Guide
Literature review example
A worked literature review example shows the difference between a critical synthesis and a string of summaries, and illustrates how a review is structured and organised around themes.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
What a good review looks like
A strong literature review synthesises rather than describes. Each paragraph makes a point about the field — a theme, a tension, an emerging consensus — and supports it with several sources, comparing and weighing them. It signals where studies agree, where they conflict and why, and it judges quality, giving more weight to robust evidence. Crucially, it builds toward a gap: by the end, the reader understands not only what is known but what is missing, which sets up the writer’s own research question. The writer’s voice frames the literature; the sources serve the argument, not the other way round.
What a poor review looks like
A weak review is an annotated list. It devotes one paragraph to each source in turn — "Smith (2019) found… Jones (2020) found…" — with no connections drawn between them and no evaluation of quality. It summarises rather than synthesises, treats every study as equally authoritative, and never arrives at a gap or argument. Other common failings are a search that is too narrow or out of date, reliance on a handful of convenient sources, and description that simply restates each abstract. The reader finishes knowing what individual papers said but not what the field, as a whole, shows.
The structure of a worked example
A typical review opens with an introduction that states the topic, its importance and the review’s scope and organising logic. The body is divided into thematic sections, each gathering the studies relevant to one concept or debate and ending with a short synthesis of what that cluster shows. A brief methods note may describe how sources were found, especially in systematic or scoping reviews. The conclusion draws the themes together, states what is established and what remains contested, and identifies the gap the writer will pursue. A full, consistently styled reference list closes the piece.
Thematic versus chronological organisation
The two most common organising patterns are thematic and chronological. Thematic organisation groups studies by topic, concept or methodological approach, so the review reads as an analysis of issues rather than a parade of papers; it is the default for most reviews because it foregrounds synthesis. Chronological organisation orders studies by date, which suits topics where the aim is to trace how understanding has evolved or where a key turning point reshaped the field. The two are often combined — thematic at the top level, with chronological sequencing inside a theme where the historical development is itself the point. Whichever you choose, signpost it in the introduction so the reader can follow the logic.
Key facts
At a glance
- Good review: synthesises and evaluates sources around themes, builds to a gap
- Poor review: summarises one source per paragraph with no connections
- Core skill: synthesis — drawing links across studies, not describing each
- Structure: introduction, thematically grouped body, conclusion, references
- Default order: thematic; chronological when tracing how thinking developed
- Signpost it: state the organising logic in the introduction
Common questions
FAQ
What is the difference between summarising and synthesising in a literature review?+
Summarising restates what one source says, one at a time. Synthesising combines findings across several sources to make a point about the field — showing where studies agree, conflict or leave gaps. A review built on summary reads as a list; a review built on synthesis reads as an argument. Synthesis is the skill that distinguishes a strong review from a weak one.
Where can I find good literature review examples?+
Published systematic reviews in databases such as the Cochrane Library and the introduction or background sections of well-regarded journal articles and dissertations are strong models. University library and writing-centre guides often provide annotated examples. When studying one, look at how it groups sources thematically, evaluates quality and builds toward a research gap, rather than copying its wording.
How long should a literature review be?+
Length depends on the context. A review chapter in a thesis may run to several thousand words; a review section in a journal article is far shorter; a standalone systematic review varies with the evidence found. Rather than aiming at a word count, cover the key and representative literature thoroughly enough to establish the gap your work addresses.
