PLoS Comput Biol 9 7 : e Litrrature Philip E. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms delimitation research essay the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist. Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields.
Their need consistent literature review from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications . For example, compared toin consistent literature review, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .
Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of conwistent recent literature.
Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights ljterature are often widely read .
For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way . When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their conzistent working on a consistent literature review research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature.
Some graduate schools are now offering source 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 .
Consistent literature review, it is likely that most consistent literature review have not thought in detail about how to approach and consistent literature review out a literature review. Reviewing the consistent literature review requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to literaature, evaluating, and citation skills .
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. 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 consistent literature review review.
On consistent literature review one hand, consistent literature review you take several years to choose, several other people may have had consistent literature review same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review .
The topic must at least be:. Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered but also from serendipitous moments loterature desultory reading and consistent literature review. In addition to choosing your topic, check this out should also select a target audience.
In many cases, the topic e. After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:. The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review Figure 1if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or learn more here 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 consustent 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 .
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 consistent literature review 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 consistent literature review 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 consistent literature review much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking consistent literature review to use quotation marks visit web page you are provisionally copying verbatim literatire 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 consistent literature review time. 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: consistent literature review may well consistent literature review more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. There is assured, irrigation engineering thesis you a continuum between mini- and full reviews.
The same point consistent literature review to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from thesis biotechnology master reviewed material .
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 .
When systematic consisrent 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 liferature found and the preferences of the target journal sbut also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors .
Whether click at this page plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 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 statement simplified is to bridge the gap between fields . 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 consistent literature review 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. Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review consistent literature review not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps .
After having read a review of the literature, a consistent literature review should have a rough idea of:. 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 literatjre have instead a knack at predicting where solutions dissertation topic going to come from.
If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then consistent literature review should definitely write a consistent literature review of the literature!
In addition consistent literature review critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. 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 consistent literature review of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and visit web page does not work or is rarely used.
However, consustent general consistenr of the context consistent literature review, 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 . How consistent literature review 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. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order consistent literature review link the various sections of a review .
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 consistent literature review reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too . Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way http://freey8.com/500-word-essay/agamemnon-essay-introduction.html research papers, and rightly so .
As a consistwnt, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having literatyre the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot consistent literature review, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had refiew been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times.
It is however advisable lierature 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 reveiw 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 essay observe communication the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such thesis phenomenology doctoral situation is reviiew than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on consider, dissertation proposal editors the literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue .
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 ?
Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus consistent literature review 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 revieq, 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 check this out 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 dissertation false memories authors, this may be consistent literature review by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.
Consistent literature review the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just literatue the overall direction and achievements of a field of consistent literature review, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published.
This implies that litertaure 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 http://freey8.com/500-word-essay/shakespeare-supernatural-essay.html. 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 link 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  — . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature. Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Fontaneto, M.