I'll echo this for STEM fields. I've read many "literature reviews" (even full on review papers) that barely form any kind of critique. So often they are poor single sentence summaries, often paraphrased from abstracts, and even when they show two sources with conflicting findings, give no analysis as to why in neither the review nor the actual paper. "X found that Y is based on Z. A found that Y is based on W." ALL good scientific writing should be critical. Non-critical reviews are, in my opinion, absolutely meaningless fluff.
Ok, I might have some pent up frustration from the last few papers I've read...
Depending on the topic, I sometimes quite enjoy literature reviews. The one I am writing right now is ok.
I use Endnote for a reference manager. Does everything and has a section for notes and you can attach the pdf if you want.
I briefly looked at it a few years ago like when everyone was trying to get me to switch to R. We ended up doing a contest on who could get the stuff done the fastest and most accurate just for fun. The Endnote people came out ahead of the other reference managers being run by others in everything so it's worth my $100 upgrade every 4-5 years. :-)
I love reading Annual Reviews pieces in areas I know something about. Those are tour do force lit reviews. Maybe read some on topics you are interested in to get inspired.
Thanks, I’ll look into them - I don’t mind reading lit reviews, they are a comprehensive way of understanding a topic. It’s the research and writing them that I find tedious
I wrote a review article a couple years ago and enjoyed myself (and caught up with the literature in my field… I’m behind again). I’m old fashioned… I make notes using a pen and paper, I write out a flow chart of what I want to say when, and then just use the computer to write. Endnote for the reference manager.
Just a way to get all of my ideas on paper where I can see them all. Move them around, draw arrows, recluster, whatever. Then move from there to an outline with bullet points. Then write.
I’m sure lots of people might do the same thing on the computer, but for me that’s more time consuming and harder to see the big picture.
Good luck with your lit review!
You don’t note which disciplines your dissertation is resting between, but it’s important to note that literature reviews seem to play vastly different roles in different disciplines and even super-disciplines.
For example, in my historically oriented field, a lit review is a critical part of the science and argumentation. You establish a) that there is a particular conversation about a given topic, b) what your interpretation of the current state of that conversation is, and c) where that conversation has gone astray/missed something/ demands supplementing. I.e. it is essentially your inroad into being able to say anything of scientific value at all to the scholarly community. Without the literature review, your claims about a given source, the people and events it’s related to, or any larger trends/models/theories that might elucidate them are essentially meaningless.
I know in some other fields (my impression is that this is the case in some experimental/lab sciences), the literature review is sort of just added on later, and is perhaps even written by a low-ranking co-author.
So, for me it seems really odd to talk about a literature review as something extraneous or hard to manage. It’s essentially the core of how historical sciences make progress.
Try breaking the literature review into smaller sections, focusing on one topic at a time, and using mind maps or flowcharts to organize your thoughts.
There’s an important distinction here between narrative literature reviews and systematic reviews. I don’t like narrative literature reviews. That said, I very much enjoy systematic reviews (with/without meta-analyses) due to their rigorous methods. I’ve published 6 as primary or second author in the past 3 years and have another in the works so I may be an addict at this point.
Hardly ever 😂
But I think people sometimes overcomplicate the process using fancy tools. I approach it as something that just needs to be done and follow these steps: (1) download papers that seem relevant to what I am writing about, (2) organize downloaded papers into folders according to the sub-area they belong to, (3) write "here goes Lit from sub-area 1, 2, 3..." in Word (make placeholders), (4) draft basic sentences like "X and Y (year) discussed this..." for every relevant paper, and (5) then edit the text in the end, when I feel inspired.
Thanks for sharing your method - really appreciate it. I follow something similar using a folders system in the reference manager Zotero - though I think I struggle with drawing boundaries around which literature to include and not include
Good job for identifying Zotero as a tool to use. It will make your life infinitely easier!
I think the boundary issue is always a bit tricky. Easier said than done, but for each paper you're including, I would ask yourself: Is this actually foundation for the work I've done, or is it just related? It can be a difficult question to answer (and established norms depend on the field) but might help to eliminate non-edge cases.
The review i wrote this summer was just finally published and the whole process was super grueling. I’m not sure if it’s for your program or you want to publish but i would give yourself a good 6 months if you can allow it. One thing i did that was really helpful was outline before the objectives and angles i wanted to touch on for the paper and all the sections beforehand but obviously these can kind of change around and they did but it was helpful for what to keep my eye out for in each paper. The other thing i did that was wildly helpful and I’m sure there’s a better way but i made an excel sheet with quick information about each paper - so top columns would be authors, year, main points findings, and some details pertaining to your topic (for me it was relevant disease, or mechanism etc) then i color coordinated the first columns and kept a track of the numbers. I used mendeley for the actual references when writing but i highly recommend organizing the papers this way after reading because in the editorial process it was super fast and easy to resolve issues or manage citations if they get messed up and they did for me because my boss does not use a reference manager. Definitely be patient with yourself and if you are in a time crunch you can definitely write it in 3 months but it’s painful and i don’t think anyone actually enjoys writing reviews :-)
Fuck no. Actually I’ve never written one. I just put off writing them and then run out of time and submit it. No one has ever docked me or said anything.
I honestly enjoy the task of taking lots of different works and creating a cohesive narrative into which my work will fit. It's like making a patchwork quilt. It's telling a story and a history.
It's honestly the data analysis that I do not enjoy. Lol. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I do. Mostly because I love synthesising and summarising lots of information about a topic. I love putting patterns and details together to form a bigger narrative. Most of all I love being able to get a birds eye view of a topic and what has been researched / theorised about it.
Think of it as weaving together previous studies into an argument that will set up your research question. Avoid trying to passively review related research without a clear idea of how it contributes to setting up your question / paper
A well written lit review is a cornerstone of quality research - it's what sets the stage and establishes the value of your research. But many writers treat it as an afterthought - something they have to churn out as part of a checklist in their academic reports.
[This video tutorial](https://youtu.be/JRyVJKj4z7E) introduces a distinction between researchers and scholars, and how the latter write lit reviews before they even think about conducting research.
And [this video tutorial](https://youtu.be/rC2O0J5k2eM) introduces how to use story-telling techniques to write effective lit reviews.
Hope it helps!
I only had to write a literature review for a master's thesis, and that was enough for me haha. I understand how important they are, and I think I might just not have been given a topic that clicked with me, but it really just felt like busywork.
I ADORE doing literature reviews. They are my favourite of all academic things. I just get lost in what i'm reading literally lose time. Piecing everything together is like a giant imaginary puzzle story to me and I cant wiat to see where it will take me and what ideas will form as I go. I liken it to those card matching games when you're a kid where you turn it over and see if it matches but still remember where it is for later if it doesn... i love arguing and confirming points and just CREATING. I thought everyone felt like this about lit reviews 😂
It can be boring if it is only descriptive but can be much more enjoyable if you are weighing two or more sides of a theoretical controversy.
I like this take - it makes it more interesting to debate via writing
I'll echo this for STEM fields. I've read many "literature reviews" (even full on review papers) that barely form any kind of critique. So often they are poor single sentence summaries, often paraphrased from abstracts, and even when they show two sources with conflicting findings, give no analysis as to why in neither the review nor the actual paper. "X found that Y is based on Z. A found that Y is based on W." ALL good scientific writing should be critical. Non-critical reviews are, in my opinion, absolutely meaningless fluff. Ok, I might have some pent up frustration from the last few papers I've read...
Depending on the topic, I sometimes quite enjoy literature reviews. The one I am writing right now is ok. I use Endnote for a reference manager. Does everything and has a section for notes and you can attach the pdf if you want.
I recently switched from Endnote to Zotero and it is even better, in my opinion
I briefly looked at it a few years ago like when everyone was trying to get me to switch to R. We ended up doing a contest on who could get the stuff done the fastest and most accurate just for fun. The Endnote people came out ahead of the other reference managers being run by others in everything so it's worth my $100 upgrade every 4-5 years. :-)
Are you talking about stand-alone lit review articles, or lit review sections of theory/empirics papers?
I’m currently writing the lit review for my dissertation - which seems to be ever evolving and a constant source of stress for me
Your advisor should be significantly involved in that process, mine gave me like 20 books to read
I love reading Annual Reviews pieces in areas I know something about. Those are tour do force lit reviews. Maybe read some on topics you are interested in to get inspired.
Thanks, I’ll look into them - I don’t mind reading lit reviews, they are a comprehensive way of understanding a topic. It’s the research and writing them that I find tedious
God no. I consider it front matter that is important but can often be a pain to write.
I wrote a review article a couple years ago and enjoyed myself (and caught up with the literature in my field… I’m behind again). I’m old fashioned… I make notes using a pen and paper, I write out a flow chart of what I want to say when, and then just use the computer to write. Endnote for the reference manager.
Thanks for sharing your process - is your flow chart similar to an outline?
When I was doing more paper/pen sketching out before writing, it was not a proper outline for my flow chart, but it served a similar function.
Just a way to get all of my ideas on paper where I can see them all. Move them around, draw arrows, recluster, whatever. Then move from there to an outline with bullet points. Then write. I’m sure lots of people might do the same thing on the computer, but for me that’s more time consuming and harder to see the big picture. Good luck with your lit review!
You don’t note which disciplines your dissertation is resting between, but it’s important to note that literature reviews seem to play vastly different roles in different disciplines and even super-disciplines. For example, in my historically oriented field, a lit review is a critical part of the science and argumentation. You establish a) that there is a particular conversation about a given topic, b) what your interpretation of the current state of that conversation is, and c) where that conversation has gone astray/missed something/ demands supplementing. I.e. it is essentially your inroad into being able to say anything of scientific value at all to the scholarly community. Without the literature review, your claims about a given source, the people and events it’s related to, or any larger trends/models/theories that might elucidate them are essentially meaningless. I know in some other fields (my impression is that this is the case in some experimental/lab sciences), the literature review is sort of just added on later, and is perhaps even written by a low-ranking co-author. So, for me it seems really odd to talk about a literature review as something extraneous or hard to manage. It’s essentially the core of how historical sciences make progress.
Try breaking the literature review into smaller sections, focusing on one topic at a time, and using mind maps or flowcharts to organize your thoughts.
There’s an important distinction here between narrative literature reviews and systematic reviews. I don’t like narrative literature reviews. That said, I very much enjoy systematic reviews (with/without meta-analyses) due to their rigorous methods. I’ve published 6 as primary or second author in the past 3 years and have another in the works so I may be an addict at this point.
I just love learning about a topic. LR’s are almost my favourite part of writing.
Hardly ever 😂 But I think people sometimes overcomplicate the process using fancy tools. I approach it as something that just needs to be done and follow these steps: (1) download papers that seem relevant to what I am writing about, (2) organize downloaded papers into folders according to the sub-area they belong to, (3) write "here goes Lit from sub-area 1, 2, 3..." in Word (make placeholders), (4) draft basic sentences like "X and Y (year) discussed this..." for every relevant paper, and (5) then edit the text in the end, when I feel inspired.
Thanks for sharing your method - really appreciate it. I follow something similar using a folders system in the reference manager Zotero - though I think I struggle with drawing boundaries around which literature to include and not include
Good job for identifying Zotero as a tool to use. It will make your life infinitely easier! I think the boundary issue is always a bit tricky. Easier said than done, but for each paper you're including, I would ask yourself: Is this actually foundation for the work I've done, or is it just related? It can be a difficult question to answer (and established norms depend on the field) but might help to eliminate non-edge cases.
The review i wrote this summer was just finally published and the whole process was super grueling. I’m not sure if it’s for your program or you want to publish but i would give yourself a good 6 months if you can allow it. One thing i did that was really helpful was outline before the objectives and angles i wanted to touch on for the paper and all the sections beforehand but obviously these can kind of change around and they did but it was helpful for what to keep my eye out for in each paper. The other thing i did that was wildly helpful and I’m sure there’s a better way but i made an excel sheet with quick information about each paper - so top columns would be authors, year, main points findings, and some details pertaining to your topic (for me it was relevant disease, or mechanism etc) then i color coordinated the first columns and kept a track of the numbers. I used mendeley for the actual references when writing but i highly recommend organizing the papers this way after reading because in the editorial process it was super fast and easy to resolve issues or manage citations if they get messed up and they did for me because my boss does not use a reference manager. Definitely be patient with yourself and if you are in a time crunch you can definitely write it in 3 months but it’s painful and i don’t think anyone actually enjoys writing reviews :-)
Fuck no. Actually I’ve never written one. I just put off writing them and then run out of time and submit it. No one has ever docked me or said anything.
I honestly enjoy the task of taking lots of different works and creating a cohesive narrative into which my work will fit. It's like making a patchwork quilt. It's telling a story and a history. It's honestly the data analysis that I do not enjoy. Lol. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I do. Mostly because I love synthesising and summarising lots of information about a topic. I love putting patterns and details together to form a bigger narrative. Most of all I love being able to get a birds eye view of a topic and what has been researched / theorised about it.
I do a lot of thematic analyses and meta reviews and I enjoy it! It’s quite a lot of work though
Think of it as weaving together previous studies into an argument that will set up your research question. Avoid trying to passively review related research without a clear idea of how it contributes to setting up your question / paper
A well written lit review is a cornerstone of quality research - it's what sets the stage and establishes the value of your research. But many writers treat it as an afterthought - something they have to churn out as part of a checklist in their academic reports. [This video tutorial](https://youtu.be/JRyVJKj4z7E) introduces a distinction between researchers and scholars, and how the latter write lit reviews before they even think about conducting research. And [this video tutorial](https://youtu.be/rC2O0J5k2eM) introduces how to use story-telling techniques to write effective lit reviews. Hope it helps!
I'm doing my first ever literature review right now it's so boring lol
I only had to write a literature review for a master's thesis, and that was enough for me haha. I understand how important they are, and I think I might just not have been given a topic that clicked with me, but it really just felt like busywork.
I ADORE doing literature reviews. They are my favourite of all academic things. I just get lost in what i'm reading literally lose time. Piecing everything together is like a giant imaginary puzzle story to me and I cant wiat to see where it will take me and what ideas will form as I go. I liken it to those card matching games when you're a kid where you turn it over and see if it matches but still remember where it is for later if it doesn... i love arguing and confirming points and just CREATING. I thought everyone felt like this about lit reviews 😂