is accurate. Even the WHO’s latest estimate of a 3.5% fatality rate for people with mpox in the DRC might be high.

There are many reasons that fatality estimates might be unreliable, Liesenborghs says. For one, surveillance data captures only the most severe cases; many people who are less ill might not seek care at hospitals or through physicians, so their infections go unreported.

Another factor that can confound fatality rates is a secondary health condition. For example, people living with HIV — who can represent a large proportion of the population in many African countries — die from mpox at twice the rate of the general population 2 , especially if their HIV is untreated. And the relatively high death rate among children under age 5 could be partly because of malnutrition, which is common among kids in rural parts of the DRC, Liesenborghs says.

Is clade Ib more transmissible than other types?

The clade 1b virus has garnered particular attention because epidemiological data suggest that it transmits more readily between people than previous strains did, including through sexual activity, whereas clade Ia mostly comes from animals. An analysis posted ahead of peer review on the preprint server medRxiv 3 shows that clade Ib’s genome contains genetic mutations that seem to have been induced by the human immune system, suggesting that it has been in humans for some time. Clade Ia genomes have fewer of these mutations.

But Liesenborghs says that the mutations and clades might not be the most important factor in understanding how monkeypox virus spreads. Although distinguishing Ia from Ib is useful in tracking the disease, he says, the severity and transmissibility of the disease could be affected more by the region where the virus is circulating and the people there. Clade Ia, for instance, seems to be more common in sparsely populated rural regions where it is less likely to spread far. Clade Ib is cropping up in densely populated areas and spreading more readily.

Jean Nachega, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, says that scientists don’t understand many aspects of mpox transmission — they haven’t even determined which animal serves as a reservoir for the virus in the wild, although rodents are able to carry it. “We have to be very humble,” Nachega says.

How effective are vaccines against the clade I virus?

Just as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts are looking to vaccines to help curb this mpox outbreak. Although there are no vaccines designed specifically against the monkeypox virus, there are two vaccines proven to ward off a related poxvirus — the one that causes smallpox. Jynneos, made by biotechnology company Bavarian Nordic in Hellerup, Denmark, contains a type of poxvirus that can’t replicate but can trigger an immune response. LC16m8, made by pharmaceutical company KM Biologics in Kumamoto, Japan, contains a live — but weakened — version of a different poxvirus strain.

Hopes dashed for drug aimed at monkeypox virus spreading in Africa

Still, it’s unclear how effective these smallpox vaccines are against mpox generally. Dimie Ogoina, an infectious-disease specialist at Niger Delta University in Wilberforce Island, Nigeria, points out that vaccines have been tested only against clade II virus in European and US populations, because these shots were distributed by wealthy nations during the 2022 global outbreak . And those recipients were primarily young, healthy men who have sex with men, a population that was particularly susceptible during that outbreak. One study in the United States found that one dose of Jynneos was 80% effective at preventing the disease in at-risk people, whereas two doses were 82% effective 4 ; the WHO recommends getting both jabs.

People in Africa infected with either the clade Ia or 1b virus — especially children and those with compromised immune systems — might respond differently. However, one study in the DRC found that the Jynneos vaccine generally raised antibodies against mpox in about 1,000 health-care workers who received it 5 .

But researchers are trying to fill in some data gaps. A team in the DRC is about to launch a clinical trial of Jynneos in people who have come into close contact with the monkeypox virus — but have not shown symptoms — to see whether it can prevent future infection, or improve outcomes if an infection arises.

Will the vaccines help to rein in the latest outbreak?

Mpox vaccines have been largely unavailable in Africa, but several wealthy countries have pledged to donate doses to the DRC and other affected African nations. The United States has offered 50,000 Jynneos doses from its national stockpile, and the European Union has ordered 175,000, with individual member countries pledging extra doses. Bavarian Nordic has also added another 40,000. Japan has offered 3.5 million doses of LC16m8 — for which only one jab is recommended instead of two.

Monkeypox in Africa: the science the world ignored

None of them have arrived yet, though, says Espoir Bwenge Malembaka, an epidemiologist at the Catholic University of Bukavu in the DRC. Low- and middle-income nations cannot receive vaccines until the WHO has deemed the jabs safe and effective. And the WHO has not given its thumbs up yet. It is evaluating data from vaccine manufacturers, delaying donors’ ability to send the vaccines.

Even when the vaccines arrive, Bwenge Malembaka says, “it’s really a drop in the bucket”. The African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, estimates that 10 million doses are needed to rein in the outbreak.

Bwenge Malembaka says that the uncertainty over vaccine arrival has made it difficult for the government to form a distribution plan. “I don’t know how one can go about this kind of challenge,” he says. Bwenge Malembaka suspects that children are likely to receive doses first, because they are highly vulnerable to clade I, but officials haven’t decided which regions to target. It’s also unclear how the government would prioritize other vulnerable populations such as sex workers, who have been affected by clade Ib. Their profession is criminalized in the DRC, so they might not be able to come forward for treatment.

Researchers lament that public-health organizations didn’t provide vaccines and other resources as soon as the clade I outbreak was identified, especially given lessons learnt from the 2022 global mpox outbreak. “The opportunity was there a couple months ago to cut this transmission chain, but resources weren’t available,” Liesenborghs says. “Now, it will be more challenging to tackle this outbreak, and the population at risk is much broader.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02793-9

Americo, J. L., Earl, P. L. & Moss, B. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120 , e2220415120 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yinka-Ogunleye, A. et al. BMJ Glob. Health 8 , e013126 (2023).

Kinganda-Lusamaki, E. et al. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.13.24311951 (2024).

Yeganeh, N. et al. Vaccine 42 , 125987 (2024).

Priyamvada, L. et al. Vaccine 40 , 7321–7327 (2022).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Public health

Mysterious Oropouche virus is spreading: what you should know

News Q&A 26 AUG 24

Birth of protein folds and functions in the virome

Article 26 AUG 24

First biolab in South America for studying world’s deadliest viruses is set to open

News 21 AUG 24

Detecting hidden brain injuries

Outlook 29 AUG 24

Spatially clustered type I interferon responses at injury borderzones

Article 28 AUG 24

What accelerates brain ageing? This AI ‘brain clock’ points to answers

News 27 AUG 24

Extreme heat is a huge killer — these local approaches can keep people safe

News 22 AUG 24

Permanent Researcher Positions for Materials Science

NIMS (Tsukuba, Japan) invites international applications from researchers who can conduct research in materials science.

Tsukuba, Ibaraki (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS)

Osaka University Immunology Frontier Research Center Postdoctoral Researcher

IFReC, Osaka University in Japan offers Advanced Postdoc Positions for Immunology, Cell Biology, Bioinformatics and Bioimaging.

Suita Campus, Osaka University in Osaka, Japan

Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University

Tenure-track Associate Professor [Female Only]

Seeking tenure-track assoc. professor for interdisciplinary research in nanoprobe life sciences or related fields at WPI Nano Life Science Institute.

Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan (JP)

Nano Life Science Institute, Kanazawa University

Assistant/Associate Professor

Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is seeking Assistant or Associate Professor.

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC)

OPEN FACULTY POSITION-INSTITUTE OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, ACADEMIA SINICA, TAIWAN, ROC

One tenure-track faculty position is open to establish an active research program in all disciplines of molecular and cellular biology.

Taipei (TW)

The Institute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan

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