literature review summary and conclusion

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without....

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Find This link opens in a new window
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Not every source you found should be included in your annotated bibliography or lit review. Only include the most relevant and most important sources.

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Summarize your Sources

Summarize each source: Determine the most important and relevant information from each source, such as the findings, methodology, theories, etc.  Consider using an article summary, or study summary to help you organize and summarize your sources.

Paraphrasing

• Use your own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract
• The library's tutorials about plagiarism are excellent, and will help you with paraphasing correctly

Annotated Bibliographies

     Annotated bibliographies can help you clearly see and understand the research before diving into organizing and writing your literature review.        Although typically part of the "summarize" step of the literature review, annotations should not merely be summaries of each article - instead, they should be critical evaluations of the source, and help determine a source's usefulness for your lit review.  

Definition:

A list of citations on a particular topic followed by an evaluation of the source’s argument and other relevant material including its intended audience, sources of evidence, and methodology

• Explore your topic.
• Appraise issues or factors associated with your professional practice and research topic.
• Help you get started with the literature review.
• Think critically about your topic, and the literature.

Steps to Creating an Annotated Bibliography:

• Find Your Sources
• Read Your Sources
• Identify the Most Relevant Sources
• Cite your Sources
• Write Annotations

Annotated Bibliography Resources

• Purdue Owl Guide
• Cornell Annotated Bibliography Guide
• << Previous: Evaluate
• Next: Synthesize >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

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.

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 summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write 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, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will 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 scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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 objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. 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 if 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 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 use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

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?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• 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 find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

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’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference 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.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to 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 organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

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 summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse 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 organise 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.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, 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 transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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 dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

• To familiarise 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  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

Learn how to write a review of literature

What is a review of literature.

The format of a review of literature may vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to assignment.

A review may be a self-contained unit — an end in itself — or a preface to and rationale for engaging in primary research. A review is a required part of grant and research proposals and often a chapter in theses and dissertations.

Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.

Writing the introduction

In the introduction, you should:

Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.

Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.

Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).

Writing the body

In the body, you should:

Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.

Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.

Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.

Writing the conclusion

In the conclusion, you should:

Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.

Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.

Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.

For further information see our handouts on Writing a Critical Review of a Nonfiction Book or Article or Reading a Book to Review It .

To learn more about literature reviews, take a look at our workshop on Writing Literature Reviews of Published Research.

Sample Literature Reviews

An important strategy for learning how to compose literature reviews in your field or within a specific genre is to locate and analyze representative examples. The following collection of annotated sample literature reviews written and co-written by colleagues associated with UW-Madison showcases how these reviews can do different kind of work for different purposes. Use these successful examples as a starting point for understanding how other writers have approached the challenging and important task of situating their idea in the context of established research.

• Sample 1 (PDF) A brief literature review within a political scientists’  National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship  grant
• Sample 2 (PDF) A several-page literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about philosophy
• Sample 3 (PDF) A brief literature review at the beginning of a published, academic article about photochemistry

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review

• Step #1: Choosing a Topic
• Step #2: Finding Information
• Step #3: Evaluating Content
• Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• #5 Writing the Review
• Citing Your Sources

WRITING THE REVIEW 

You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.

The actual review generally has 5 components:

Abstract  -  An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:

• A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
• Your thesis statement
• A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
• Summarize your findings
• Conclusion(s) based upon your findings

Introduction :   Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
• Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)  - 

Body :  The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-

• Chronological -  by publication or by trend
• Thematic -  organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
• Methodical -  the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing

You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.

Conclusion :  In the conclusion, you should:

Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography :   Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.

• Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
• Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
• << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• General Education Courses
• School of Business
• School of Design
• School of Education
• School of Health Sciences
• School of Justice Studies
• School of Nursing
• School of Technology
• CBE Student Guide
• Online Library
• Ask a Librarian
• Learning Express Library
• Interlibrary Loan Request Form
• Library Staff
• Databases A-to-Z
• Articles by Subject
• Discovery Search
• Publication Finder
• Video Databases
• NoodleTools
• Library Guides
• Course Guides
• Writing Lab
• Rasmussen Technical Support (PSC)
• Copyright Toolkit
• Faculty Toolkit
• Suggest a Purchase
• Refer a Student Tutor
• Live Lecture/Peer Tutor Scheduler
• Faculty Interlibrary Loan Request Form
• Professional Development Databases
• Publishing Guide
• Professional Development Guides (AAOPD)
• Literature Review Guide

The Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• Plan Your Literature Review
• Identify a Research Gap
• Define Your Research Question
• Search the Literature
• Analyze Your Research Results
• Manage Research Results
• Write the Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?  What is its purpose?

The purpose of a literature review is to offer a  comprehensive review of scholarly literature on a specific topic along with an  evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of authors' arguments . In other words, you are summarizing research available on a certain topic and then drawing conclusions about researchers' findings. To make gathering research easier, be sure to start with a narrow/specific topic and then widen your topic if necessary.

A thorough literature review provides an accurate description of current knowledge on a topic and identifies areas for future research.  Are there gaps or areas that require further study and exploration? What opportunities are there for further research? What is missing from my collection of resources? Are more resources needed?

It is important to note that conclusions described in the literature you gather may contradict each other completely or in part.  Recognize that knowledge creation is collective and cumulative.  Current research is built upon past research findings and discoveries.  Research may bring previously accepted conclusions into question.  A literature review presents current knowledge on a topic and may point out various academic arguments within the discipline.

What a Literature Review is not

• A literature review is not an annotated bibliography .  An annotated bibliography provides a brief summary, analysis, and reflection of resources included in the bibliography.  Often it is not a systematic review of existing research on a specific subject.  That said, creating an annotated bibliography throughout your research process may be helpful in managing the resources discovered through your research.
• A literature review is not a research paper .  A research paper explores a topic and uses resources discovered through the research process to support a position on the topic.  In other words, research papers present one side of an issue.  A literature review explores all sides of the research topic and evaluates all positions and conclusions achieved through the scientific research process even though some conclusions may conflict partially or completely.

From the Online Library

SAGE Research Methods is a web-based research methods tool that covers quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Researchers can explore methods and concepts to help design research projects, understand a particular method or identify a new method, and write up research. Sage Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, and is of potential use to researchers from the social sciences, health sciences and other research areas.

• Sage Research Methods Project Planner - Reviewing the Literature View the resources and videos for a step-by-step guide to performing a literature review.

The Literature Review: Step by Step

Follow this step-by-step process by using the related tabs in this Guide.

• Define your Research question
• Analyze the material you’ve found
• Manage the results of your research
• Write your Review

Getting Started

Consider the following questions as you develop your research topic, conduct your research, and begin evaluating the resources discovered in the research process:

• What is known about the subject?
• Are there any gaps in the knowledge of the subject?
• Have areas of further study been identified by other researchers that you may want to consider?
• Who are the significant research personalities in this area?
• Is there consensus about the topic?
• What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic?
• What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?
• What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed?
• What is the current status of research in this area?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?

What is Academic Literature?

What is the difference between popular and scholarly literature?

To better understand the differences between popular and scholarly articles, comparing characteristics and purpose of the publications where these articles appear is helpful.

Popular Article (Magazine)

• Articles are shorter and are written for the general public
• General interest topics or current events are covered
• Language is simple and easy to understand
• Source material is not cited
• Articles often include glossy photographs, graphics, or visuals
• Articles are written by the publication's staff of journalists
• Articles are edited and information is fact checked

Examples of magazines that contain popular articles:

Scholarly Article (Academic Journal)

• Articles are written by scholars and researchers for academics, professionals, and experts in the field
• Articles are longer and report original research findings
• Topics are narrower in focus and provide in-depth analysis
• Technical or scholarly language is used
• Source material is cited
• Charts and graphs illustrating research findings are included
• Many are  "peer reviewed"  meaning that panels of experts review articles submitted for publication to ensure that proper research methods were used and research findings are contributing something new to the field before selecting for publication.

Examples of academic journals that contain scholarly articles:

Define your research question

Selecting a research topic can be overwhelming.  Consider following these steps:

1.  Brainstorm  research topic ideas

      - Free write: Set a timer for five minutes and write down as many ideas as you can in the allotted time

      -  Mind-Map  to explore how ideas are related

2.  Prioritize  topics based on personal interest and curiosity

3.  Pre-research

      - Explore encyclopedias and reference books for background information on the topic

      - Perform a quick database or Google search on the topic to explore current issues. 

4.  Focus the topic  by evaluating how much information is available on the topic

         - Too much information?  Consider narrowing the topic by focusing on a specific issue 

         - Too little information?  Consider broadening the topic 

5.  Determine your purpose  by considering whether your research is attempting to:

         - further the research on this topic

         - fill a gap in the research

         - support existing knowledge with new evidence

         - take a new approach or direction

         - question or challenge existing knowledge

6.  Finalize your research question

NOTE:  Be aware that your initial research question may change as you conduct research on your topic.

Searching the Literature

Research on your topic should be conducted in the academic literature.  The  Rasmussen University Online Library contains subject-focused databases that contain the leading academic journals in your programmatic area.

Consult the  Using the Online Library video tutorials  for information about how to effectively search library databases.

Watch the video below for tips on how to create a search statement that will provide relevant results

Need help starting your research?  Make a  research appointment with a Rasmussen Librarian .

TIP:  Document as you research.  Begin building your references list using the citation managers in one of these resources:

• APA Academic Writer

Recommended programmatic databases include:

Data Science

Coverage includes computer engineering, computer theory & systems, research and development, and the social and professional implications of new technologies. Articles come from more than 1,900 academic journals, trade magazines, and professional publications.

Provides access to full-text peer-reviewed journals, transactions, magazines, conference proceedings, and published standards in the areas of electrical engineering, computer science, and electronics. It also provides access to the IEEE Standards Dictionary Online. Full-text available.

Computing, telecommunications, art, science and design databases from ProQuest.

Healthcare Management

Articles from scholarly business journals back as far as 1886 with content from all disciplines of business, including marketing, management, accounting, management information systems, production and operations management, finance, and economics. Contains 55 videos from the Harvard Faculty Seminar Series, on topics such as leadership, sustaining competitive advantage, and globalization. To access the videos, click "More" in the blue bar at the top. Select "Images/ Business Videos." Uncheck "Image Quick View Collection" to indicate you only wish to search for videos. Enter search terms.

Provides a truly comprehensive business research collection. The collection consists of the following databases and more: ABI/INFORM Complete, ProQuest Entrepreneurship, ProQuest Accounting & Tax, International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS), ProQuest Asian Business and Reference, and Banking Information Source.

The definitive research tool for all areas of nursing and allied health literature. Geared towards the needs of nurses and medical professionals. Covers more than 750 journals from 1937 to present.

HPRC provides information on the creation, implementation and study of health care policy and the health care system. Topics covered include health care administration, economics, planning, law, quality control, ethics, and more.

PolicyMap is an online mapping site that provides data on demographics, real estate, health, jobs, and other areas across the U.S. Access and visualize data from Census and third-party records.

Human Resources

Articles from all subject areas gathered from more than 11,000 magazines, journals, books and reports. Subjects include astronomy, multicultural studies, humanities, geography, history, law, pharmaceutical sciences, women's studies, and more. Coverage from 1887 to present. Start your research here.

Cochrane gathers and summarizes the best evidence from research to help you make informed choices about treatments. Whether a doctor or nurse, patient, researcher or student, Cochrane evidence provides a tool to enhance your healthcare knowledge and decision making on topics ranging from allergies, blood disorders, and cancer, to mental health, pregnancy, urology, and wounds.

Health sciences, biology, science, and pharmaceutical information from ProQuest. Includes articles from scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, practical and professional development content from professional journals, and general interest articles from magazines and newspapers.

Joanna Briggs Institute Academic Collection contains evidence-based information from across the globe, including evidence summaries, systematic reviews, best practice guidelines, and more. Subjects include medical, nursing, and healthcare specialties.

Comprehensive source of full-text articles from more than 1,450 scholarly medical journals.

Articles from more than 35 nursing journals in full text, searchable as far back as 1995.

Analyzing Your Research Results

You have completed your research and discovered many, many academic articles on your topic.  The next step involves evaluating and organizing the literature found in the research process.

As you review, keep in mind that there are three types of research studies:

• Quantitative
• Qualitative 
• Mixed Methods

Consider these questions as you review the articles you have gathered through the research process:

1. Does the study relate to your topic?

2. Were sound research methods used in conducting the study?

3. Does the research design fit the research question? What variables were chosen? Was the sample size adequate?

4. What conclusions were drawn?  Do the authors point out areas for further research?

Reading Academic Literature

Academic journals publish the results of research studies performed by experts in an academic discipline.  Articles selected for publication go through a rigorous peer-review process.  This process includes a thorough evaluation of the research submitted for publication by journal editors and other experts or peers in the field.  Editors select articles based on specific criteria including the research methods used, whether the research contributes new findings to the field of study, and how the research fits within the scope of the academic journal.  Articles selected often go through a revision process prior to publication.

Most academic journal articles include the following sections:

• Abstract    (An executive summary of the study)
• Introduction  (Definition of the research question to be studied)
• Literature Review  (A summary of past research noting where gaps exist)
• Methods  (The research design including variables, sample size, measurements)
• Data   (Information gathered through the study often displayed in tables and charts)
• Results   (Conclusions reached at the end of the study)
• Conclusion   (Discussion of whether the study proved the thesis; may suggest opportunities for further research)
• Bibliography  (A list of works cited in the journal article)

TIP:  To begin selecting articles for your research, read the   highlighted sections   to determine whether the academic journal article includes information relevant to your research topic.

Step 1: Skim the article

When sorting through multiple articles discovered in the research process, skimming through these sections of the article will help you determine whether the article will be useful in your research.

1.  Article title   and subject headings assigned to the article

2.   Abstract

3.   Introduction

4.  Conclusion

If the article fits your information need, go back and  read the article thoroughly.

TIP:  Create a folder on your computer to save copies of articles you plan to use in your thesis or research project.  Use  NoodleTools  or  APA Academic Writer  to save APA references.

Step 2: Determine Your Purpose

Think about how you will evaluate the academic articles you find and how you will determine whether to include them in your research project.  Ask yourself the following questions to focus your search in the academic literature:

• ​Are you looking for an overview of a topic? an explanation of a specific concept, idea, or position?
• Are you exploring gaps in the research to identify a new area for academic study?
• Are you looking for research that supports or disagrees with your thesis or research question?
• Are you looking for examples of a research design and/or research methods you are considering for your own research project?

Step 3: Read Critically

Before reading the article, ask yourself the following:

• What is my research question?  What position am I trying to support?
• What do I already know about this topic?  What do I need to learn?
• How will I evaluate the article?  Author's reputation? Research design? Treatment of topic? 
• What are my biases about the topic?

As you read the article make note of the following:

• Who is the intended audience for this article?
• What is the author's purpose in writing this article?
• What is the main point?
• How was the main point proven or supported?  
• Were scientific methods used in conducting the research?
• Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why?
• How does this article compare or connect with other articles on the topic?
• Does the author recommend areas for further study?
• How does this article help to answer your research question?

Managing your Research

Tip:  Create APA references for resources as you discover them in the research process

Use APA Academic Writer or NoodleTools to generate citations and manage your resources.  Find information on how to use these resources in the Citation Tools Guide .

Writing the Literature Review

Once research has been completed, it is time to structure the literature review and begin summarizing and synthesizing information.  The following steps may help with this process:

• Chronological
• By research method used
• Explore contradictory or conflicting conclusions
• Read each study critically
• Critique methodology, processes, and conclusions
• Consider how the study relates to your topic

• Description of public health nursing nutrition assessment and interventions for home‐visited women. This article provides a nice review of the literature in the article introduction. You can see how the authors have used the existing literature to make a case for their research questions. more... less... Horning, M. L., Olsen, J. M., Lell, S., Thorson, D. R., & Monsen, K. A. (2018). Description of public health nursing nutrition assessment and interventions for home‐visited women. Public Health Nursing, 35(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12410
• Improving Diabetes Self-Efficacy in the Hispanic Population Through Self-Management Education Doctoral papers are a good place to see how literature reviews can be done. You can learn where they searched, what search terms they used, and how they decided which articles were included. Notice how the literature review is organized around the three main themes that came out of the literature search. more... less... Robles, A. N. (2023). Improving diabetes self-efficacy in the hispanic population through self-management education (Order No. 30635901). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Sciences and Engineering Collection. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/improving-diabetes-self-efficacy-hispanic/docview/2853708553/se-2
• Exploring mediating effects between nursing leadership and patient safety from a person-centred perspective: A literature review Reading articles that publish the results of a systematic literature review is a great way to see in detail how a literature review is conducted. These articles provide an article matrix, which provides you an example of how you can document information about the articles you find in your own search. To see more examples, include "literature review" or "systematic review" as a search term. more... less... Wang, M., & Dewing, J. (2021). Exploring mediating effects between nursing leadership and patient safety from a person‐centred perspective: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(5), 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13226

Database Search Tips

• Boolean Operators
• Keywords vs. Subjects
• Creating a Search String
• Library databases are collections of resources that are searchable, including full-text articles, books, and encyclopedias.
• Searching library databases is different than searching Google. Best results are achieved when using Keywords linked with Boolean Operators . 
• Applying Limiters such as full-text, publication date, resource type, language, geographic location, and subject help to refine search results.
• Utilizing Phrases or Fields , in addition to an awareness of Stop Words , can focus your search and retrieve more useful results.
• Have questions? Ask a Librarian

Boolean Operators connect keywords or concepts logically to retrieve relevant articles, books, and other resources.  There are three Boolean Operators:

Using AND 

• Narrows search results
• Connects two or more keywords/concepts
• All keywords/concepts connected with "and" must be in an article or resource to appear in the search results list

Venn diagram of the AND connector

Example: The result list will include resources that include both keywords -- "distracted driving" and "texting" -- in the same article or resource, represented in the shaded area where the circles intersect (area shaded in purple).

• Broadens search results ("OR means more!")
• Connects two or more synonyms or related keywords/concepts
• Resources appearing in the results list will include any of the terms connected with the OR connector

Venn diagram of the OR connector

Example:  The result list will include resources that include the keyword "texting" OR the keyword "cell phone" (entire area shaded in blue); either is acceptable.

• Excludes keywords or concepts from the search
• Narrows results by removing resources that contain the keyword or term connected with the NOT connector
• Use sparingly

Venn diagram of the NOT connector

Example: The result list will include all resources that include the term "car" (green area) but will exclude any resource that includes the term "motorcycle" (purple area) even though the term car may be present in the resource.

A library database searches for keywords throughout the entire resource record including the full-text of the resource, subject headings, tags, bibliographic information, etc.

• Natural language words or short phrases that describe a concept or idea
• Can retrieve too few or irrelevant results due to full-text searching (What words would an author use to write about this topic?)
• Provide flexibility in a search
• Must consider synonyms or related terms to improve search results
• TIP: Build a Keyword List

Example:  The keyword list above was developed to find resources that discuss how texting while driving results in accidents.  Notice that there are synonyms (texting and "text messaging"), related terms ("cell phones" and texting), and spelling variations ("cell phone" and cellphone).  Using keywords when searching full text requires consideration of various words that express an idea or concept.

• Subject Headings
• Predetermined "controlled vocabulary" database editors apply to resources to describe topical coverage of content
• Can retrieve more precise search results because every article assigned that subject heading will be retrieved.
• Provide less flexibility in a search
• Can be combined with a keyword search to focus search results.
• TIP: Consult database subject heading list or subject headings assigned to relevant resources

Example 1: In EBSCO's Academic Search Complete, clicking on the "Subject Terms" tab provides access to the entire subject heading list used in the database.  It also allows a search for specific subject terms.

Example 2:  A subject term can be incorporated into a keyword search by clicking on the down arrow next to "Select a Field" and selecting "Subject Terms" from the dropdown list.  Also, notice how subject headings are listed below the resource title, providing another strategy for discovering subject headings used in the database.

When a search term is more than one word, enclose the phrase in quotation marks to retrieve more precise and accurate results.  Using quotation marks around a term will search it as a "chunk," searching for those particular words together in that order within the text of a resource. 

"cell phone"

"distracted driving"

"car accident"

TIP: In some databases, neglecting to enclose phrases in quotation marks will insert the AND Boolean connector between each word resulting in unintended search results.

Truncation provides an option to search for a root of a keyword in order to retrieve resources that include variations of that word.  This feature can be used to broaden search results, although some results may not be relevant.  To truncate a keyword, type an asterisk (*) following the root of the word.

For example:

Library databases provide a variety of tools to limit and refine search results.  Limiters provide the ability to limit search results to resources having specified characteristics including:

• Resource type
• Publication date
• Geographic location

In both the EBSCO and ProQuest databases, the limiting tools are located in the left panel of the results page.

                                                 EBSCO                                                     ProQuest

The short video below provides a demonstration of how to use limiters to refine a list of search results.

Each resource in a library database is stored in a record.  In addition to the full-text of the resources, searchable Fields are attached that typically include:

• Journal title
• Date of Publication

Incorporating Fields into your search can assist in focusing and refining search results by limiting the results to those resources that include specific information in a particular field.

In both EBSCO and ProQuest databases, selecting the Advanced Search option will allow Fields to be included in a search.

For example, in the Advanced Search option in EBSCO's Academic Search Complete database, clicking on the down arrow next to "Select a Field" provides a list of fields that can be searched within that database.  Select the field and enter the information in the text box to the left to use this feature.

Stop words are short, commonly used words--articles, prepositions, and pronouns-- that are automatically dropped from a search.  Typical stop words include:

In library databases, a stop word will not be searched even if it is included in a phrase enclosed in quotation marks.  In some instances, a word will be substituted for the stop word to allow for the other words in the phrase to be searched in proximity to one another within the text of the resource.

For example, if you searched company of America, your result list will include these variatons:

• company in America
• company of America
• company for America

Creating an Search String

This short video demonstrates how to create a search string -- keywords connected with Boolean operators -- to use in a library database search to retrieve relevant resources for any research assignment.

• Database Search Menu Template Use this search menu template to plan a database search.
• Last Updated: Feb 16, 2024 10:01 AM
• URL: https://guides.rasmussen.edu/LitReview

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

How to Conclude a Literature Review

By Laura Brown on 6th March 2019

The conclusion of the dissertation literature review focuses on a few critical points,

• Highlight the essential parts of the existing body of literature in a concise way.
• Next, you should analyse the current state of the reviewed literature .
• Explain the research gap for your chosen topic/existing knowledge.
• Now, outline the areas for future study by mentioning main agreements and disagreements in the literature.
• Finally, link the research to existing knowledge .

Now, any of you who have been into research would agree that literature review is a very exhausting process and may stress you during your academic career. It is tougher because it requires you to be organised. We have seen many students asking does a literature review need a conclusion.

Well, the answer is simple, a good literature review will always have a proper ending. But there is nothing to worry about how to write a conclusion for a literature review. Here is a complete guide for you in “four” simple yet convenient steps. These steps can really be valuable in providing an excellent presentation to your literature review help . Furthermore, you can ask us for literature review conclusion examples anytime using our live chat or email option.

Now, without further ado, let’s move towards the steps.

How To Write A Literature Review Conclusion

Get Expert Assistance For Literature Review

Here are four major steps which can help you with how to conclude a literature review with ease.

1. Enlist Key Points

The conclusion can also be said as judgement because it gives a clear view of your work, whether you achieved your targeted objectives or not. Typically, it is not too difficult to conclude a review, but it can be challenging as well if not carried out properly.

It is crucial to find key features which should be engaging and useful as well for a reader. So at first, draft or enlist key factors before moving forward towards initialising your summary.

2. Summarise The Key Features Briefly

This is a most sensitive and important step of a dissertation literature review conclusion, where you should stick to the following things to get the job done efficiently.

• Once you are done drafting the important points , here you should mention them briefly.
• You can also take the liberty to agree or disagree with whatever literature you have gone through.
• Make sure you don’t drag your arguments while counter-arguing. Keeping your points specific is key.
• Describe, in one to two lines, how you addressed the previously identified gap .
• It is also important to point out the lapses you have noticed in previous authors’ work. Those lapses could be a misquotation of figures, a wrong pattern of research and so on.
• Alongside this, discuss existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research.

3. Educational Implications Of The Reviewed Literature

After mentioning the key factors, it is suggested to put implications to the already reviewed research. Like, as identifying problems in the already done research and giving recommendations on how these problems can be resolved.

Need Help in Writing Your Literature Review?

4. Indicating Room For Future Research

After completing the whole analysis of the particular research, you will be capable of identifying the work which can be done in future. You can also leave some gaps for future researchers so others can extend your work. This will be the final step, and this is how to end a literature review.

Tips That Can Enlighten Your Conclusion

We hope that things are very clear to you on how to write a conclusion for a literature review. If you want it to be even better and more meaningful, then you should keep the below points in mind.

• It should not be burdened with an unnecessary chain of details.
• It should be as precise and easy to understand as possible.
• You should mention important key points and findings .
• Make sure to put all points in a flow so the reader can understand your research in one go.
• Do not add anything from your own.

“Simply put, touch the prominent factors and leave them unexplained here”.

Get Help to Conclude Your Literature Review

If you are able to keep your focus around these steps and mentioned points, believe us, you will never ask anyone how to conclude literature review.

Looking At Literature Review Conclusion Example

Below are three examples which will help you understand how to conclude a literature review.

1. Firstly, you should summarise the important aspects and evaluate the current state of the existing literature.

Overall, the findings from this literature review highlight the need for further research to address the gaps in knowledge on the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression in college students.

2. Now, along with mentioning the gaps, come up with your approach to future study.

Therefore, to address this gap in the literature, we incorporated larger and more diverse samples, used standardised measures of mindfulness and mental health outcomes, and included longer follow-up periods to assess the long-term effects of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety and depression.

3. Now summarise on how your findings will contribute to the particular field by linking it to the existing knowledge.

The findings from the study will provide important insights for researchers, clinicians, and educators interested in developing and implementing effective interventions to promote mental health and well-being among college students, and highlight the need for further research to establish the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in this population.

We hope that these examples will bring in more clarification and you can have a better idea about the literature review conclusion.

What basically is a literature review?

What are the 3 primary parts of a literature review, what are the goals of writing a literature review.

There are four primary objectives of writing a literature review:

1. Determining the background from the previous scholarly literature related to the topic.

2. Identifying the gaps between literature to boost further research.

3. Analysing if the theory is applicable and associating a suitable methodology.

Why is a literature review conclusion necessary?

• https://azhin.org/cummings/basiclitreview/conclusions
• https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/writing-well/litreview.html
• https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html
• https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/resources/report-writing/reviewing-the-literature

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

When you need an introduction for a literature review, what to include in a literature review introduction, examples of literature review introductions, steps to write your own literature review introduction.

A literature review is a comprehensive examination of the international academic literature concerning a particular topic. It involves summarizing published works, theories, and concepts while also highlighting gaps and offering critical reflections.

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

Instead, you should always offer some form of introduction to orient the reader and clarify what they can expect.

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

• Academic literature review papers: When your literature review constitutes the entirety of an academic review paper, a more substantial introduction is necessary. This introduction should resemble the standard introduction found in regular academic papers.
• Literature review section in an academic paper or essay: While this section tends to be brief, it’s important to precede the detailed literature review with a few introductory sentences. This helps orient the reader before delving into the literature itself.
• Literature review chapter or section in your thesis/dissertation: Every thesis and dissertation includes a literature review component, which also requires a concise introduction to set the stage for the subsequent review.

You may also like: How to write a fantastic thesis introduction (+15 examples)

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Here’s a structured breakdown based on length and the necessary information:

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

• The research problem: Clearly articulate the problem or question that your literature review aims to address.
• The research gap: Highlight the existing gaps, limitations, or unresolved aspects within the current body of literature related to the research problem.
• The research relevance: Explain why the chosen research problem and its subsequent investigation through a literature review are significant and relevant in your academic field.
• The literature review method: If applicable, describe the methodology employed in your literature review, especially if it is a systematic review or follows a specific research framework.
• The main findings or insights of the literature review: Summarize the key discoveries, insights, or trends that have emerged from your comprehensive review of the literature.
• The main argument of the literature review: Conclude the introduction by outlining the primary argument or statement that your literature review will substantiate, linking it to the research problem and relevance you’ve established.
• Preview of the literature review’s structure: Offer a glimpse into the organization of the literature review paper, acting as a guide for the reader. This overview outlines the subsequent sections of the paper and provides an understanding of what to anticipate.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will provide a clear and structured overview of what readers can expect in your literature review paper.

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

Most academic articles or essays incorporate regular literature review sections, often placed after the introduction. These sections serve to establish a scholarly basis for the research or discussion within the paper.

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

• An introduction to the topic: When delving into the academic literature on a specific topic, it’s important to provide a smooth transition that aids the reader in comprehending why certain aspects will be discussed within your literature review.
• The core argument: While literature review sections primarily synthesize the work of other scholars, they should consistently connect to your central argument. This central argument serves as the crux of your message or the key takeaway you want your readers to retain. By positioning it at the outset of the literature review section and systematically substantiating it with evidence, you not only enhance reader comprehension but also elevate overall readability. This primary argument can typically be distilled into 1-2 succinct sentences.

In some cases, you might include:

• Methodology: Details about the methodology used, but only if your literature review employed a specialized method. If your approach involved a broader overview without a systematic methodology, you can omit this section, thereby conserving word count.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will effectively integrate your literature review into the broader context of your academic paper or essay. This will, in turn, assist your reader in seamlessly following your overarching line of argumentation.

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

The literature review typically constitutes a distinct chapter within a thesis or dissertation. Often, it is Chapter 2 of a thesis or dissertation.

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

• Purpose of the literature review and its relevance to the thesis/dissertation research: Explain the broader objectives of the literature review within the context of your research and how it contributes to your thesis or dissertation. Essentially, you’re telling the reader why this literature review is important and how it fits into the larger scope of your academic work.
• Primary argument: Succinctly communicate what you aim to prove, explain, or explore through the review of existing literature. This statement helps guide the reader’s understanding of the review’s purpose and what to expect from it.
• Preview of the literature review’s content: Provide a brief overview of the topics or themes that your literature review will cover. It’s like a roadmap for the reader, outlining the main areas of focus within the review. This preview can help the reader anticipate the structure and organization of your literature review.
• Methodology: If your literature review involved a specific research method, such as a systematic review or meta-analysis, you should briefly describe that methodology. However, this is not always necessary, especially if your literature review is more of a narrative synthesis without a distinct research method.

By addressing these elements, your introduction will empower your literature review to play a pivotal role in your thesis or dissertation research. It will accomplish this by integrating your research into the broader academic literature and providing a solid theoretical foundation for your work.

Comprehending the art of crafting your own literature review introduction becomes significantly more accessible when you have concrete examples to examine. Here, you will find several examples that meet, or in most cases, adhere to the criteria described earlier.

Example 1: An effective introduction for an academic literature review paper

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

The entire introduction spans 611 words and is divided into five paragraphs. In this introduction, the authors accomplish the following:

• In the first paragraph, the authors introduce the broader topic of the literature review, which focuses on innovation and its significance in the context of economic competition. They underscore the importance of this topic, highlighting its relevance for both researchers and policymakers.
• In the second paragraph, the authors narrow down their focus to emphasize the specific role of culture in relation to innovation.
• In the third paragraph, the authors identify research gaps, noting that existing studies are often fragmented and disconnected. They then emphasize the value of conducting a systematic literature review to enhance our understanding of the topic.
• In the fourth paragraph, the authors introduce their specific objectives and explain how their insights can benefit other researchers and business practitioners.
• In the fifth and final paragraph, the authors provide an overview of the paper’s organization and structure.

In summary, this introduction stands as a solid example. While the authors deviate from previewing their key findings (which is a common practice at least in the social sciences), they do effectively cover all the other previously mentioned points.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

The paper begins with a general introduction and then proceeds to the literature review, designated by the authors as their conceptual framework. Of particular interest is the first paragraph of this conceptual framework, comprising 142 words across five sentences:

“ A peripheral and marginalised nationality within a multinational though-Persian dominated Iranian society, the Kurdish people of Iranian Kurdistan (a region referred by the Kurds as Rojhelat/Eastern Kurdi-stan) have since the early twentieth century been subject to multifaceted and systematic discriminatory and exclusionary state policy in Iran. This condition has left a population of 12–15 million Kurds in Iran suffering from structural inequalities, disenfranchisement and deprivation. Mismanagement of Kurdistan’s natural resources and the degradation of its natural environmental are among examples of this disenfranchisement. As asserted by Julian Agyeman (2005), structural inequalities that sustain the domination of political and economic elites often simultaneously result in environmental degradation, injustice and discrimination against subaltern communities. This study argues that the environmental struggle in Eastern Kurdistan can be asserted as a (sub)element of the Kurdish liberation movement in Iran. Conceptually this research is inspired by and has been conducted through the lens of ‘subalternity’ ” ( Hassaniyan, 2021, p. 931 ).

In this first paragraph, the author is doing the following:

• The author contextualises the research
• The author links the research focus to the international literature on structural inequalities
• The author clearly presents the argument of the research
• The author clarifies how the research is inspired by and uses the concept of ‘subalternity’.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

While introductions to a literature review section aren’t always required to offer the same level of study context detail as demonstrated here, this introduction serves as a commendable model for orienting the reader within the literature review. It effectively underscores the literature review’s significance within the context of the study being conducted.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

The introduction to a literature review chapter can vary in length, depending largely on the overall length of the literature review chapter itself. For example, a master’s thesis typically features a more concise literature review, thus necessitating a shorter introduction. In contrast, a Ph.D. thesis, with its more extensive literature review, often includes a more detailed introduction.

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

The first example is “Benchmarking Asymmetrical Heating Models of Spider Pulsar Companions” by P. Sun, a master’s thesis completed at the University of Manchester on January 9, 2024. The author, P. Sun, introduces the literature review chapter very briefly but effectively:

PhD thesis literature review chapter introduction

The second example is Deep Learning on Semi-Structured Data and its Applications to Video-Game AI, Woof, W. (Author). 31 Dec 2020, a PhD thesis completed at the University of Manchester . In Chapter 2, the author offers a comprehensive introduction to the topic in four paragraphs, with the final paragraph serving as an overview of the chapter’s structure:

PhD thesis literature review introduction

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Having absorbed all of this information, let’s recap the essential steps and offer a succinct guide on how to proceed with creating your literature review introduction:

• Contextualize your review : Begin by clearly identifying the academic context in which your literature review resides and determining the necessary information to include.
• Outline your structure : Develop a structured outline for your literature review, highlighting the essential information you plan to incorporate in your introduction.
• Literature review process : Conduct a rigorous literature review, reviewing and analyzing relevant sources.
• Summarize and abstract : After completing the review, synthesize the findings and abstract key insights, trends, and knowledge gaps from the literature.
• Craft the introduction : Write your literature review introduction with meticulous attention to the seamless integration of your review into the larger context of your work. Ensure that your introduction effectively elucidates your rationale for the chosen review topics and the underlying reasons guiding your selection.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

The best answers to "What are your plans for the future?"

10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles.

How to peer review an academic paper

PhD thesis types: Monograph and collection of articles

How to disagree with reviewers (with examples!)

How to introduce yourself in a conference presentation (in six simple steps)

• Open access
• Published: 23 April 2024

Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review

• Javiera Fuentes-Cimma 1 , 2 ,
• Dominique Sluijsmans 3 ,
• Arnoldo Riquelme 4 ,
• Ignacio Villagran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-8326 1 ,
• Lorena Isbej   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4272-8484 2 , 5 ,
• María Teresa Olivares-Labbe 6 &
• Sylvia Heeneman 7  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  440 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

217 Accesses

Metrics details

Feedback processes are crucial for learning, guiding improvement, and enhancing performance. In workplace-based learning settings, diverse teaching and assessment activities are advocated to be designed and implemented, generating feedback that students use, with proper guidance, to close the gap between current and desired performance levels. Since productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured feedback activities within undergraduate workplace-based learning settings. However, these settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students. This scoping review maps literature on how feedback processes are organised in undergraduate clinical workplace-based learning settings, providing insight into the design and use of feedback.

A scoping review was conducted. Studies were identified from seven databases and ten relevant journals in medical education. The screening process was performed independently in duplicate with the support of the StArt program. Data were organized in a data chart and analyzed using thematic analysis. The feedback loop with a sociocultural perspective was used as a theoretical framework.

The search yielded 4,877 papers, and 61 were included in the review. Two themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: (1) The organization of the feedback processes in workplace-based learning settings, and (2) Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. The literature describes multiple teaching and assessment activities that generate feedback information. Most papers described experiences and perceptions of diverse teaching and assessment feedback activities. Few studies described how feedback processes improve performance. Sociocultural factors such as establishing a feedback culture, enabling stable and trustworthy relationships, and enhancing student feedback agency are crucial for productive feedback processes.

Conclusions

This review identified concrete ideas regarding how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. The feedback encounter should be organized to allow follow-up of the feedback, i.e., working on required learning and performance goals at the next occasion. The educational programs should design feedback processes by appropriately planning subsequent tasks and activities. More insight is needed in designing a full-loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices.

Peer Review reports

The design of effective feedback processes in higher education has been important for educators and researchers and has prompted numerous publications discussing potential mechanisms, theoretical frameworks, and best practice examples over the past few decades. Initially, research on feedback primarily focused more on teachers and feedback delivery, and students were depicted as passive feedback recipients [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. The feedback conversation has recently evolved to a more dynamic emphasis on interaction, sense-making, outcomes in actions, and engagement with learners [ 2 ]. This shift aligns with utilizing the feedback process as a form of social interaction or dialogue to enhance performance [ 4 ]. Henderson et al. (2019) defined feedback processes as "where the learner makes sense of performance-relevant information to promote their learning." (p. 17). When a student grasps the information concerning their performance in connection to the desired learning outcome and subsequently takes suitable action, a feedback loop is closed so the process can be regarded as successful [ 5 , 6 ].

Hattie and Timperley (2007) proposed a comprehensive perspective on feedback, the so-called feedback loop, to answer three key questions: “Where am I going? “How am I going?” and “Where to next?” [ 7 ]. Each question represents a key dimension of the feedback loop. The first is the feed-up, which consists of setting learning goals and sharing clear objectives of learners' performance expectations. While the concept of the feed-up might not be consistently included in the literature, it is considered to be related to principles of effective feedback and goal setting within educational contexts [ 7 , 8 ]. Goal setting allows students to focus on tasks and learning, and teachers to have clear intended learning outcomes to enable the design of aligned activities and tasks in which feedback processes can be embedded [ 9 ]. Teachers can improve the feed-up dimension by proposing clear, challenging, but achievable goals [ 7 ]. The second dimension of the feedback loop focuses on feedback and aims to answer the second question by obtaining information about students' current performance. Different teaching and assessment activities can be used to obtain feedback information, and it can be provided by a teacher or tutor, a peer, oneself, a patient, or another coworker. The last dimension of the feedback loop is the feedforward, which is specifically associated with using feedback to improve performance or change behaviors [ 10 ]. Feedforward is crucial in closing the loop because it refers to those specific actions students must take to reduce the gap between current and desired performance [ 7 ].

From a sociocultural perspective, feedback processes involve a social practice consisting of intricate relationships within a learning context [ 11 ]. The main feature of this approach is that students learn from feedback only when the feedback encounter includes generating, making sense of, and acting upon the information given [ 11 ]. In the context of workplace-based learning (WBL), actionable feedback plays a crucial role in enabling learners to leverage specific feedback to enhance their performance, skills, and conceptual understandings. The WBL environment provides students with a valuable opportunity to gain hands-on experience in authentic clinical settings, in which students work more independently on real-world tasks, allowing them to develop and exhibit their competencies [ 3 ]. However, WBL settings are characterized by their unpredictable nature, which can either promote self-directed learning or present challenges in offering structured learning opportunities for students [ 12 ]. Consequently, designing purposive feedback opportunities within WBL settings is a significant challenge for clinical teachers and faculty.

In undergraduate clinical education, feedback opportunities are often constrained due to the emphasis on clinical work and the absence of dedicated time for teaching [ 13 ]. Students are expected to perform autonomously under supervision, ideally achieved by giving them space to practice progressively and providing continuous instances of constructive feedback [ 14 ]. However, the hierarchy often present in clinical settings places undergraduate students in a dependent position, below residents and specialists [ 15 ]. Undergraduate or junior students may have different approaches to receiving and using feedback. If their priority is meeting the minimum standards given pass-fail consequences and acting merely as feedback recipients, other incentives may be needed to engage with the feedback processes because they will need more learning support [ 16 , 17 ]. Adequate supervision and feedback have been recognized as vital educational support in encouraging students to adopt a constructive learning approach [ 18 ]. Given that productive feedback processes rely on observed information regarding a student's performance, it is imperative to establish structured teaching and learning feedback activities within undergraduate WBL settings.

Despite the extensive research on feedback, a significant proportion of published studies involve residents or postgraduate students [ 19 , 20 ]. Recent reviews focusing on feedback interventions within medical education have clearly distinguished between undergraduate medical students and residents or fellows [ 21 ]. To gain a comprehensive understanding of initiatives related to actionable feedback in the WBL environment for undergraduate health professions, a scoping review of the existing literature could provide insight into how feedback processes are designed in that context. Accordingly, the present scoping review aims to answer the following research question: How are the feedback processes designed in the undergraduate health professions' workplace-based learning environments?

A scoping review was conducted using the five-step methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [ 22 ], intertwined with the PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis [ 23 ]. Scoping reviews allow us to study the literature without restricting the methodological quality of the studies found, systematically and comprehensively map the literature, and identify gaps [ 24 ]. Furthermore, a scoping review was used because this topic is not suitable for a systematic review due to the varied approaches described and the large difference in the methodologies used [ 21 ].

Search strategy

With the collaboration of a medical librarian, the authors used the research question to guide the search strategy. An initial meeting was held to define keywords and search resources. The proposed search strategy was reviewed by the research team, and then the study selection was conducted in two steps:

An online database search included Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO.

A directed search of ten relevant journals in the health sciences education field (Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Journal of Surgical Education, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education Online, Perspectives on Medical Education and The Clinical Teacher) was performed.

The research team conducted a pilot or initial search before the full search to identify if the topic was susceptible to a scoping review. The full search was conducted in November 2022. One team member (MO) identified the papers in the databases. JF searched in the selected journals. Authors included studies written in English due to feasibility issues, with no time span limitation. After eliminating duplicates, two research team members (JF and IV) independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts using the exclusion and inclusion criteria described in Table  2 and with the support of the screening application StArT [ 25 ]. A third team member (AR) reviewed the titles and abstracts when the first two disagreed. The reviewer team met again at a midpoint and final stage to discuss the challenges related to study selection. Articles included for full-text review were exported to Mendeley. JF independently screened all full-text papers, and AR verified 10% for inclusion. The authors did not analyze study quality or risk of bias during study selection, which is consistent with conducting a scoping review.

The analysis of the results incorporated a descriptive summary and a thematic analysis, which was carried out to clarify and give consistency to the results' reporting [ 22 , 24 , 26 ]. Quantitative data were analyzed to report the characteristics of the studies, populations, settings, methods, and outcomes. Qualitative data were labeled, coded, and categorized into themes by three team members (JF, SH, and DS). The feedback loop framework with a sociocultural perspective was used as the theoretical framework to analyze the results.

The keywords used for the search strategies were as follows:

Clinical clerkship; feedback; formative feedback; health professions; undergraduate medical education; workplace.

Definitions of the keywords used for the present review are available in Appendix 1 .

As an example, we included the search strategy that we used in the Medline/PubMed database when conducting the full search:

("Formative Feedback"[Mesh] OR feedback) AND ("Workplace"[Mesh] OR workplace OR "Clinical Clerkship"[Mesh] OR clerkship) AND (("Education, Medical, Undergraduate"[Mesh] OR undergraduate health profession*) OR (learner* medical education)).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used (Table  1 ):

Data extraction

The research group developed a data-charting form to organize the information obtained from the studies. The process was iterative, as the data chart was continuously reviewed and improved as necessary. In addition, following Levac et al.'s recommendation (2010), the three members involved in the charting process (JF, LI, and IV) independently reviewed the first five selected studies to determine whether the data extraction was consistent with the objectives of this scoping review and to ensure consistency. Then, the team met using web-conferencing software (Zoom; CA, USA) to review the results and adjust any details in the chart. The same three members extracted data independently from all the selected studies, considering two members reviewing each paper [ 26 ]. A third team member was consulted if any conflict occurred when extracting data. The data chart identified demographic patterns and facilitated the data synthesis. To organize data, we used a shared Excel spreadsheet, considering the following headings: title, author(s), year of publication, journal/source, country/origin, aim of the study, research question (if any), population/sample size, participants, discipline, setting, methodology, study design, data collection, data analysis, intervention, outcomes, outcomes measure, key findings, and relation of findings to research question.

Additionally, all the included papers were uploaded to AtlasTi v19 to facilitate the qualitative analysis. Three team members (JF, SH, and DS) independently coded the first six papers to create a list of codes to ensure consistency and rigor. The group met several times to discuss and refine the list of codes. Then, one member of the team (JF) used the code list to code all the rest of the papers. Once all papers were coded, the team organized codes into descriptive themes aligned with the research question.

Preliminary results were shared with a number of stakeholders (six clinical teachers, ten students, six medical educators) to elicit their opinions as an opportunity to build on the evidence and offer a greater level of meaning, content expertise, and perspective to the preliminary findings [ 26 ]. No quality appraisal of the studies is considered for this scoping review, which aligns with the frameworks for guiding scoping reviews [ 27 ].

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

A database search resulted in 3,597 papers, and the directed search of the most relevant journals in the health sciences education field yielded 2,096 titles. An example of the results of one database is available in Appendix 2 . Of the titles obtained, 816 duplicates were eliminated, and the team reviewed the titles and abstracts of 4,877 papers. Of these, 120 were selected for full-text review. Finally, 61 papers were included in this scoping review (Fig.  1 ), as listed in Table  2 .

PRISMA flow diagram for included studies, incorporating records identified through the database and direct searching

The selected studies were published between 1986 and 2022, and seventy-five percent (46) were published during the last decade. Of all the articles included in this review, 13% (8) were literature reviews: one integrative review [ 28 ] and four scoping reviews [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Finally, fifty-three (87%) original or empirical papers were included (i.e., studies that answered a research question or achieved a research purpose through qualitative or quantitative methodologies) [ 15 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ].

Table 2 summarizes the papers included in the present scoping review, and Table  3 describes the characteristics of the included studies.

The thematic analysis resulted in two themes: (1) the organization of feedback processes in WBL settings, and (2) sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes. Table 4 gives a summary of the themes and subthemes.

Organization of feedback processes in WBL settings.

Setting learning goals (i.e., feed-up dimension).

Feedback that focuses on students' learning needs and is based on known performance standards enhances student response and setting learning goals [ 30 ]. Discussing goals and agreements before starting clinical practice enhances students' feedback-seeking behavior [ 39 ] and responsiveness to feedback [ 83 ]. Farrell et al. (2017) found that teacher-learner co-constructed learning goals enhance feedback interactions and help establish educational alliances, improving the learning experience [ 50 ]. However, Kiger (2020) found that sharing individualized learning plans with teachers aligned feedback with learning goals but did not improve students' perceived use of feedback [ 64 ]

Two papers of this set pointed out the importance of goal-oriented feedback, a dynamic process that depends on discussion of goal setting between teachers and students [ 50 ] and influences how individuals experience, approach, and respond to upcoming learning activities [ 34 ]. Goal-oriented feedback should be embedded in the learning experience of the clinical workplace, as it can enhance students' engagement in safe feedback dialogues [ 50 ]. Ideally, each feedback encounter in the WBL context should conclude, in addition to setting a plan of action to achieve the desired goal, with a reflection on the next goal [ 50 ].

Feedback strategies within the WBL environment. (i.e., feedback dimension)

In undergraduate WBL environments, there are several tasks and feedback opportunities organized in the undergraduate clinical workplace that can enable feedback processes:

Questions from clinical teachers to students are a feedback strategy [ 74 ]. There are different types of questions that the teacher can use, either to clarify concepts, to reach the correct answer, or to facilitate self-correction [ 74 ]. Usually, questions can be used in conjunction with other communication strategies, such as pauses, which enable self-correction by the student [ 74 ]. Students can also ask questions to obtain feedback on their performance [ 54 ]. However, question-and-answer as a feedback strategy usually provides information on either correct or incorrect answers and fewer suggestions for improvement, rendering it less constructive as a feedback strategy [ 82 ].

Direct observation of performance by default is needed to be able to provide information to be used as input in the feedback process [ 33 , 46 , 49 , 86 ]. In the process of observation, teachers can include clarification of objectives (i.e., feed-up dimension) and suggestions for an action plan (i.e., feedforward) [ 50 ]. Accordingly, Schopper et al. (2016) showed that students valued being observed while interviewing patients, as they received feedback that helped them become more efficient and effective as interviewers and communicators [ 33 ]. Moreover, it is widely described that direct observation improves feedback credibility [ 33 , 40 , 84 ]. Ideally, observation should be deliberate [ 33 , 83 ], informal or spontaneous [ 33 ], conducted by a (clinical) expert [ 46 , 86 ], provided immediately after the observation, and clinical teacher if possible, should schedule or be alert on follow-up observations to promote closing the gap between current and desired performance [ 46 ].

Workplace-based assessments (WBAs), by definition, entail direct observation of performance during authentic task demonstration [ 39 , 46 , 56 , 87 ]. WBAs can significantly impact behavioral change in medical students [ 55 ]. Organizing and designing formative WBAs and embedding these in a feedback dialogue is essential for effective learning [ 31 ].

Summative organization of WBAs is a well described barrier for feedback uptake in the clinical workplace [ 35 , 46 ]. If feedback is perceived as summative, or organized as a pass-fail decision, students may be less inclined to use the feedback for future learning [ 52 ]. According to Schopper et al. (2016), using a scale within a WBA makes students shift their focus during the clinical interaction and see it as an assessment with consequences [ 33 ]. Harrison et al. (2016) pointed out that an environment that only contains assessments with a summative purpose will not lead to a culture of learning and improving performance [ 56 ]. The recommendation is to separate the formative and summative WBAs, as feedback in summative instances is often not recognized as a learning opportunity or an instance to seek feedback [ 54 ]. In terms of the design, an organizational format is needed to clarify to students how formative assessments can promote learning from feedback [ 56 ]. Harrison et al. (2016) identified that enabling students to have more control over their assessments, designing authentic assessments, and facilitating long-term mentoring could improve receptivity to formative assessment feedback [ 56 ].

Multiple WBA instruments and systems are reported in the literature. Sox et al. (2014) used a detailed evaluation form to help students improve their clinical case presentation skills. They found that feedback on oral presentations provided by supervisors using a detailed evaluation form improved clerkship students’ oral presentation skills [ 78 ]. Daelmans et al. (2006) suggested that a formal in-training assessment programme composed by 19 assessments that provided structured feedback, could promote observation and verbal feedback opportunities through frequent assessments [ 43 ]. However, in this setting, limited student-staff interactions still hindered feedback follow-up [ 43 ]. Designing frequent WBA improves feedback credibility [ 28 ]. Long et al. (2021) emphasized that students' responsiveness to assessment feedback hinges on its perceived credibility, underlining the importance of credibility for students to effectively engage and improve their performance [ 31 ].

The mini-CEX is one of the most widely described WBA instruments in the literature. Students perceive that the mini-CEX allows them to be observed and encourages the development of interviewing skills [ 33 ]. The mini-CEX can provide feedback that improves students' clinical skills [ 58 , 60 ], as it incorporates a structure for discussing the student's strengths and weaknesses and the design of a written action plan [ 39 , 80 ]. When mini-CEXs are incorporated as part of a system of WBA, such as programmatic assessment, students feel confident in seeking feedback after observation, and being systematic allows for follow-up [ 39 ]. Students suggested separating grading from observation and using the mini-CEX in more informal situations [ 33 ].

Clinical encounter cards allow students to receive weekly feedback and make them request more feedback as the clerkship progresses [ 65 ]. Moreover, encounter cards stimulate that feedback is given by supervisors, and students are more satisfied with the feedback process [ 72 ]. With encounter card feedback, students are responsible for asking a supervisor for feedback before a clinical encounter, and supervisors give students written and verbal comments about their performance after the encounter [ 42 , 72 ]. Encounter cards enhance the use of feedback and add approximately one minute to the length of the clinical encounter, so they are well accepted by students and supervisors [ 72 ]. Bennett (2006) identified that Instant Feedback Cards (IFC) facilitated mid-rotation feedback [ 38 ]. Feedback encounter card comments must be discussed between students and supervisors; otherwise, students may perceive it as impersonal, static, formulaic, and incomplete [ 59 ].

Self-assessments can change students' feedback orientation, transforming them into coproducers of learning [ 68 ]. Self-assessments promote the feedback process [ 68 ]. Some articles emphasize the importance of organizing self-assessments before receiving feedback from supervisors, for example, discussing their appraisal with the supervisor [ 46 , 52 ]. In designing a feedback encounter, starting with a self-assessment as feed-up, discussing with the supervisor, and identifying areas for improvement is recommended, as part of the feedback dialogue [ 68 ].

Peer feedback as an organized activity allows students to develop strategies to observe and give feedback to other peers [ 61 ]. Students can act as the feedback provider or receiver, fostering understanding of critical comments and promoting evaluative judgment for their clinical practice [ 61 ]. Within clerkships, enabling the sharing of feedback information among peers allows for a better understanding and acceptance of feedback [ 52 ]. However, students can find it challenging to take on the peer assessor/feedback provider role, as they prefer to avoid social conflicts [ 28 , 61 ]. Moreover, it has been described that they do not trust the judgment of their peers because they are not experts, although they know the procedures, tasks, and steps well and empathize with their peer status in the learning process [ 61 ].

Bedside-teaching encounters (BTEs) provide timely feedback and are an opportunity for verbal feedback during performance [ 74 ]. Rizan et al. (2014) explored timely feedback delivered within BTEs and determined that it promotes interaction that constructively enhances learner development through various corrective strategies (e.g., question and answers, pauses, etc.). However, if the feedback given during the BTEs was general, unspecific, or open-ended, it could go unnoticed [ 74 ]. Torre et al. (2005) investigated which integrated feedback activities and clinical tasks occurred on clerkship rotations and assessed students' perceived quality in each teaching encounter [ 81 ]. The feedback activities reported were feedback on written clinical history, physical examination, differential diagnosis, oral case presentation, a daily progress note, and bedside feedback. Students considered all these feedback activities high-quality learning opportunities, but they were more likely to receive feedback when teaching was at the bedside than at other teaching locations [ 81 ].

Case presentations are an opportunity for feedback within WBL contexts [ 67 , 73 ]. However, both students and supervisors struggled to identify them as feedback moments, and they often dismissed questions and clarifications around case presentations as feedback [ 73 ]. Joshi (2017) identified case presentations as a way for students to ask for informal or spontaneous supervisor feedback [ 63 ].

Organization of follow-up feedback and action plans (i.e., feedforward dimension).

Feedback that generates use and response from students is characterized by two-way communication and embedded in a dialogue [ 30 ]. Feedback must be future-focused [ 29 ], and a feedback encounter should be followed by planning the next observation [ 46 , 87 ]. Follow-up feedback could be organized as a future self-assessment, reflective practice by the student, and/or a discussion with the supervisor or coach [ 68 ]. The literature describes that a lack of student interaction with teachers makes follow-up difficult [ 43 ]. According to Haffling et al. (2011), follow-up feedback sessions improve students' satisfaction with feedback compared to students who do not have follow-up sessions. In addition, these same authors reported that a second follow-up session allows verification of improved performances or confirmation that the skill was acquired [ 55 ].

Although feedback encounter forms are a recognized way of obtaining information about performance (i.e., feedback dimension), the literature does not provide many clear examples of how they may impact the feedforward phase. For example, Joshi et al. (2016) consider a feedback form with four fields (i.e., what did you do well, advise the student on what could be done to improve performance, indicate the level of proficiency, and personal details of the tutor). In this case, the supervisor highlighted what the student could improve but not how, which is the missing phase of the co-constructed action plan [ 63 ]. Whichever WBA instrument is used in clerkships to provide feedback, it should include a "next steps" box [ 44 ], and it is recommended to organize a long-term use of the WBA instrument so that those involved get used to it and improve interaction and feedback uptake [ 55 ]. RIME-based feedback (Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, Educating) is considered an interesting example, as it is perceived as helpful to students in knowing what they need to improve in their performance [ 44 ]. Hochberg (2017) implemented formative mid-clerkship assessments to enhance face-to-face feedback conversations and co-create an improvement plan [ 59 ]. Apps for structuring and storing feedback improve the amount of verbal and written feedback. In the study of Joshi et al. (2016), a reasonable proportion of students (64%) perceived that these app tools help them improve their performance during rotations [ 63 ].

Several studies indicate that an action plan as part of the follow-up feedback is essential for performance improvement and learning [ 46 , 55 , 60 ]. An action plan corresponds to an agreed-upon strategy for improving, confirming, or correcting performance. Bing-You et al. (2017) determined that only 12% of the articles included in their scoping review incorporated an action plan for learners [ 32 ]. Holmboe et al. (2004) reported that only 11% of the feedback sessions following a mini-CEX included an action plan [ 60 ]. Suhoyo et al. (2017) also reported that only 55% of mini-CEX encounters contained an action plan [ 80 ]. Other authors reported that action plans are not commonly offered during feedback encounters [ 77 ]. Sokol-Hessner et al. (2010) implemented feedback card comments with a space to provide written feedback and a specific action plan. In their results, 96% contained positive comments, and only 5% contained constructive comments [ 77 ]. In summary, although the recommendation is to include a “next step” box in the feedback instruments, evidence shows these items are not often used for constructive comments or action plans.

Sociocultural factors influencing the organization of feedback processes.

Multiple sociocultural factors influence interaction in feedback encounters, promoting or hampering the productivity of the feedback processes.

Clinical learning culture

Context impacts feedback processes [ 30 , 82 ], and there are barriers to incorporating actionable feedback in the clinical learning context. The clinical learning culture is partly determined by the clinical context, which can be unpredictable [ 29 , 46 , 68 ], as the available patients determine learning opportunities. Supervisors are occupied by a high workload, which results in limited time or priority for teaching [ 35 , 46 , 48 , 55 , 68 , 83 ], hindering students’ feedback-seeking behavior [ 54 ], and creating a challenge for the balance between patient care and student mentoring [ 35 ].

Clinical workplace culture does not always purposefully prioritize instances for feedback processes [ 83 , 84 ]. This often leads to limited direct observation [ 55 , 68 ] and the provision of poorly informed feedback. It is also evident that this affects trust between clinical teachers and students [ 52 ]. Supervisors consider feedback a low priority in clinical contexts [ 35 ] due to low compensation and lack of protected time [ 83 ]. In particular, lack of time appears to be the most significant and well-known barrier to frequent observation and workplace feedback [ 35 , 43 , 48 , 62 , 67 , 83 ].

The clinical environment is hierarchical [ 68 , 80 ] and can make students not consider themselves part of the team and feel like a burden to their supervisor [ 68 ]. This hierarchical learning environment can lead to unidirectional feedback, limit dialogue during feedback processes, and hinder the seeking, uptake, and use of feedback [ 67 , 68 ]. In a learning culture where feedback is not supported, learners are less likely to want to seek it and feel motivated and engaged in their learning [ 83 ]. Furthermore, it has been identified that clinical supervisors lack the motivation to teach [ 48 ] and the intention to observe or reobserve performance [ 86 ].

In summary, the clinical context and WBL culture do not fully use the potential of a feedback process aimed at closing learning gaps. However, concrete actions shown in the literature can be taken to improve the effectiveness of feedback by organizing the learning context. For example, McGinness et al. (2022) identified that students felt more receptive to feedback when working in a safe, nonjudgmental environment [ 67 ]. Moreover, supervisors and trainees identified the learning culture as key to establishing an open feedback dialogue [ 73 ]. Students who perceive culture as supportive and formative can feel more comfortable performing tasks and more willing to receive feedback [ 73 ].

Relationships

There is a consensus in the literature that trusting and long-term relationships improve the chances of actionable feedback. However, relationships between supervisors and students in the clinical workplace are often brief and not organized as more longitudinally [ 68 , 83 ], leaving little time to establish a trustful relationship [ 68 ]. Supervisors change continuously, resulting in short interactions that limit the creation of lasting relationships over time [ 50 , 68 , 83 ]. In some contexts, it is common for a student to have several supervisors who have their own standards in the observation of performance [ 46 , 56 , 68 , 83 ]. A lack of stable relationships results in students having little engagement in feedback [ 68 ]. Furthermore, in case of summative assessment programmes, the dual role of supervisors (i.e., assessing and giving feedback) makes feedback interactions perceived as summative and can complicate the relationship [ 83 ].

Repeatedly, the articles considered in this review describe that long-term and stable relationships enable the development of trust and respect [ 35 , 62 ] and foster feedback-seeking behavior [ 35 , 67 ] and feedback-giver behavior [ 39 ]. Moreover, constructive and positive relationships enhance students´ use of and response to feedback [ 30 ]. For example, Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LICs) promote stable relationships, thus enhancing the impact of feedback [ 83 ]. In a long-term trusting relationship, feedback can be straightforward and credible [ 87 ], there are more opportunities for student observation, and the likelihood of follow-up and actionable feedback improves [ 83 ]. Johnson et al. (2020) pointed out that within a clinical teacher-student relationship, the focus must be on establishing psychological safety; thus, the feedback conversations might be transformed [ 62 ].

Stable relationships enhance feedback dialogues, which offer an opportunity to co-construct learning and propose and negotiate aspects of the design of learning strategies [ 62 ].

Students as active agents in the feedback processes

The feedback response learners generate depends on the type of feedback information they receive, how credible the source of feedback information is, the relationship between the receiver and the giver, and the relevance of the information delivered [ 49 ]. Garino (2020) noted that students who are most successful in using feedback are those who do not take criticism personally, who understand what they need to improve and know they can do so, who value and feel meaning in criticism, are not surprised to receive it, and who are motivated to seek new feedback and use effective learning strategies [ 52 ]. Successful users of feedback ask others for help, are intentional about their learning, know what resources to use and when to use them, listen to and understand a message, value advice, and use effective learning strategies. They regulate their emotions, find meaning in the message, and are willing to change [ 52 ].

Student self-efficacy influences the understanding and use of feedback in the clinical workplace. McGinness et al. (2022) described various positive examples of self-efficacy regarding feedback processes: planning feedback meetings with teachers, fostering good relationships with the clinical team, demonstrating interest in assigned tasks, persisting in seeking feedback despite the patient workload, and taking advantage of opportunities for feedback, e.g., case presentations [ 67 ].

When students are encouraged to seek feedback aligned with their own learning objectives, they promote feedback information specific to what they want to learn and improve and enhance the use of feedback [ 53 ]. McGinness et al. (2022) identified that the perceived relevance of feedback information influenced the use of feedback because students were more likely to ask for feedback if they perceived that the information was useful to them. For example, if students feel part of the clinical team and participate in patient care, they are more likely to seek feedback [ 17 ].

Learning-oriented students aim to seek feedback to achieve clinical competence at the expected level [ 75 ]; they focus on improving their knowledge and skills and on professional development [ 17 ]. Performance-oriented students aim not to fail and to avoid negative feedback [ 17 , 75 ].

For effective feedback processes, including feed-up, feedback, and feedforward, the student must be feedback-oriented, i.e., active, seeking, listening to, interpreting, and acting on feedback [ 68 ]. The literature shows that feedback-oriented students are coproducers of learning [ 68 ] and are more involved in the feedback process [ 51 ]. Additionally, students who are metacognitively aware of their learning process are more likely to use feedback to reduce gaps in learning and performance [ 52 ]. For this, students must recognize feedback when it occurs and understand it when they receive it. Thus, it is important to organize training and promote feedback literacy so that students understand what feedback is, act on it, and improve the quality of feedback and their learning plans [ 68 ].

Table 5 summarizes those feedback tasks, activities, and key features of organizational aspects that enable each phase of the feedback loop based on the literature review.

The present scoping review identified 61 papers that mapped the literature on feedback processes in the WBL environments of undergraduate health professions. This review explored how feedback processes are organized in these learning contexts using the feedback loop framework. Given the specific characteristics of feedback processes in undergraduate clinical learning, three main findings were identified on how feedback processes are being conducted in the clinical environment and how these processes could be organized to support feedback processes.

First, the literature lacks a balance between the three dimensions of the feedback loop. In this regard, most of the articles in this review focused on reporting experiences or strategies for delivering feedback information (i.e., feedback dimension). Credible and objective feedback information is based on direct observation [ 46 ] and occurs within an interaction or a dialogue [ 62 , 88 ]. However, only having credible and objective information does not ensure that it will be considered, understood, used, and put into practice by the student [ 89 ].

Feedback-supporting actions aligned with goals and priorities facilitate effective feedback processes [ 89 ] because goal-oriented feedback focuses on students' learning needs [ 7 ]. In contrast, this review showed that only a minority of the studies highlighted the importance of aligning learning objectives and feedback (i.e., the feed-up dimension). To overcome this, supervisors and students must establish goals and agreements before starting clinical practice, as it allows students to measure themselves on a defined basis [ 90 , 91 ] and enhances students' feedback-seeking behavior [ 39 , 92 ] and responsiveness to feedback [ 83 ]. In addition, learning goals should be shared, and co-constructed, through a dialogue [ 50 , 88 , 90 , 92 ]. In fact, relationship-based feedback models emphasize setting shared goals and plans as part of the feedback process [ 68 ].

Many of the studies acknowledge the importance of establishing an action plan and promoting the use of feedback (i.e., feedforward). However, there is yet limited insight on how to best implement strategies that support the use of action plans, improve performance and close learning gaps. In this regard, it is described that delivering feedback without perceiving changes, results in no effect or impact on learning [ 88 ]. To determine if a feedback loop is closed, observing a change in the student's response is necessary. In other words, feedback does not work without repeating the same task [ 68 ], so teachers need to observe subsequent tasks to notice changes [ 88 ]. While feedforward is fundamental to long-term performance, it is shown that more research is needed to determine effective actions to be implemented in the WBL environment to close feedback loops.

Second, there is a need for more knowledge about designing feedback activities in the WBL environment that will generate constructive feedback for learning. WBA is the most frequently reported feedback activity in clinical workplace contexts [ 39 , 46 , 56 , 87 ]. Despite the efforts of some authors to use WBAs as a formative assessment and feedback opportunity, in several studies, a summative component of the WBA was presented as a barrier to actionable feedback [ 33 , 56 ]. Students suggest separating grading from observation and using, for example, the mini-CEX in informal situations [ 33 ]. Several authors also recommend disconnecting the summative components of WBAs to avoid generating emotions that can limit the uptake and use of feedback [ 28 , 93 ]. Other literature recommends purposefully designing a system of assessment using low-stakes data points for feedback and learning. Accordingly, programmatic assessment is a framework that combines both the learning and the decision-making function of assessment [ 94 , 95 ]. Programmatic assessment is a practical approach for implementing low-stakes as a continuum, giving opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance and having the student as an active agent [ 96 ]. This approach enables the incorporation of low-stakes data points that target student learning [ 93 ] and provide performance-relevant information (i.e., meaningful feedback) based on direct observations during authentic professional activities [ 46 ]. Using low-stakes data points, learners make sense of information about their performance and use it to enhance the quality of their work or performance [ 96 , 97 , 98 ]. Implementing multiple instances of feedback is more effective than providing it once because it promotes closing feedback loops by giving the student opportunities to understand the feedback, make changes, and see if those changes were effective [ 89 ].

Third, the support provided by the teacher is fundamental and should be built into a reliable and long-term relationship, where the teacher must take the role of coach rather than assessor, and students should develop feedback agency and be active in seeking and using feedback to improve performance. Although it is recognized that institutional efforts over the past decades have focused on training teachers to deliver feedback, clinical supervisors' lack of teaching skills is still identified as a barrier to workplace feedback [ 99 ]. In particular, research indicates that clinical teachers lack the skills to transform the information obtained from an observation into constructive feedback [ 100 ]. Students are more likely to use feedback if they consider it credible and constructive [ 93 ] and based on stable relationships [ 93 , 99 , 101 ]. In trusting relationships, feedback can be straightforward and credible, and the likelihood of follow-up and actionable feedback improves [ 83 , 88 ]. Coaching strategies can be enhanced by teachers building an educational alliance that allows for trustworthy relationships or having supervisors with an exclusive coaching role [ 14 , 93 , 102 ].

Last, from a sociocultural perspective, individuals are the main actors in the learning process. Therefore, feedback impacts learning only if students engage and interact with it [ 11 ]. Thus, feedback design and student agency appear to be the main features of effective feedback processes. Accordingly, the present review identified that feedback design is a key feature for effective learning in complex environments such as WBL. Feedback in the workplace must ideally be organized and implemented to align learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessments, allowing learners to learn, practice, and close feedback loops [ 88 ]. To guide students toward performances that reflect long-term learning, an intensive formative learning phase is needed, in which multiple feedback processes are included that shape students´ further learning [ 103 ]. This design would promote student uptake of feedback for subsequent performance [ 1 ].

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study are (1) the use of an established framework, the Arksey and O'Malley's framework [ 22 ]. We included the step of socializing the results with stakeholders, which allowed the team to better understand the results from another perspective and offer a realistic look. (2) Using the feedback loop as a theoretical framework strengthened the results and gave a more thorough explanation of the literature regarding feedback processes in the WBL context. (3) our team was diverse and included researchers from different disciplines as well as a librarian.

The present scoping review has several limitations. Although we adhered to the recommended protocols and methodologies, some relevant papers may have been omitted. The research team decided to select original studies and reviews of the literature for the present scoping review. This caused some articles, such as guidelines, perspectives, and narrative papers, to be excluded from the current study.

One of the inclusion criteria was a focus on undergraduate students. However, some papers that incorporated undergraduate and postgraduate participants were included, as these supported the results of this review. Most articles involved medical students. Although the authors did not limit the search to medicine, maybe some articles involving students from other health disciplines needed to be included, considering the search in other databases or journals.

The results give insight in how feedback could be organized within the clinical workplace to promote feedback processes. On a small scale, i.e., in the feedback encounter between a supervisor and a learner, feedback should be organized to allow for follow-up feedback, thus working on required learning and performance goals. On a larger level, i.e., in the clerkship programme or a placement rotation, feedback should be organized through appropriate planning of subsequent tasks and activities.

More insight is needed in designing a closed loop feedback process, in which specific attention is needed in effective feedforward practices. The feedback that stimulates further action and learning requires a safe and trustful work and learning environment. Understanding the relationship between an individual and his or her environment is a challenge for determining the impact of feedback and must be further investigated within clinical WBL environments. Aligning the dimensions of feed-up, feedback and feedforward includes careful attention to teachers’ and students’ feedback literacy to assure that students can act on feedback in a constructive way. In this line, how to develop students' feedback agency within these learning environments needs further research.

Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38:698–712.

Article   Google Scholar  

Henderson M, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Molloy E. Identifying feedback that has impact. In: The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education. Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2019. p. 15–34.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Winstone N, Carless D. Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Ajjawi R, Boud D. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863 .

Carless D. Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assess Eval High Educ. 2019;44:705–14.

Sadler DR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci. 1989;18:119–44.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback The Meaning of Feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.

Zarrinabadi N, Rezazadeh M. Why only feedback? Including feed up and feed forward improves nonlinguistic aspects of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research. 2023;27(3):575–92.

Fisher D, Frey N. Feed up, back, forward. Educ Leadersh. 2009;67:20–5.

Reimann A, Sadler I, Sambell K. What’s in a word? Practices associated with ‘feedforward’ in higher education. Assessment evaluation in higher education. 2019;44:1279–90.

Esterhazy R. Re-conceptualizing Feedback Through a Sociocultural Lens. In: Henderson M, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Molloy E, editors. The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_5 .

Bransen D, Govaerts MJB, Sluijsmans DMA, Driessen EW. Beyond the self: The role of co-regulation in medical students’ self-regulated learning. Med Educ. 2020;54:234–41.

Ramani S, Könings KD, Ginsburg S, Van Der Vleuten CP. Feedback Redefined: Principles and Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:744–53.

Atkinson A, Watling CJ, Brand PL. Feedback and coaching. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(2):441–6.

Suhoyo Y, Schonrock-Adema J, Emilia O, Kuks JBM, Cohen-Schotanus JA. Clinical workplace learning: perceived learning value of individual and group feedback in a collectivistic culture. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:79.

Bowen L, Marshall M, Murdoch-Eaton D. Medical Student Perceptions of Feedback and Feedback Behaviors Within the Context of the “Educational Alliance.” Acad Med. 2017;92:1303–12.

Bok HGJ, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JPI, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma DADC, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91.

Al-Kadri HM, Al-Kadi MT, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Workplace-based assessment and students’ approaches to learning: A qualitative inquiry. Med Teach. 2013;35(SUPPL):1.

Dennis AA, Foy MJ, Monrouxe LV, Rees CE. Exploring trainer and trainee emotional talk in narratives about workplace-based feedback processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:75–93.

Watling C, LaDonna KA, Lingard L, Voyer S, Hatala R. ‘Sometimes the work just needs to be done’: socio-cultural influences on direct observation in medical training. Med Educ. 2016;50:1054–64.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. Feedback for Learners in Medical Education: What is Known? A Scoping Review Academic Medicine. 2017;92:1346–54.

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

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

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition methods and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4.

StArt - State of Art through Systematic Review. 2013.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:1–9.

Peters MDJ, BPharm CMGHK, Parker PMD, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.

Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D, et al. The Feedback Tango: An Integrative Review and Analysis of the Content of the Teacher-Learner Feedback Exchange. Acad Med. 2018;93:657–63.

Ossenberg C, Henderson A, Mitchell M. What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2019;24:383–401.

Spooner M, Duane C, Uygur J, Smyth E, Marron B, Murphy PJ, et al. Self -regulatory learning theory as a lens on how undergraduate and postgraduate learners respond to feedback: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 66. Med Teach. 2022;44:3–18.

Long S, Rodriguez C, St-Onge C, Tellier PP, Torabi N, Young M. Factors affecting perceived credibility of assessment in medical education: A scoping review. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2022;27:229–62.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Varaklis K, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. Feedback for Learners in Medical Education: What is Known? A Scoping Review: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017.

Schopper H, Rosenbaum M, Axelson R. “I wish someone watched me interview:” medical student insight into observation and feedback as a method for teaching communication skills during the clinical years. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:286.

Crommelinck M, Anseel F. Understanding and encouraging feedback-seeking behaviour: a literature review. Med Educ. 2013;47:232–41.

Adamson E, Kinga L, Foy L, McLeodb M, Traynor J, Watson W, et al. Feedback in clinical practice: Enhancing the students’ experience through action research. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;31:48–53.

Al-Mously N, Nabil NM, Al-Babtain SA, et al. Undergraduate medical students’ perceptions on the quality of feedback received during clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2014;36(Supplement 1):S17-23.

Bates J, Konkin J, Suddards C, Dobson S, Pratt D. Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:362–74.

Bennett AJ, Goldenhar LM, Stanford K. Utilization of a Formative Evaluation Card in a Psychiatry Clerkship. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30:319–24.

Bok HG, Jaarsma DA, Spruijt A, Van Beukelen P, Van Der Vleuten CP, Teunissen PW, et al. Feedback-giving behaviour in performance evaluations during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2016;38:88–95.

Bok HG, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, Fokkema JP, van Beukelen P, Jaarsma DA, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91.

Calleja P, Harvey T, Fox A, Carmichael M, et al. Feedback and clinical practice improvement: A tool to assist workplace supervisors and students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;17:167–73.

Carey EG, Wu C, Hur ES, Hasday SJ, Rosculet NP, Kemp MT, et al. Evaluation of Feedback Systems for the Third-Year Surgical Clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:787–93.

Daelmans HE, Overmeer RM, Van der Hem-Stokroos HH, Scherpbier AJ, Stehouwer CD, van der Vleuten CP. In-training assessment: qualitative study of effects on supervision and feedback in an undergraduate clinical rotation. Medical education. 2006;40(1):51–8.

DeWitt D, Carline J, Paauw D, Pangaro L. Pilot study of a ’RIME’-based tool for giving feedback in a multi-specialty longitudinal clerkship. Med Educ. 2008;42:1205–9.

Dolan BM, O’Brien CL, Green MM. Including Entrustment Language in an Assessment Form May Improve Constructive Feedback for Student Clinical Skills. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27:461–4.

Duijn CC, Welink LS, Mandoki M, Ten Cate OT, Kremer WD, Bok HG. Am I ready for it? Students’ perceptions of meaningful feedback on entrustable professional activities. Perspectives on medical education. 2017;6:256–64.

Elnicki DM, Zalenski D. Integrating medical students’ goals, self-assessment and preceptor feedback in an ambulatory clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25:285–91.

Embo MP, Driessen EW, Valcke M, Van der Vleuten CP. Assessment and feedback to facilitate self-directed learning in clinical practice of Midwifery students. Medical teacher. 2010;32(7):e263-9.

Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, et al. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17:15–26.

Farrell L, Bourgeois-Law G, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. An autoethnographic exploration of the use of goal oriented feedback to enhance brief clinical teaching encounters. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22:91–104.

Fernando N, Cleland J, McKenzie H, Cassar K. Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments. Med Educ. 2008;42:89–95.

Garino A. Ready, willing and able: a model to explain successful use of feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:337–61.

Garner MS, Gusberg RJ, Kim AW. The positive effect of immediate feedback on medical student education during the surgical clerkship. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:391–7.

Bing-You R, Hayes V, Palka T, Ford M, Trowbridge R. The Art (and Artifice) of Seeking Feedback: Clerkship Students’ Approaches to Asking for Feedback. Acad Med. 2018;93:1218–26.

Haffling AC, Beckman A, Edgren G. Structured feedback to undergraduate medical students: 3 years’ experience of an assessment tool. Medical teacher. 2011;33(7):e349-57.

Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Dannefer EF, Schuwirth LWTT, Wass V, van der Vleuten CPMM. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:276–84.

Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Schuwirth LW, Wass V, Van der Vleuten CP, Konings KD, et al. Changing the culture of assessment: the dominance of the summative assessment paradigm. BMC medical education. 2017;17:1–4.

Harvey P, Radomski N, O’Connor D. Written feedback and continuity of learning in a geographically distributed medical education program. Medical teacher. 2013;35(12):1009–13.

Hochberg M, Berman R, Ogilvie J, Yingling S, Lee S, Pusic M, et al. Midclerkship feedback in the surgical clerkship: the “Professionalism, Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, Educating, and Procedural Skills” application utilizing learner self-assessment. Am J Surg. 2017;213:212–6.

Holmboe ES, Yepes M, Williams F, Huot SJ. Feedback and the mini clinical evaluation exercise. Journal of general internal medicine. 2004;19(5):558–61.

Tai JHM, Canny BJ, Haines TP, Molloy EK. The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: opportunities in clinical medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21:659–76.

Johnson CE, Keating JL, Molloy EK. Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it? Med Educ. 2020;54:559–70.

Joshi A, Generalla J, Thompson B, Haidet P. Facilitating the Feedback Process on a Clinical Clerkship Using a Smartphone Application. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:651–5.

Kiger ME, Riley C, Stolfi A, Morrison S, Burke A, Lockspeiser T. Use of Individualized Learning Plans to Facilitate Feedback Among Medical Students. Teach Learn Med. 2020;32:399–409.

Kogan J, Shea J. Implementing feedback cards in core clerkships. Med Educ. 2008;42:1071–9.

Lefroy J, Walters B, Molyneux A, Smithson S. Can learning from workplace feedback be enhanced by reflective writing? A realist evaluation in UK undergraduate medical education. Educ Prim Care. 2021;32:326–35.

McGinness HT, Caldwell PHY, Gunasekera H, Scott KM. ‘Every Human Interaction Requires a Bit of Give and Take’: Medical Students’ Approaches to Pursuing Feedback in the Clinical Setting. Teach Learn Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2084401 .

Noble C, Billett S, Armit L, Collier L, Hilder J, Sly C, et al. ``It’s yours to take{’’}: generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:55–74.

Ogburn T, Espey E. The R-I-M-E method for evaluation of medical students on an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:666–9.

Po O, Reznik M, Greenberg L. Improving a medical student feedback with a clinical encounter card. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7:449–52.

Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T, Parkes J, Abercrombie S, McCarty T. Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013;18:397–407.

Paukert JL, Richards ML, Olney C. An encounter card system for increasing feedback to students. Am J Surg. 2002;183:300–4.

Rassos J, Melvin LJ, Panisko D, Kulasegaram K, Kuper A. Unearthing Faculty and Trainee Perspectives of Feedback in Internal Medicine: the Oral Case Presentation as a Model. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2107–13.

Rizan C, Elsey C, Lemon T, Grant A, Monrouxe L. Feedback in action within bedside teaching encounters: a video ethnographic study. Med Educ. 2014;48:902–20.

Robertson AC, Fowler LC. Medical student perceptions of learner-initiated feedback using a mobile web application. Journal of medical education and curricular development. 2017;4:2382120517746384.

Scheidt PC, Lazoritz S, Ebbeling WL, Figelman AR, Moessner HF, Singer JE. Evaluation of system providing feedback to students on videotaped patient encounters. J Med Educ. 1986;61(7):585–90.

Sokol-Hessner L, Shea J, Kogan J. The open-ended comment space for action plans on core clerkship students’ encounter cards: what gets written? Acad Med. 2010;85:S110–4.

Sox CM, Dell M, Phillipi CA, Cabral HJ, Vargas G, Lewin LO. Feedback on oral presentations during pediatric clerkships: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2014;134:965–71.

Spickard A, Gigante J, Stein G, Denny JC. Automatic capture of student notes to augment mentor feedback and student performance on patient write-ups. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:979–84.

Suhoyo Y, Van Hell EA, Kerdijk W, Emilia O, Schönrock-Adema J, Kuks JB, et al. nfluence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning value of feedback in clerkships: does culture matter? BMC medical education. 2017;17:1–7.

Torre DM, Simpson D, Sebastian JL, Elnicki DM. Learning/feedback activities and high-quality teaching: perceptions of third-year medical students during an inpatient rotation. Acad Med. 2005;80:950–4.

Urquhart LM, Ker JS, Rees CE. Exploring the influence of context on feedback at medical school: a video-ethnography study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:159–86.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Lingard L. Learning culture and feedback: an international study of medical athletes and musicians. Med Educ. 2014;48:713–23.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten C, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Beyond individualism: Professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ. 2013;47:585–94.

Soemantri D, Dodds A, Mccoll G. Examining the nature of feedback within the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX): an analysis of 1427 Mini-CEX assessment forms. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35:Doc47.

Van De Ridder JMMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OTJ, van der Ridder JM, Stokking KM, et al. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42:189–97.

van de Ridder JMMM, McGaghie WC, Stokking KM, ten Cate OTJJ. Variables that affect the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical training: a meta-review. Med Educ. 2015;49:658–73.

Boud D. Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning. Clin Teach. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12345 .

Brehaut J, Colquhoun H, Eva K, Carrol K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:435–41.

Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. J Am Med Assoc. 1983;250:777–81.

Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. Br Med J. 2008;337(7681):1292–4.

Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29:855–71.

Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. 2019;53:76–85.

van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman LKJ, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34:205–14.

Schuwirth LWT, der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33:478–85.

Schut S, Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, van der Vleuten C, Heeneman S. Stakes in the eye of the beholder: an international study of learners’ perceptions within programmatic assessment. Med Educ. 2018;52:654–63.

Henderson M, Boud D, Molloy E, Dawson P, Phillips M, Ryan T, Mahoney MP. Feedback for learning. Closing the assessment loop. Framework for effective learning. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department for Education and Training; 2018.

Heeneman S, Pool AO, Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Driessen EW, Oudkerk A, et al. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49:487–98.

Lefroy J, Watling C, Teunissen P, Brand P, Watling C. Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:284–99.

Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34:787–91.

Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The, “Educational Alliance” as a Framework for Reconceptualizing Feedback in Medical Education. Acad Med. 2015;90:609–14.

Lockyer J, Armson H, Könings KD, Lee-Krueger RC, des Ordons AR, Ramani S, et al. In-the-Moment Feedback and Coaching: Improving R2C2 for a New Context. J Grad Med Educ. 2020;12:27–35.

Black P, Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ Assess Eval Account. 2009;21:5–31.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma & Ignacio Villagran

School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Javiera Fuentes-Cimma & Lorena Isbej

Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Dominique Sluijsmans

Centre for Medical and Health Profession Education, Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Arnoldo Riquelme

School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Lorena Isbej

Sistema de Bibliotecas UC (SIBUC), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

María Teresa Olivares-Labbe

Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Health Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Sylvia Heeneman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.F-C, D.S, and S.H. made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work. M.O-L contributed to the identification of studies. J.F-C, I.V, A.R, and L.I. made substantial contributions to the screening, reliability, and data analysis. J.F-C. wrote th e main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javiera Fuentes-Cimma .

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.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1, supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fuentes-Cimma, J., Sluijsmans, D., Riquelme, A. et al. Designing feedback processes in the workplace-based learning of undergraduate health professions education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 440 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05439-6

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 23 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05439-6

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

• Clinical clerkship
• Feedback processes
• Feedforward
• Formative feedback
• Health professions
• Undergraduate medical education
• Undergraduate healthcare education
• Workplace learning

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Case Report
• Open access
• Published: 27 April 2024

Minimally invasive treatment of uterine necrosis with favorable outcomes: an uncommon case presentation and literature review

• Tengge Yu 1  

BMC Women's Health volume  24 , Article number:  267 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Uterine necrosis is a rare condition and is considered a life-threatening complication. However, cases of uterine necrosis were rarely reported, particularly those caused by infection. In terms of treatment, no minimally invasive treatment for uterine necrosis has been reported, and total hysterectomy is mostly considered as the treatment option.

The article specifically focuses on minimally invasive treatments and provides a summary of recent cases of uterine necrosis.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 28-year-old patient gravid 1, para 0 underwent a cesarean section after unsuccessful induction due to fetal death. She presented with recurrent fever and vaginal discharge. The blood inflammation markers were elevated, and a CT scan revealed irregular lumps with low signal intensity in the uterine cavity. The gynecological examination revealed the presence of gray and white soft tissue, approximately 5 cm in length, exuding from the cervix. The secretions were found to contain Fusobacterium necrophorum, Escherichia coli, and Proteus upon culturing. Given the patient’s sepsis and uterine necrosis caused by infection, laparoscopic exploration uncovered white pus and necrotic tissue openings in the anterior wall of the uterus. The necrotic tissue was removed during the operation, and the uterus was repaired. Postoperative pathological findings revealed complete degeneration and necrosis of fusiform cell-like tissue. Severe uterine necrosis caused by a multi-drug resistant bacterial infection was considered after the operation. She was treated with antibiotics for three weeks and was discharged after the infection was brought under control. The patient expressed satisfaction with the treatment plan, which preserved her uterus, maintained reproductive function, and minimized the extent of surgery.

Based on the literature review of uterine necrosis, we found that it presents a potential risk of death, emphasizing the importance of managing the progression of the condition. Most treatment options involve a total hysterectomy. A partial hysterectomy reduces the extent of the operation, preserves fertility function, and can also yield positive outcomes in the treatment of uterine necrosis, serving as a complement to the overall treatment of this condition.

Peer Review reports

Uterine necrosis is a rare complication. Several cases of uterine necrosis have been reported following embolization of the uterine arteries for postpartum hemorrhage or uterine fibroids, or as a result of severe endometritis [ 1 ]. Symptoms of uterine necrosis caused by infection typically include lower abdominal pain, fever, and foul-smelling vaginal discharge. When the infection affects the tissue surrounding the uterus, the uterus becomes enlarged and tender, and the edema of the inflamed tissue holds the uterus in place. Some complications may occur infrequently, including peritonitis, pelvic vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pelvic abscess, sepsis, kidney damage, and even death. Diagnosis is usually based on clinical symptoms and physical examination. Inflammatory markers, imaging studies, and secretion cultures can also assist in the diagnosis. Hysteronecrosis is typically treated with a total hysterectomy. Most patients recover, and only a small number of patients do not survive. We reported a case of uterine necrosis caused by infection. We removed part of the uterus instead of performing a total hysterectomy. The patient recovered well. Few cases of uterine necrosis have been reported, and no one has reported minimally invasive treatment for it. Given the rarity of the case and the lack of minimally invasive treatment options for uterine necrosis, this report was written in conjunction with a literature review summarizing similar cases of uterine necrosis.

We report the case of a 28-year-old patient who was gravid 1, para 0, with no significant medical history. The patient is Asian, from the Han ethnic group, China’s largest ethnic group. When she was 32 weeks pregnant, intrauterine fetal demise was confirmed by ultrasound. A cesarean section was performed due to the difficulty of vaginal trial labor following a lateral perineal incision, which was necessary because the fetus’s shoulder was exposed. After the operation, the patient continued to experience a high fever, with a maximum temperature of 39.5 degrees Celsius, and the fat around the abdominal incision has become liquefied. The number of patient’s pulses was 140, respiratory rate was 22 times per minute, and blood pressure was 131/87mmhg. After receiving treatment with medications such as Tienam and Piperacillin, the patient’s body temperature and inflammation returned to normal, and she was discharged from Municipal integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine hospital. The type of antibiotic Tienam is Carbapenem antibiotics, and the dose is 500 mg by injection three times a day. The type of antibiotic Piperacillin is semi-synthetic penicillin antibiotics, and the dose is 1.5 g by injection three times a day. The disease subside after 7 days treatment.

A week later, she was admitted to Municipal integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine hospital for the second time due to fever and pain in her lower left abdomen. The patient’s heart rate was normal, respiratory rate was 20 times per minute, and blood pressure was 121/80mmhg. The blood inflammation index was elevated, indicated by a C-reactive protein level of 52.01 mg/L. Brain CT and lung CT scans revealed no significant abnormalities. She was discharged after two weeks of treatment with medications such as Tienam and Piperacillin with the same dose as last time. The disease subside after 5 days treatment.

Five days later, she was admitted to our hospital for the third time due to a recurring fever, accompanied by vaginal purulent discharge and odor. The patient’s heart rate was 110 times per minute, respiratory rate was 23 times per minute, and blood pressure was 132/85mmhg. There was no increase in β-HCG, white cell count was 12.3 × 10^9 /L in the differential blood count, hemoglobin was 104 g/L, and procalcitonin was 0.12 ng/ml. She felt feverish and lethargic, with mild nausea. The patient was treated orally with Moxifloxacin by 1 tablet once a day for 3 days. A vaginal color ultrasound revealed a hypoechoic area in front of the uterus, indicating encapsulated effusion. The ultrasound also revealed an abnormal uterine echo, uneven uterine enlargement with abundant blood supply, trace effusion of the cervical canal, and pelvic effusion. The enhanced CT scan revealed swelling and adhesion of the anterior wall of the uterus and the adjacent anterior abdominal wall, along with changes in the surrounding exudate. Additionally, a lumpy, uneven low signal shadow was observed in the uterine cavity, along with visible pelvic fluid (Fig.  1 ). The histopathological analysis of intrauterine effluents revealed degenerative smooth muscle tissue accompanied by pus. Anaerobic culture of cervical secretions suggested the presence of Fusobacterium necrophorum. Biopsy of cervical and vaginal lesions revealed complete necrosis of fusiform cell-like tissue, with increased infiltration of inflammatory cells, and no identifiable endometrial tissue. Due to the presence of pus in the uterus, morinidazole was administered, and uterine drainage was performed. However, the result was not favorable. A gynecological examination revealed the presence of necrotic tissue in the vagina, extending approximately 5 cm from the cervical opening. The tissue appeared white and emitted a foul odor. It was recommended to undergo a laparoscopic surgery.

Sagittal computed tomography images. The uterus shows heterogeneous spongiform enlargement with multiple air locules, measuring 4 × 2.6 cm and extending over 5 cm. We have observed a difficulty in distinguishing between the myometrium and the endometrial cavity

Given that the patient had strong fertility requirements, the surgical procedure included laparoscopic necrotic tissue excision, uterine reconstruction, and the uterine drainage tube placement. During the laparoscopy, adhesion of the uterus to the anterior wall of the abdomen was observed. An opening with white pus and necrotic tissue was visible in the anterior wall of the uterus. The necrotic tissue in the cavity was removed during the operation (Fig.  2 Fig.  3 ). Cefoxitin (1.5 g tid ivgtt) and ornidazole (500 mg bid oral) were administered postoperatively to prevent infection for 2 days. After the surgery, the patient developed a fever with a peak body temperature of 39.3 degrees Celsius, which prompted a switch to cefoperazone-sulbactam sodium (2 g bid ivgtt) and ornidazole antibiotics (500 mg bid oral) for 7 days. After the body temperature returned to normal, the antibiotics were downgraded, the uterine drainage tube was removed, and oral antibiotics were continued after discharge. The results of the vaginal secretion culture indicated the presence of Escherichia coli and Proteus bacteria. The pathological results revealed extensively denatured necrotic tissue with calcification and heightened inflammatory cell infiltration.

The images seen during the surgery. The necrotic tissue of the uterus, attached to the anterior wall of the abdomen, is clearly visible in gray and white colors. It is situated in the anterior wall of the uterus and is connected to the uterine cavity

The gross specimen appeared gray in color, with an extremely soft texture, measuring about 5 cm in length, and accompanied by a foul odor

Uterine necrosis is a rare and serious complication. Cases of uterine necrosis have been reported in the literature as a complication of cesarean section, embolization for postpartum hemorrhage, or for a leiomyomatous uterus, as well as in cases of severe endometritis [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ] (Table  1 ). Several authors have described cases of uterine necrosis associated with intrapartum or postpartum complications that increase the risk of infection. The literature reports cases of uterine necrosis resulting from the placement of B-Lynch compression sutures, uterine artery embolization, or surgical ligation techniques used to treat postpartum hemorrhage. These procedures may increase the risk of infection as the tissue becomes devascularized. A. Fouad et al. described a case similar to ours in which a patient underwent a cesarean section due to fetal death, followed by postoperative sepsis and purulent uterine necrosis. Despite undergoing a hysterectomy, the disease continued to progress and ultimately resulted in death due to septic shock and multiple organ failure.

The case we report has identified pathogenic bacteria in the culture, which is significant for diagnosing infection-induced uterine necrosis. Fusobacterium necrophorum is a pleomorphic, Gram-negative, non-spore-forming obligate anaerobic coccobacillus. It is associated with localized abscesses, throat infections, and life-threatening systemic diseases. It is a common resident of the oral cavity and the vagina. Of the two subspecies of Fusobacterium necrophorum, biovar B is the primary pathogen for humans. Potential virulence factors include cell wall endotoxin lipopolysaccharide, hemagglutinin, and hemolysin. Most reported cases related to gynaecology occurred in the postpartum or post-abortion period, in addition to a few reports associated with the use of intrauterine devices, tubo-ovarian abscesses, and gynecological Lemierre’s syndrome [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Although infected with the same pathogen, the case reported by T. Widelock et al. developed more severe symptoms, including lung abscesses and kidney failure, as a result of hematoplasm infection [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

A pelvic ultrasound is the initial diagnostic test that can reveal signs of uterine necrosis. The uterine cavity is typically expanded and exhibits multiple echogenic foci with accompanying dirty acoustic shadowing. Little or no vascularity is observed [ 14 ]. The diagnosis requires further exploration through a CT scan or MRI, as these are the preferred methods of investigation. The CT scan is highly useful for diagnosis as it demonstrates the presence of gas in the myometrium, the lack of enhancement of the myometrium after contrast injection associated with uterine enlargement, and the presence of free fluid in the peritoneal space [ 15 , 16 ].

Since uterine necrosis is described as a life-threatening complication, it is suggested to manage it with hysterectomy and broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy [ 17 , 18 ]. But sometimes it’s a case-by-case situation.

Avoid the chances of associated infections by systematic vaginal sampling in the third trimester, and promote good asepsis during surgery and antibiotic coverage in case of doubt about any undiagnosed prepartum infection, which may potentiate hypoxia and the risk of necrosis. Uterine necrosis may be secondary to all these intertwined factors and could be potentiated by an environment of hypoxia, hypoperfusion, hypovolemia secondary to hemorrhage, massive transfusions with disadvantages in a patient who is immunocompromised by pregnancy, and possibly, by other vitamin and iron deficiencies.

Given the limited number of reported cases of uterine necrosis in the past, there is no standardized treatment protocol. However, due to the potential fatality of uterine necrosis, most treatment options involve total hysterectomy. In our case, only the necrotic tissue of the uterus was removed in young women who had not given birth, and the prognosis for the patient is good. This study also has limitations, including the short follow-up time and the small number of cases collected. It needs to be complemented by subsequent case reports related to uterine necrosis.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Dharia S, Shah S, Kissinger M, Sanders A, Singh G. Group A Streptococcal endometritis and toxic shock causing septic pelvic thrombophlebitis and Septic Pulmonary Emboli. BMJ Case Rep. 2023;16(11):e255455. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2023-255455 . PMID: 37996149; PMCID: PMC10668199.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fouad A, Bouab M, Youssouf N, Lamrissi A, Fichtali K, Bouhya S. Uterine necrosis simulating a textiloma: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2022;91:106754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2021.106754 . Epub 2022 Jan 5. PMID: 35051885; PMCID: PMC8777381.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Luo L, Wan J, Chen X, Zhang H, Zhang M, Chen Q. Uterine necrosis, infection, and subinvolution: complications observed after combined application of modified B-Lynch suture and vascular ligation. J Int Med Res. 2021;49(5):3000605211010730. https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605211010730 . PMID: 33947256; PMCID: PMC8113939.

Tymon-Rosario J, Chuang M. Multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli resulting in Postpartum Necrotizing endomyometritis. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2019;2019:6715974. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6715974 . PMID: 31139481; PMCID: PMC6500617.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tanaka K, Muraoka Y, Toda Y, Kiyomoto C, Okubo Y, Nagashima T, Furukawa S, Fujiwara M, Mochizuki M, Kobayashi Y, Iwashita M. Finegoldia magna myometritis with uterine necrosis after uterine artery embolisation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(5):688–9. Epub 2017 Mar 20. PMID: 28319430.

Kashan D, Muthu N, Chaucer B, Davalos F, Bernstein M, Chendrasekhar A. Uterine perforation with Intra-abdominal Clostridium perfringens Gas Gangrene: a rare and fatal infection. J Gynecol Surg. 2016;32(3):182–4. PMID: 27274183; PMCID: PMC4876544.

Widelock T, Elkattah R, Gibbs S, Mashak Z, Mohling S, DePasquale S. Uterine Necrosis Associated with Fusobacterium necrophorum infection. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:934913. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/934913 . Epub 2015 Apr 27. PMID: 26000185; PMCID: PMC4426659.

Koshy KM, Malik W, Roberts SC. Myometritis with pelvic septic vein thrombophlebitis secondary to Fusobacterium necrophorum sepsis. BMJ Case Rep. 2022;15(10):e250097. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2022-250097 . PMID: 36229077; PMCID: PMC9562719.

Tamura S, Jwa SC, Tarumoto N, Ishihara O. Septic shock caused by Fusobacterium Necrophorum after sexual intercourse during recovery from infectious mononucleosis in an adolescent: a Case Report. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020;33(5):566–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.018 . Epub 2020 Jun 26. PMID: 32599171.

Reymond B, Huette P, Roger PA, Tredez E, Gagneur O, Sanguin S, Guihéneuf R, Dupont H, Mahjoub Y, Abou Arab O. Fatal Fusobacterium necrophorum infection with gynecological Lemierre’s syndrome. Med Mal Infect. 2019;49(1):72–4. Epub 2018 Oct 9. PMID: 30309662.

Brazier JS. Human infections with Fusobacterium necrophorum. Anaerobe. 2006;12(4):165–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2005.11.003 . Epub 2005 Dec 22. PMID: 16962962.

Hagelskjaer Kristensen L, Prag J. Lemierre’s syndrome and other disseminated Fusobacterium necrophorum infections in Denmark: a prospective epidemiological and clinical survey. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;27(9):779–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-008-0496-4 . Epub 2008 Mar 11. PMID: 18330604; PMCID: PMC7102232.

Treszezamsky AD, Molina Boero MF, Mehta I. Cervical conization complicated by sepsis with lung and liver abscesses. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010;14(2):130-3. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e3181c7104e . PMID: 20354422.

Ruiz Sánchez E, Peinado Rodenas J, Gil Martínez-Acacio L, Arones Collantes M, Villar García M, García de la Torre JP, Amezcua Recover AN. Uterine necrosis. A rare complication of embolisation due to post-partum haemorrhage. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(2):101773. Epub 2020 Apr 20. PMID: 32325270.

Benkirane S, Saadi H, Serji B, Mimouni A. Uterine necrosis following a combination of uterine compression sutures and vascular ligation during a postpartum hemorrhage: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;38:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.07.005 . Epub 2017 Jul 10. PMID: 28728102; PMCID: PMC5516088.

Pirard C, Squifflet J, Gilles A, Donnez J. Uterine necrosis and sepsis after vascular embolization and surgical ligation in a patient with postpartum hemorrhage. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(2):412-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03229-6 . PMID: 12137882.

Gupta S, Buxi TBS, Rastogi D, Ghuman S, Mittal S, Sud S. Imaging of uterine necrosis: a rare complication of uterine artery embolization for post partum hemorrhage. Curr Med Res Pract. 2017;7(1):20–3.

Article   Google Scholar  

Melenhorst M, Hehenkamp W, de Heer K, Herger F. CT features in uterine necrosis of unknown cause: a case report. Clin Imaging. 2014;38(4):543–6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

All authors declare that no fundings were received concerning the published case or the decision to publish it.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Xiamen Hospital of Sichuan University, Xiamen, 361000, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Tengge Yu have drafted the work and substantively revised it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tengge Yu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Patient consent for publication.

Consent for publication

Written Informed consent for publication obtained from the participant.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yu, T. Minimally invasive treatment of uterine necrosis with favorable outcomes: an uncommon case presentation and literature review. BMC Women's Health 24 , 267 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03089-w

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 27 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03089-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

• Minimally invasive surgical procedures
• Fertility preservation
• Bacterial infections

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

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
• Review Article
• Published: 18 April 2024

Mechanisms, detection and impacts of species redistributions under climate change

• Jake A. Lawlor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1499-5227 1 ,
• Lise Comte   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8030-0019 2 ,
• Gaël Grenouillet 3 , 4 ,
• Jonathan Lenoir   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0638-9582 5 ,
• J. Alex Baecher 6 ,
• R.M.W.J. Bandara 7 ,
• Romain Bertrand 3 ,
• I-Ching Chen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1909-7290 8 ,
• Sarah E. Diamond 9 ,
• Lesley T. Lancaster 10 ,
• Nikki Moore   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3496-3641 1 ,
• Jerome Murienne 3 ,
• Brunno F. Oliveira 11 ,
• Gretta T. Pecl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0192-4339 12 , 13 ,
• Malin L. Pinsky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8523-8952 14 , 15 ,
• Jonathan Rolland 3 ,
• Madeleine Rubenstein 16 ,
• Brett R. Scheffers 17 ,
• Laura M. Thompson 18 ,
• Brit van Amerom 1 ,
• Fabricio Villalobos 19 ,
• Sarah R. Weiskopf   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-8191 16 &
• Jennifer Sunday 1  

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment ( 2024 ) Cite this article

820 Accesses

71 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biogeography
• Climate-change ecology

Shifts in species distributions are a common ecological response to climate change, and global temperature rise is often hypothesized as the primary driver. However, the directions and rates of distribution shifts are highly variable across species, systems, and studies, complicating efforts to manage and anticipate biodiversity responses to anthropogenic change. In this Review, we summarize approaches to documenting species range shifts, discuss why observed range shifts often do not match our expectations, and explore the impacts of species range shifts on nature and society. The majority (59%) of documented range shifts are directionally consistent with climate change, based on the BioShifts database of range shift observations. However, many observed species have not shifted or have shifted in directions opposite to temperature-based expectations. These lagging or expectation-contrary shifts might be explained by additional biotic or abiotic factors driving range shifts, including additional non-temperature climatic drivers, habitat characteristics, and species interactions, which are not normally considered in range shift documentations. Understanding and managing range shifts will require increasing and connecting observational biological data, generalizing range shift patterns across systems, and predicting shifts at management-relevant timescales.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

92,52 € per year

only 7,71 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Linking climate warming and land conversion to species’ range changes across Great Britain

Habitat availability explains variation in climate-driven range shifts across multiple taxonomic groups

Anthropogenic climate and land-use change drive short- and long-term biodiversity shifts across taxa

Grinnell, J. Field tests of theories concerning distributional control. Am. Nat. 51 , 115–128 (1917).

Article   Google Scholar  

Colwell, R. K. & Rangel, T. F. Hutchinson’s duality: the once and future niche. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 19651–19658 (2009).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Soberón, J. Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol. Lett. 10 , 1115–1123 (2007).

Soberón, J. & Nakamura, M. Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 19644–19650 (2009).

Brown, J. H., Stevens, G. C. & Kaufman, D. M. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27 , 597–623 (1996).

Anderson, B. J. et al. Dynamics of range margins for metapopulations under climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276 , 1415–1420 (2009).

Lenoir, J. & Svenning, J.-C. in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 599–611 (Elsevier, 2013).

Burrows, M. T. et al. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334 , 652–655 (2011).

Ling, S. D., Johnson, C. R., Ridgway, K., Hobday, A. J. & Haddon, M. Climate-driven range extension of a sea urchin: inferring future trends by analysis of recent population dynamics. Glob. Change Biol. 15 , 719–731 (2009).

Bates, A. E. et al. Defining and observing stages of climate-mediated range shifts in marine systems. Glob. Environ. Change 26 , 27–38 (2014).

Parmesan, C. Climate and species’ range. Nature 382 , 765–766 (1996).

Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421 , 37–42 (2003).

Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355 , eaai9214 (2017).

Sorte, C. J. B., Williams, S. L. & Carlton, J. T. Marine range shifts and species introductions: comparative spread rates and community impacts: range shifts and non-native species introductions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19 , 303–316 (2010).

Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 , 1044–1059 (2020).

Chen, I.-C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333 , 1024–1026 (2011).

Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Levin, S. A. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341 , 1239–1242 (2013).

Brown, C. J. et al. Ecological and methodological drivers of species’ distribution and phenology responses to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 22 , 1548–1560 (2016).

Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 919–925 (2013).

Melbourne-Thomas, J. et al. Poleward bound: adapting to climate-driven species redistribution. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish . 32 , 231–251 (2022).

Alexander, K. A. et al. Equity of our future oceans: practices and outcomes in marine science research. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32 , 297–311 (2022).

Comte, L. et al. BioShifts: a global geodatabase of climate-induced species redistribution over land and sea. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7413365.v1 (2020).

von Humboldt, A. & Bonpland, A. Essai sur la géographie des plantes: accompagné d’un tableau physique des régions équinoxiales, fondé sur des mesures exécutées, depuis le dixième degré de latitude boréale jusqu’au dixième degré de latitude australe, pendant les années 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802 et 1803 (Chez Levrault, Schoell et compagnie, libraires, 1805).

Merriam, C. H. Laws of Temperature Control of the Geographic Distribution of Terrestrial Animals and Plants. Natl. Geogr. Mag. 6 , 229–238 (1894).

Google Scholar  

Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37 , 637–669 (2006).

Odum, E. P. The concept of the biome as applied to the distribution of North American birds. Wilson Bull. 57 , 191–201 (1945).

Thomas, C. D. Climate, climate change and range boundaries. Divers. Distrib. 16 , 488–495 (2010).

Gonzalez, P. Desertification and a shift of forest species in the West African Sahel. Clim. Res. 17 , 217–228 (2001).

Hersteinsson, P. & MacDonald, D. W. Interspecific competition and the geographical distribution of red and arctic foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus . Oikos 64 , 505 (1992).

Service, C. N. et al. Indigenous knowledge and science unite to reveal spatial and temporal dimensions of distributional shift in wildlife of conservation concern. PLoS ONE 9 , e101595 (2014).

Barry, J. P., Baxter, C. H., Sagarin, R. D. & Gilman, S. E. Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science 267 , 672–675 (1995).

Grabherr, G., Gottfried, M. & Pauli, H. Climate effects on mountain plants. Nature 369 , 448 (1994).

Fredston‐Hermann, A., Selden, R., Pinsky, M., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Cold range edges of marine fishes track climate change better than warm edges. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 2908–2922 (2020).

Nye, J., Link, J., Hare, J. & Overholtz, W. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 393 , 111–129 (2009).

La Sorte, F. A. & Thompson, F. R. III Poleward shifts in winter ranges of North American birds. Ecology 88 , 1803–1812 (2007).

Diamond, S. E., Frame, A. M., Martin, R. A. & Buckley, L. B. Species’ traits predict phenological responses to climate change in butterflies. Ecology 92 , 1005–1012 (2011).

Shaffer, H. B., Fisher, R. N. & Davidson, C. The role of natural history collections in documenting species declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 , 27–30 (1998).

Tingley, M. W. & Beissinger, S. R. Detecting range shifts from historical species occurrences: new perspectives on old data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 , 625–633 (2009).

Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 11982–11987 (2018).

Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Little change in the distribution of rocky shore faunal communities on the Australian east coast after 50 years of rapid warming. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 400 , 145–154 (2011).

Devictor, V. et al. Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 121–124 (2012).

Lenoir, J., Gégout, J.-C., Pierrat, J.-C., Bontemps, J.-D. & Dhôte, J.-F. Differences between tree species seedling and adult altitudinal distribution in mountain forests during the recent warm period (1986–2006). Ecography 32 , 765–777 (2009).

Zhu, K., Woodall, C. W. & Clark, J. S. Failure to migrate: lack of tree range expansion in response to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 18 , 1042–1052 (2012).

Monleon, V. J. & Lintz, H. E. Evidence of tree species’ range shifts in a complex landscape. PLoS ONE 10 , e0118069 (2015).

Hammerschlag, N. et al. Ocean warming alters the distributional range, migratory timing, and spatial protections of an apex predator, the tiger shark ( Galeocerdo cuvier ). Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 1990–2005 (2022).

Robinson, L. M. et al. Rapid assessment of an ocean warming hotspot reveals “high” confidence in potential species’ range extensions. Glob. Environ. Change 31 , 28–37 (2015).

García Molinos, J. et al. Climate, currents and species traits contribute to early stages of marine species redistribution. Commun. Biol. 5 , 1–10 (2022).

Root, T. L. et al. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421 , 57–60 (2003).

Rubenstein, M. A. et al. Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts. Environ. Evid. 12 , 7 (2023).

Amano, T. et al. Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 19 , e3001296 (2021).

Konno, K. et al. Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses. Ecol. Evol. 10 , 6373–6384 (2020).

Gervais, C. R., Champion, C. & Pecl, G. T. Species on the move around the Australian coastline: a continental-scale review of climate-driven species redistribution in marine systems. Glob. Change Biol. 27 , 3200–3217 (2021).

Thomas, C. D., Franco, A. M. A. & Hill, J. K. Range retractions and extinction in the face of climate warming. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21 , 415–416 (2006).

Doak, D. F. & Morris, W. F. Demographic compensation and tipping points in climate-induced range shifts. Nature 467 , 959–962 (2010).

Boisvert-Marsh, L., Périé, C. & de Blois, S. Shifting with climate? Evidence for recent changes in tree species distribution at high latitudes. Ecosphere 5 , art83 (2014).

Freeman, B. G., Lee-Yaw, J. A., Sunday, J. M. & Hargreaves, A. L. Expanding, shifting and shrinking: the impact of global warming on species’ elevational distributions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27 , 1268–1276 (2018).

Comte, L., Buisson, L., Daufresne, M. & Grenouillet, G. Climate-induced changes in the distribution of freshwater fish: observed and predicted trends. Freshw. Biol. 58 , 625–639 (2013).

Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 686–690 (2012).

Pinsky, M. L., Eikeset, A. M., McCauley, D. J., Payne, J. L. & Sunday, J. M. Greater vulnerability to warming of marine versus terrestrial ectotherms. Nature 569 , 108–111 (2019).

Myers, A. A. Biogeographic barriers and the development of marine biodiversity. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 44 , 241–248 (1997).

Huang, Q. et al. Modeled distribution shifts of North American birds over four decades based on suitable climate alone do not predict observed shifts. Sci. Total Environ. 857 , 159603 (2023).

Lembrechts, J. J. & Lenoir, J. Microclimatic conditions anywhere at any time! Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 337–339 (2020).

Lenoir, J., Hattab, T. & Pierre, G. Climatic microrefugia under anthropogenic climate change: implications for species redistribution. Ecography 40 , 253–266 (2017).

Maclean, I. M. D. Predicting future climate at high spatial and temporal resolution. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 1003–1011 (2020).

Zellweger, F., De Frenne, P., Lenoir, J., Rocchini, D. & Coomes, D. Advances in microclimate ecology arising from remote sensing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 , 327–341 (2019).

Haesen, S. et al. ForestTemp — sub-canopy microclimate temperatures of European forests. Glob. Change Biol. 27 , 6307–6319 (2021).

Lembrechts, J. J. et al. Global maps of soil temperature. Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 3110–3144 (2022).

Maclean, I. M. D. & Early, R. Macroclimate data overestimate range shifts of plants in response to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 13 , 1–5 (2023).

Dobrowski, S. Z. et al. The climate velocity of the contiguous United States during the 20th century. Glob. Change Biol. 19 , 241–251 (2013).

Crimmins, S. M., Dobrowski, S. Z., Greenberg, J. A., Abatzoglou, J. T. & Mynsberge, A. R. Changes in climatic water balance drive downhill shifts in plant species’ optimum elevations. Science 331 , 324–327 (2011).

Hordley, L. A., Fox, R., Suggitt, A. J. & Bourn, N. A. D. Precipitation buffers temperature-driven local extinctions of moths at warm range margins. Ecol. Lett. 00 , 1–11 (2023).

Tingley, M. W., Monahan, W. B., Beissinger, S. R. & Moritz, C. Birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 19637–19643 (2009).

McHenry, J., Welch, H., Lester, S. E. & Saba, V. Projecting marine species range shifts from only temperature can mask climate vulnerability. Glob. Change Biol. 25 , 4208–4221 (2019).

Spence, A. R. & Tingley, M. W. The challenge of novel abiotic conditions for species undergoing climate-induced range shifts. Ecography 43 , 1571–1590 (2020).

Huffeldt, N. P. Photic barriers to poleward range-shifts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35 , 652–655 (2020).

Muir, P. R., Wallace, C. C., Done, T. & Aguirre, J. D. Limited scope for latitudinal extension of reef corals. Science 348 , 1135–1138 (2015).

Jacobsen, D. The dilemma of altitudinal shifts: caught between high temperature and low oxygen. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18 , 211–218 (2020).

Sunday, J. M. et al. Biological sensitivities to high-resolution climate change projections in the California current marine ecosystem. Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 5726–5740 (2022).

Zong, S. et al. Upward range shift of a dominant alpine shrub related to 50 years of snow cover change. Remote Sens. Environ . 268 , 112773 (2022).

Harris, R. M. B. et al. Biological responses to the press and pulse of climate trends and extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 579–587 (2018).

Smith, M. D. An ecological perspective on extreme climatic events: a synthetic definition and framework to guide future research. J. Ecol. 99 , 656–663 (2011).

Twiname, S. et al. Mismatch of thermal optima between performance measures, life stages and species of spiny lobster. Sci Rep , 10 , 21235 (2020).

Edgar, G. J. et al. Continent-wide declines in shallow reef life over a decade of ocean warming. Nature 615 , 858–865 (2023).

Dullinger, S. et al. Post-glacial migration lag restricts range filling of plants in the European Alps. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21 , 829–840 (2012).

Carvajal-Quintero, J. et al. Drainage network position and historical connectivity explain global patterns in freshwater fishes’ range size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 13434–13439 (2019).

Matthews, W. J. & Zimmerman, E. G. Potential effects of global warming on native fishes of the southern Great Plains and the Southwest. Fisheries 15 , 26–32 (1990).

Guo, F., Lenoir, J. & Bonebrake, T. C. Land-use change interacts with climate to determine elevational species redistribution. Nat. Commun. 9 , 1315 (2018).

Hill, J. K., Thomas, C. D. & Huntley, B. Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly’s range margin. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266 , 1197–1206 (1999).

Morelli, T. L. et al. Anthropogenic refugia ameliorate the severe climate-related decline of a montane mammal along its trailing edge. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279 , 4279–4286 (2012).

Fischer, J. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16 , 265–280 (2007).

Schloss, C. A., Nuñez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 8606–8611 (2012).

Hodgson, J. A., Randle, Z., Shortall, C. R. & Oliver, T. H. Where and why are species’ range shifts hampered by unsuitable landscapes? Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 4765–4774 (2022).

Thomas, C. D. et al. Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 14063–14068 (2012).

Coolen, J. W. P. et al. Marine stepping-stones: connectivity of Mytilus edulis populations between offshore energy installations. Mol. Ecol. 29 , 686–703 (2020).

Reino, L. et al. Modelling landscape constraints on farmland bird species range shifts under climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 625 , 1596–1605 (2018).

Lawler, J. J., Ruesch, A. S., Olden, J. D. & McRae, B. H. Projected climate-driven faunal movement routes. Ecol. Lett. 16 , 1014–1022 (2013).

Littlefield, C. E., Krosby, M., Michalak, J. L. & Lawler, J. J. Connectivity for species on the move: supporting climate-driven range shifts. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17 , 270–278 (2019).

García Molinos, J., Burrows, M. T. & Poloczanska, E. S. Ocean currents modify the coupling between climate change and biogeographical shifts. Sci. Rep. 7 , 1332 (2017).

Kling, M. M. & Ackerly, D. D. Global wind patterns and the vulnerability of wind-dispersed species to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 868–875 (2020).

Copeland, S. M., Bradford, J. B., Duniway, M. C. & Butterfield, B. J. Life history characteristics may be as important as climate projections for defining range shifts: an example for common tree species in the intermountain western US. Divers. Distrib. 24 , 1844–1859 (2018).

Naoe, S. et al. Downhill seed dispersal by temperate mammals: a potential threat to plant escape from global warming. Sci. Rep. 9 , 14932 (2019).

Ramos, J. E. et al. Population genetic signatures of a climate change driven marine range extension. Sci. Rep. 8 , 9558 (2018).

MacLean, S. A. & Beissinger, S. R. Species’ traits as predictors of range shifts under contemporary climate change: a review and meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 23 , 4094–4105 (2017).

Sunday, J. M. et al. Species traits and climate velocity explain geographic range shifts in an ocean-warming hotspot. Ecol. Lett. 18 , 944–953 (2015).

Angert, A. L. et al. Do species’ traits predict recent shifts at expanding range edges? traits and range shifts. Ecol. Lett. 14 , 677–689 (2011).

Alofs, K. M., Jackson, D. A. & Lester, N. P. Ontario freshwater fishes demonstrate differing range-boundary shifts in a warming climate. Divers. Distrib. 20 , 123–136 (2014).

Beissinger, S. R. & Riddell, E. A. Why are species’ traits weak predictors of range shifts? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 52 , 47–66 (2021).

HilleRisLambers, J., Harsch, M. A., Ettinger, A. K., Ford, K. R. & Theobald, E. J. How will biotic interactions influence climate change-induced range shifts? Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1297 , 112–125 (2013).

Kerner, J. M., Krauss, J., Maihoff, F., Bofinger, L. & Classen, A. Alpine butterflies want to fly high: species and communities shift upwards faster than their host plants. Ecology 104 , e3848 (2023).

Merrill, R. M. et al. Combined effects of climate and biotic interactions on the elevational range of a phytophagous insect. J. Anim. Ecol. 77 , 145–155 (2008).

Afkhami, M. E., McIntyre, P. J. & Strauss, S. Y. Mutualist‐mediated effects on species’ range limits across large geographic scales. Ecol. Lett. 17 , 1265–1273 (2014).

Lankau, R. A., Zhu, K. & Ordonez, A. Mycorrhizal strategies of tree species correlate with trailing range edge responses to current and past climate change. Ecology 96 , 1451–1458 (2015).

Elmhagen, B. et al. Homage to Hersteinsson and Macdonald: climate warming and resource subsidies cause red fox range expansion and Arctic fox decline. Polar Res . 36 , (2017).

Pokallus, J. W. & Pauli, J. N. Population dynamics of a northern-adapted mammal: disentangling the influence of predation and climate change. Ecol. Appl. 25 , 1546–1556 (2015).

Wallingford, P. D. et al. Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 398–405 (2020).

Harley, C. D. G. Climate change, keystone predation, and biodiversity loss. Science 334 , 1124–1127 (2011).

Lenoir, J. et al. Going against the flow: potential mechanisms for unexpected downslope range shifts in a warming climate. Ecography 33 , 295–303 (2010).

Pollock, L. J. et al. Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a joint species distribution model (JSDM). Methods Ecol. Evol. 5 , 397–406 (2014).

Devarajan, K., Morelli, T. L. & Tenan, S. Multi-species occupancy models: review, roadmap, and recommendations. Ecography 43 , 1612–1624 (2020).

Zhang, C., Chen, Y., Xu, B., Xue, Y. & Ren, Y. Improving prediction of rare species’ distribution from community data. Sci. Rep. 10 , 12230 (2020).

Wisz, M. S. et al. The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling. Biol. Rev. 88 , 15–30 (2013).

Diamond, S. E. Contemporary climate-driven range shifts: putting evolution back on the table. Funct. Ecol. 32 , 1652–1665 (2018).

Bridle, J. R. & Vines, T. H. Limits to evolution at range margins: when and why does adaptation fail? Trends Ecol. Evol. 22 , 140–147 (2007).

Nadeau, C. P. & Urban, M. C. Eco‐evolution on the edge during climate change. Ecography 42 , 1280–1297 (2019).

Dudaniec, R. Y. et al. Latitudinal clines in sexual selection, sexual size dimorphism and sex-specific genetic dispersal during a poleward range expansion. J. Anim. Ecol. 91 , 1104–1118 (2022).

Krause, J. S. et al. Breeding on the leading edge of a northward range expansion: differences in morphology and the stress response in the arctic Gambel’s white-crowned sparrow. Oecologia 180 , 33–44 (2016).

Campbell-Staton, S. C. et al. Parallel selection on thermal physiology facilitates repeated adaptation of city lizards to urban heat islands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 , 652–658 (2020).

Diamond, S. E., Chick, L., Perez, A., Strickler, S. A. & Martin, R. A. Rapid evolution of ant thermal tolerance across an urban-rural temperature cline. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 121 , 248–257 (2017).

Donelson, J. M. et al. Understanding interactions between plasticity, adaptation and range shifts in response to marine environmental change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374 , 20180186 (2019).

Shoo, L. P., Williams, S. E. & Hero, J.-M. Detecting climate change induced range shifts: where and how should we be looking? Austral Ecol. 31 , 22–29 (2006).

Guo, Q., Taper, M., Schoenberger, M. & Brandle, J. Spatial-temporal population dynamics across species range: from centre to margin. Oikos 108 , 47–57 (2005).

Taheri, S., Naimi, B., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Improvements in reports of species redistribution under climate change are required. Sci. Adv. 7 , eabe1110 (2021).

Iseli, E. et al. Rapid upwards spread of non-native plants in mountains across continents. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 405–413 (2023).

Mazalla, L. & Diekmann, M. Regression to the mean in vegetation science. J. Veg. Sci. 33 , e13117 (2022).

Bates, A. E. et al. Distinguishing geographical range shifts from artefacts of detectability and sampling effort. Divers. Distrib. 21 , 13–22 (2015).

Davis, A. et al. Tools for predicting wildlife species distribution response to ecological shifts. Engineer Research and Development Center https://doi.org/10.21079/11681/33482 (2019).

Lindsay, K. Wildlife conservation, protected areas and climate change in Canada: implications of projected species range shifts. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (2016).

Weiskopf, S. R. et al. Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 733 , 137782 (2020).

Pinsky, M. L. et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science 360 , 1189–1191 (2018).

Scheffers, B. R. & Pecl, G. Persecuting, protecting or ignoring biodiversity under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 581–586 (2019).

Bowler, D. E. et al. Cross-realm assessment of climate change impacts on species’ abundance trends. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1 , 1–7 (2017).

Feeley, K. J., Bravo-Avila, C., Fadrique, B., Perez, T. M. & Zuleta, D. Climate-driven changes in the composition of New World plant communities. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 965–970 (2020).

Kuhn, E. & Gégout, J.-C. Highlighting declines of cold-demanding plant species in lowlands under climate warming. Ecography 42 , 36–44 (2019).

Kumagai, N. H. et al. Ocean currents and herbivory drive macroalgae-to-coral community shift under climate warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 8990–8995 (2018).

Zarzyczny, K. M., Rius, M., Williams, S. T. & Fenberg, P. B. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of tropicalisation. Trends Ecol. Evol . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.10.006 (2023).

Balik, J. A., Greig, H. S., Taylor, B. W. & Wissinger, S. A. Consequences of climate-induced range expansions on multiple ecosystem functions. Commun. Biol. 6 , 390 (2023).

Cauvy-Fraunié, S. & Dangles, O. A global synthesis of biodiversity responses to glacier retreat. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 1675–1685 (2019).

Stuart-Smith, R. D., Mellin, C., Bates, A. E. & Edgar, G. J. Habitat loss and range shifts contribute to ecological generalization among reef fishes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 , 656–662 (2021).

Bertrand, R. et al. Changes in plant community composition lag behind climate warming in lowland forests. Nature 479 , 517–520 (2011).

Davis, T. R., Knott, N. A., Champion, C. & Przeslawski, R. Impacts of climate change on densities of the urchin Centrostephanus rodgersii vary among marine regions in eastern Australia. Diversity 15 , 419 (2023).

Ling, S. D. Range expansion of a habitat-modifying species leads to loss of taxonomic diversity: a new and impoverished reef state. Oecologia 156 , 883–894 (2008).

Ling, S. & Johnson, C. Population dynamics of an ecologically important range-extender: kelp beds versus sea urchin barrens. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 374 , 113–125 (2009).

Johnson, C., Ling, S., Ross, J., Shepherd, S. & Miller, K. Establishment of the Long-Spined Sea Urchin Centrostephanus rodgersii in Tasmania : First Assessment of Potential Threats to Fisheries . FRDC Project No. 2001/044 (Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 2005).

Fazlioglu, F., Wan, J. S. H. & Chen, L. Latitudinal shifts in mangrove species worldwide: evidence from historical occurrence records. Hydrobiologia 847 , 4111–4123 (2020).

Nagelkerken, I. et al. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89 , 155–185 (2008).

Descombes, P. et al. Novel trophic interactions under climate change promote alpine plant coexistence. Science 370 , 1469–1473 (2020).

Pecl, G. T. et al. Autonomous adaptation to climate-driven change in marine biodiversity in a global marine hotspot. Ambio 48 , 1498–1515 (2019).

Oremus, K. L. Climate variability reduces employment in New England fisheries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 26444–26449 (2019).

Young, T. et al. Adaptation strategies of coastal fishing communities as species shift poleward. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76 , 93–103 (2019).

Sloat, L. L. et al. Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nat. Commun. 11 , 1243 (2020).

Bebber, D. P., Ramotowski, M. A. T. & Gurr, S. J. Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 985–988 (2013).

Blackfeet Nation. Blackfeet climate change adaptation plan. Blackfeet Country and Climate Change https://blackfeetclimatechange.com/our-environment/climate-change-adaptation-plan/ (2018).

Sweet, L. C. et al. Congruence between future distribution models and empirical data for an iconic species at Joshua Tree National Park. Ecosphere 10 , e02763 (2019).

Carlson, C. J., Bannon, E., Mendenhall, E., Newfield, T. & Bansal, S. Rapid range shifts in African Anopheles mosquitoes over the last century. Biol. Lett. 19 , 20220365 (2023).

Clow, K. M. et al. Northward range expansion of Ixodes scapularis evident over a short timescale in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE 12 , e0189393 (2017).

McCracken, G. F. et al. Rapid range expansion of the Brazilian free-tailed bat in the southeastern United States, 2008–2016. J. Mammal. 99 , 312–320 (2018).

Siraj, A. S. et al. Altitudinal changes in malaria incidence in highlands of Ethiopia and Colombia. Science 343 , 1154–1158 (2014).

Alkishe, A., Raghavan, R. K. & Peterson, A. T. Likely geographic distributional shifts among medically important tick species and tick-associated diseases under climate change in North America: a review. Insects 12 , 225 (2021).

Ryan, S. J. et al. Warming temperatures could expose more than 1.3 billion new people to Zika virus risk by 2050. Glob. Change Biol. 27 , 84–93 (2021).

Chinain, M., Gatti, C. M. I., Darius, H. T., Quod, J.-P. & Tester, P. A. Ciguatera poisonings: a global review of occurrences and trends. Harmful Algae 102 , 101873 (2021).

Kulkarni, M. A. et al. 10 years of environmental change on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro and its associated shift in malaria vector distributions. Front. Public Health 4 , 281 (2016).

Ryan, S. J., Carlson, C. J., Mordecai, E. A. & Johnson, L. R. Global expansion and redistribution of Aedes -borne virus transmission risk with climate change. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13 , e0007213 (2019).

Carlson, C. J. et al. Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk. Nature 607 , 555–562 (2022).

Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7 , 12306 (2016).

Bruno, J. F. et al. Climate change threatens the world’s marine protected areas. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 499–503 (2018).

Lewis, S. A., Stortini, C. H., Boyce, D. G. & Stanley, R. R. E. Climate change, species thermal emergence, and conservation design: a case study in the Canadian Northwest Atlantic. FACETS 8 , 1–16 (2023).

Parks, S. A., Holsinger, L. M., Abatzoglou, J. T., Littlefield, C. E. & Zeller, K. A. Protected areas not likely to serve as steppingstones for species undergoing climate-induced range shifts. Glob. Change Biol. 29 , 2681–2696 (2023).

D’Aloia, C. C. et al. Coupled networks of permanent protected areas and dynamic conservation areas for biodiversity conservation under climate change. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 27 (2019).

Cashion, T. et al. Shifting seas, shifting boundaries: dynamic marine protected area designs for a changing climate. PLoS ONE 15 , e0241771 (2020).

Pinsky, M. L., Rogers, L. A., Morley, J. W. & Frölicher, T. L. Ocean planning for species on the move provides substantial benefits and requires few trade-offs. Sci. Adv. 6 , eabb8428 (2020).

Lewison, R. et al. Dynamic ocean management: identifying the critical ingredients of dynamic approaches to ocean resource management. BioScience 65 , 486–498 (2015).

Maxwell, S. M. et al. Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar. Policy 58 , 42–50 (2015).

Golet, G. H. et al. Using ricelands to provide temporary shorebird habitat during migration. Ecol. Appl. 28 , 409–426 (2018).

Reynolds, M. D. et al. Dynamic conservation for migratory species. Sci. Adv. 3 , e1700707 (2017).

Bloom, A. The Cumberland Forest Project: 253,000 acres of preserved land. The Nature Conservancy https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/protect-water-and-land/land-and-water-stories/cumberland-forest-project (2019).

Bentrup, G. Conservation buffers — design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. USDA Forest Service https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-109 (2008).

Handler, S., Pike, C., St. Clair, B., Abbotts, H. & Janowiak, M. Assisted migration . USDA Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/assisted-migration (2018).

Ricciardi, A. & Simberloff, D. Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 , 248–253 (2009).

Carbajal-Navarro, A. et al. Ecological restoration of Abies religiosa forests using nurse plants and assisted migration in the monarch butterfly biosphere reserve, Mexico. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 421 (2019).

Widhalm, T., Fourcade, Y., Frank, T. & Öckinger, E. Population dynamics of the butterfly Pyrgus armoricanus after translocation beyond its northern range margin. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13 , 617–629 (2020).

Liu, H. et al. Overcoming extreme weather challenges: successful but variable assisted colonization of wild orchids in southwestern China. Biol. Conserv. 150 , 68–75 (2012).

Twardek, W. M. et al. The application of assisted migration as a climate change adaptation tactic: an evidence map and synthesis. Biol. Conserv. 280 , 109932 (2023).

Walsworth, T. E. et al. Management for network diversity speeds evolutionary adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 632–636 (2019).

Norberg, J., Urban, M. C., Vellend, M., Klausmeier, C. A. & Loeuille, N. Eco-evolutionary responses of biodiversity to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 747–751 (2012).

Palacios-Abrantes, J. et al. Quantifying fish range shifts across poorly defined management boundaries. PLoS ONE 18 , e0279025 (2023).

Spijkers, J. & Boonstra, W. J. Environmental change and social conflict: the northeast Atlantic mackerel dispute. Reg. Environ. Change 17 , 1835–1851 (2017).

Parks, S. A. et al. Efficacy of the global protected area network is threatened by disappearing climates and potential transboundary range shifts. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 , 054016 (2022).

Palacios-Abrantes, J. et al. Timing and magnitude of climate-driven range shifts in transboundary fish stocks challenge their management. Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 2312–2326 (2022).

Titley, M. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Jones, V. R., Whittingham, M. J. & Willis, S. G. Global inequities and political borders challenge nature conservation under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2011204118 (2021).

Velazco, S. J. E., Villalobos, F., Galvão, F. & De Marco Júnior, P. A dark scenario for Cerrado plant species: effects of future climate, land use and protected areas ineffectiveness. Divers. Distrib. 25 , 660–673 (2019).

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022 — Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability : Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).

Lindenmayer, D. B., Lavery, T. & Scheele, B. C. Why we need to invest in large-scale, long-term monitoring programs in landscape ecology and conservation biology. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 7 , 137–146 (2022).

Maclean, I. M. D. & Wilson, R. J. Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 12337–12342 (2011).

Kissling, W. D. et al. Building essential biodiversity variables ( EBV s) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale. Biol. Rev. 93 , 600–625 (2018).

Gonzalez, A. et al. A global biodiversity observing system to unite monitoring and guide action. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 1947–1952 (2023).

Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213 , 280–294 (2017).

Pecl, G. T. et al. Redmap Australia: challenges and successes with a large-scale citizen science-based approach to ecological monitoring and community engagement on climate change. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 349 (2019).

Middleton, I. et al. Introduced alien, range extension or just visiting? Combining citizen science observations and expert knowledge to classify range dynamics of marine fishes. Divers. Distrib. 27 , 1278–1293 (2021).

Fraisl, D. et al. Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 2 , 64 (2022).

Paprocki, N., Heath, J. A. & Novak, S. J. Regional distribution shifts help explain local changes in wintering raptor abundance: implications for interpreting population trends. PLoS ONE 9 , 9 (2014).

Wilson, S., Anderson, E. M., Wilson, A. S. G., Bertram, D. F. & Arcese, P. Citizen science reveals an extensive shift in the winter distribution of migratory western grebes. PLoS ONE 8 , e65408 (2013).

Kirchman, J. J. & Van Keuren, A. E. Altitudinal range shifts of birds at the southern periphery of the boreal forest: 40 years of change in the Adirondack Mountains. Wilson J. Ornithol. 129 , 742–753 (2017).

Bird, T. J. et al. Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biol. Conserv. 173 , 144–154 (2014).

Estrada, A., Morales-Castilla, I., Caplat, P. & Early, R. Usefulness of species traits in predicting range shifts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 , 190–203 (2016).

Green, S. J., Brookson, C. B., Hardy, N. A. & Crowder, L. B. Trait-based approaches to global change ecology: moving from description to prediction. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 289 , 20220071 (2022).

Couet, J. et al. Short-lived species move uphill faster under climate change. Oecologia 198 , 877–888 (2022).

Tekwa, E. W., Watson, J. R. & Pinsky, M. L. Body size and food–web interactions mediate species range shifts under warming. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 289 , 20212755 (2022).

Brito-Morales, I. et al. Climate velocity can inform conservation in a warming world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33 , 441–457 (2018).

McRae, B. H., Viral B. Shah & Edelman, A. Circuitscape: modeling landscape connectivity to promote conservation and human health. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4265.1126 (2016).

Bocedi, G. et al. RangeShifter 2.0: an extended and enhanced platform for modelling spatial eco-evolutionary dynamics and species’ responses to environmental changes. Ecography 44 , 1453–1462 (2021).

Cotto, O., Schmid, M. & Guillaume, F. Nemo-age: spatially explicit simulations of eco-evolutionary dynamics in stage-structured populations under changing environments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11 , 1227–1236 (2020).

Kearney, M. R. & Porter, W. P. NicheMapR — an R package for biophysical modelling: the ectotherm and dynamic energy budget models. Ecography 43 , 85–96 (2020).

Bush, A. et al. Incorporating evolutionary adaptation in species distribution modelling reduces projected vulnerability to climate change. Ecol. Lett. 19 , 1468–1478 (2016).

Engler, R., Hordijk, W. & Guisan, A. The MIGCLIM R package — seamless integration of dispersal constraints into projections of species distribution models. Ecography 35 , 872–878 (2012).

Evans, M. E. K., Merow, C., Record, S., McMahon, S. M. & Enquist, B. J. Towards process-based range modeling of many species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 , 860–871 (2016).

Urban, M. C., Tewksbury, J. J. & Sheldon, K. S. On a collision course: competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279 , 2072–2080 (2012).

Bleyhl, B. et al. Reducing persecution is more effective for restoring large carnivores than restoring their prey. Ecol. Appl. 31 , e02338 (2021).

Dietze, M. C. et al. Iterative near-term ecological forecasting: needs, opportunities, and challenges. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 1424–1432 (2018).

Halpern, B. S. et al. Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science. Ecosphere 14 , (2023).

Eveson, J. P., Hobday, A. J., Hartog, J. R., Spillman, C. M. & Rough, K. M. Seasonal forecasting of tuna habitat in the Great Australian Bight. Fish. Res. 170 , 39–49 (2015).

Howell, E. A. et al. Enhancing the TurtleWatch product for leatherback sea turtles, a dynamic habitat model for ecosystem-based management. Fish. Oceanogr. 24 , 57–68 (2015).

Hobday, A. J., Spillman, C. M., Paige Eveson, J. & Hartog, J. R. Seasonal forecasting for decision support in marine fisheries and aquaculture. Fish. Oceanogr. 25 , 45–56 (2016).

Hobday, A. J., Hartog, J. R., Spillman, C. M. & Alves, O. Seasonal forecasting of tuna habitat for dynamic spatial management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68 , 898–911 (2011).

Horton, K. G., Van Doren, B. M., Albers, H. J., Farnsworth, A. & Sheldon, D. Near-term ecological forecasting for dynamic aeroconservation of migratory birds. Conserv. Biol. 35 , 1777–1786 (2021).

Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial area of habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN red list. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 , 977–986 (2019).

Fortin, M.-J. et al. Species’ geographic ranges and distributional limits: pattern analysis and statistical issues. Oikos 108 , 7–17 (2005).

Gaston, K. J. & Fuller, R. A. The sizes of species’ geographic ranges. J. Appl. Ecol. 46 , 1–9 (2009).

Gaston, K. J. The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).

Yalcin, S. & Leroux, S. J. Diversity and suitability of existing methods and metrics for quantifying species range shifts. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26 , 609–624 (2017).

Xu, C., Kohler, T. A., Lenton, T. M., Svenning, J.-C. & Scheffer, M. Future of the human climate niche. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 11350–11355 (2020).

Lenton, T. M. et al. Quantifying the human cost of global warming. Nat. Sustain. 6 , 1237–1247 (2023).

Moat, J. et al. Resilience potential of the Ethiopian coffee sector under climate change. Nat. Plants 3 , 1–14 (2017).

Pham, Y., Reardon-Smith, K., Mushtaq, S. & Cockfield, G. The impact of climate change and variability on coffee production: a systematic review. Clim. Change 156 , 609–630 (2019).

Swartz, W., Sala, E., Tracey, S., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5 , e15143 (2010).

Cao, Y. et al. Trans-Arctic shipping routes expanding faster than the model projections. Glob. Environ. Change 73 , 102488 (2022).

Paglia, E. A higher level of civilisation? The transformation of Ny-Ålesund from Arctic coalmining settlement in Svalbard to global environmental knowledge center at 79° north. Polar Rec. 56 , e15 (2020).

Sokolickova, Z., Meyer, A. & Vlakhov, A. V. Changing Svalbard: tracing interrelated socio-economic and environmental change in remote Arctic settlements. Polar Rec. 58 , e23 (2022).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Climate change in the European Alps: adapting winter tourism and natural hazards management (2007).

Ma, S., Craig, C. A. & Feng, S. The Camping Climate Index (CCI): the development, validation, and application of a camping-sector tourism climate index. Tour. Manag. 80 , 104105 (2020).

Fisichelli, N. A., Schuurman, G. W., Monahan, W. B. & Ziesler, P. S. Protected area tourism in a changing climate: will visitation at US national parks warm up or overheat? PLoS ONE 10 , e0128226 (2015).

Grillakis, M. G., Koutroulis, A. G., Seiradakis, K. D. & Tsanis, I. K. Implications of 2°C global warming in European summer tourism. Clim. Serv. 1 , 30–38 (2016).

World Tourism Organization, UNEP. Climate change and tourism: responding to global challenges (2008).

Coffel, E. D., Horton, R. M. & De Sherbinin, A. Temperature and humidity based projections of a rapid rise in global heat stress exposure during the 21st century. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 014001 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is a product of the BIOSHIFTS group funded by the Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB), a key program of the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB; www.fondationbiodiversite.fr ). J.R. received funding from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CEBA: ANR-10-LABX-25– 01; TULIP: ANR-10-LABX-0041, JCJC: ANR-23-CE02-0005-01).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Jake A. Lawlor, Nikki Moore, Brit van Amerom & Jennifer Sunday

School of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

Centre de Recherche sur la Biodiversité et l’Environnement (CRBE), UMR5300 Université Toulouse, CNRS, IRD, Toulouse INP, Université Toulouse 3 – Paul Sabatier (UT3), Toulouse, France

Gaël Grenouillet, Romain Bertrand, Jerome Murienne & Jonathan Rolland

Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France

Gaël Grenouillet

UMR CNRS 7058, Ecologie et Dynamique des Systèmes Anthropisés (EDYSAN), Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France

Jonathan Lenoir

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

J. Alex Baecher

Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

R.M.W.J. Bandara

Department of Life Sciences, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

I-Ching Chen

Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

Sarah E. Diamond

School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Lesley T. Lancaster

Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB), Centre de Synthèse et d’Analyse sur la Biodiversité (CESAB), Montpellier, France

Brunno F. Oliveira

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Gretta T. Pecl

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Malin L. Pinsky

Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

US Geological Survey National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, VA, USA

Madeleine Rubenstein & Sarah R. Weiskopf

Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Brett R. Scheffers

US Geological Survey National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Knoxville, TN, USA

Laura M. Thompson

Red de Biología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Mexico

Fabricio Villalobos

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.A.L., L.C., G.G., J.L., B.v.A. and J.S. researched data for the article. J.A.L. and J.S. reviewed the manuscript before submission, and all authors made a substantial contribution to the discussion of content and contributed to writing the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jake A. Lawlor .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Janet Franklin and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lawlor, J.A., Comte, L., Grenouillet, G. et al. Mechanisms, detection and impacts of species redistributions under climate change. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00527-z

Download citation

Accepted : 15 February 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00527-z

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

Quick links

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

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

Independent review panel releases final report on UNRWA

Facebook Twitter Print Email

An independent panel released its much-awaited report on Monday about the UN relief agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA), providing 50 recommendations and noting that Israeli authorities have yet to provide proof of their claims that UN staff are involved with terrorist organisations.

“Israel made public claims that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organisations. However, Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this,” according to the 54-page  final report , Independent review of mechanisms and procedures to ensure adherence by UNRWA to the humanitarian principle of neutrality .

The UN Secretary-General, who received the final report at the weekend, had appointed the independent review group days after Israel announced the allegations against UNRWA, which employees 30,000 people and serves 5.9 million Palestine refugees in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and war-torn Gaza.

The much-awaited final report found that UNRWA, established by the General Assembly in 1949, has extensive tools in place to ensure it remains unbiased in its work and routinely provides Israel with employee lists and “ the Israeli Government has not informed UNRWA of any concerns relating to any UNRWA staff based on these staff lists since 2011.”

UNRWA has ‘most elaborate’ rules within UN system

“The set of rules and the mechanisms and procedures in place [at UNRWA] are the most elaborate within the UN system, precisely because it is such a difficult issue to work in such a complex and sensitive environment,” Catherine Colonna, former French foreign minister and head of the review group, told journalists at UN Headquarters following the report’s launch. “What needs to be improved will be improved. I’m confident that implementing these measures will help UNRWA deliver on its mandate .”

Strongly encouraging "the international community to work side by side with the agency so it can perform its mission and overcome the challenges when they are there", she said “this is the purpose of the review.”

In its nine-week-long review of existing mechanisms, the group conducted more than 200 interviews, met with Israeli and Palestinian authorities and directly contacted 47 countries and organisations, presenting a set of 50 recommendations on issues ranging from education to fresh vetting processes for recruiting staff.

Report steers new UN action plan

The report’s recommendations include creating a centralised “neutrality investigations unit”, rolling out an updated Code of Ethics and associated training to all staff, and identifying and implementing additional ways to screen UNRWA applicants at an early stage of the recruitment process.

The report also suggested exploring the possibility of third-party monitoring for sensitive projects and establishing a framework with interested donors to ensure transparency.

In a  statement on Monday, the UN Secretary-General’s Spokesperson said the UN chief accepts the recommendations contained in Ms. Colonna’s report. He has agreed with Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini that UNRWA, with the Secretary-General’s support, will establish an action plan to implement the recommendations contained in the final report.”

Claims financially hobbled UNRWA

According to the review group’s final report, Israel’s claims against UNRWA triggered the suspension of funding amounting to around $450 million.

The direct impact of Israel’s allegations swiftly hobbled UNRWA’s ability to continue its work. Operating solely on voluntary donations, UNRWA saw major donors, including the United States, cancelling or suspending funds for the agency.

In April, Washington banned funding for UNRWA until at least 2025, but other donors have pledged additional funding or restored their donations.

The new report recommended increasing the frequency and strengthening the transparency of UNRWA’s communication with donors on its financial situation and on neutrality allegations and breaches. The review group suggested regular updates and “integrity briefings” for donors interested in supporting UNRWA on integrity and related issues.

Findings on UNRWA schools

The UN agency delivers on its obligation to ensure neutrality of its 1,000 installations, including schools, healthcare centres and warehouses, according to the report, which also stated that “security and capacity challenges may hamper” existing due diligence mechanisms.

The review group said UNRWA “has consistently worked on ensuring neutrality in education” as it provides elementary and preparatory education for 500,000 pupils in 706 schools with 20,000 educational staff, including in Gaza, where right now all children are out of school following attacks  destroying the enclave’s education system amid the ongoing conflict.

Claims of anti-Semitic textbooks

Investigating “sustained criticism, mainly from Israel”, about the alleged presence of hate speech, incitement to violence and anti-Semitism in Palestinian Authority educational material, the review group examined three major international assessments and studies.

The new report showed that two identified bias and non-compliant content, but did not provide evidence of anti-Semitic reference . A third, the Eckert report, identified two examples that displayed anti-Semitic content, but noted that one had already been removed and the other significantly altered.

As such, the report recommended several actions, including the review of the content of all textbooks with host countries, Israel and the Palestinian Authority .

UNRWA remains a pivotal ‘lifeline’ for Palestine

The report stated that “in the absence of a political solution between Israel and the Palestinians, UNRWA remains pivotal in providing lifesaving humanitarian aid and essential social services, particularly in health and education, to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank” and is “irreplaceable and indispensable to Palestinians’ human and economic development”.

“In addition, many view UNRWA as a humanitarian lifeline ,” according to the report.

The UN chief on Monday said he counted on the cooperation of the donor community, the host countries and the staff to fully cooperate in the implementation of the new report’s final recommendations, the UN Spokesperson said.

“Moving forward, the Secretary-General appeals to all stakeholders to actively support UNRWA, as it is a lifeline for Palestine refugees in the region,” he said.

Other top UN officials have voiced strong support for the agency, calling on donors to reverse funding cuts and allow UNRWA to perform its work, especially in Gaza.

In late March, Israel announced it would  reject UNRWA’s requests to deliver aid into northern Gaza, where a  famine is unfolding as Israeli authorities  continue to block or severely delay lifesaving aid shipments , according to UN officials, who  launched an appeal last week for emergency funding.

Lazzarini: Report will further strengthen UNRWA

UNRWA chief Lazzarini welcomed the report’s findings and recommendations.

“ UNRWA is developing an action plan , with a timeline and budget to take forward the report’s recommendations,” he said in a statement on Monday. 

He said implementing some of the recommendations will require extensive engagement with staff and partners, including Member States, host nations and donor countries, adding that the UN agency looks forward to cooperating with all concerned stakeholders to implement the recommendations.

“UNRWA is firmly dedicated to applying UN values and humanitarian principles,” he said. “The recommendations in this report will further strengthen our efforts and response during one of the most difficult moments in the history of the Palestinian people.”

First of two investigations

Following Israel’s allegations against UNRWA in late January, the UN agency immediately fired the staff members in question and requested a swift, impartial investigation. The UN chief ordered two.

Days later, the Secretary-General  appointed an independent review team , led by Ms. Colonna and researched by Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, the Michelsen Institute in Norway and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, to investigate the UNRWA’s process of ensuring neutrality in its work.

At the same time, the UN chief ordered the UN’s top watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS), to investigate the veracity of Israel’s claims against the 12 UNRWA staff members.

At  the outset , OIOS investigators reached out to Member States concerned, visited UNRWA headquarters in Jordan and reviewed initial information received by the agency from Israeli authorities and from a variety of sources, including that released through the media and other public outlets.

That investigation is ongoing.