LibGuides: How to write a literature review: Home

How is a literature review article different from an original research paper?

The primary goal of research papers is to advance the knowledge in a specific area, usually by developing a new argument or hypothesis. They usually have a literature review, but the main focus is to present a new idea or the results of a particular investigation. On the other hand, literature review articles focus on summarizing and synthetizing information that has already been published. They can include a critical evaluation of each work, but they don't focus on adding new ideas to a subject area and do not use a specific argument or hypothesis.

How is a literature review different from an annotated bibliography?

A literature review provides an overview of a particular topic, summarizing and synthetizing information from several sources. Its structure follows the flow of ideas in the text, and you may find several sources cited within one paragraph. An annotated bibliography is a list of citations usually in alphabetical order, and each citation is followed by a brief description and evaluation (annotation).

What is the difference between literature review, systematic review, and meta-analysis?

Literature reviews	Systematic reviews	Meta-Analysis
Literature reviews describe related research about a topic; they are often seen in theses, dissertations, original papers (to provide background information prior to describing the methods and results of a study) and as standalone articles. Common in many disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences, and technology. Literature reviews usually do not provide in-depth analysis; their main focus is to clarify different theories, approaches, and provide background information. Literature reviews usually do not include formal criteria for the search, selection, and evaluation of sources. Therefore, they usually do not include a "methods" section.	Just like literature reviews, systematic reviews also describe related research about a topic, but provide much deeper analysis about each source. Systematic reviews are not common outside of very specific scholarly journals. One of the common goals of systematic reviews is to assess what results different studies reported when using a specific set of methods or interventions. In that sense, systematic reviews go beyond simply clarifying the situation of a research field. Frequently seen in health sciences and occasionally in social sciences that use "intervention" methods (e.g. social work). Rare in other fields. Systematic reviews have strict criteria for how sources are searched and selected, and these criteria are clearly described in a "methods" section.	Similar to systematic reviews, meta-analysis also use strict criteria for what types of studies are selected or evaluated, but evaluation is based on statistical measures (e.g. degrees of correlation among different studies). Meta-analysis are considered the golden standard of research in health sciences, but are rare in other fields.