Literature Review in Scientific Research: An Overview
Abstract
The quality and success of academic work are closely linked to the literature review process. A literature review is essential to any scientific research study, which entails an in-depth analysis and synthesis of the existing literature and studies related to the research topic. The literature review process thoroughly searches various databases and sources to ensure the review is comprehensive and up to date. The primary objective of this article is to provide an overview of the literature review process in scientific research, its importance in research methodology, and its different types. It also aims to discuss the purpose of conducting a literature review in research, the methods involved, and the significance of having access to relevant literature. Additionally, it provides guidelines for early career researchers on how to conduct a comprehensive literature search. A literature search was conducted in major databases and supplemented by browsing journals and citations with relevant keywords. There are four main types of literature reviews: traditional or narrative, systematic, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis. By conducting a literature review, researchers gain a deep understanding of the research landscape, identify potential biases and limitations, and contribute to developing knowledge in their field of study. Executing a literature search is fruitless unless researchers possess fundamental knowledge about it. Hence, collecting literature for the literature review is an indispensable step that requires a comprehensive search of various databases and sources, such as academic journals, books, conference proceedings, and other relevant publications. The present article provides vital information and literature search guidelines for early career researchers
Downloads
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of general psychology, 1(3), 311-320.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & Martyn-St James, M. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Corrin, L., Thompson, K., Hwang, G. J., & Lodge, J. M. (2022). The importance of choosing the right keywords for educational technology publications. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 1-8.
Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1-9.
Firoozeh, N., Nazarenko, A., Alizon, F., & Daille, B. (2020). Keyword extraction: Issues and methods. Natural Language Engineering, 26(3), 259-291.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl 1), 29.
Hernandez, A. V., Marti, K. M., & Roman, Y. M. (2020). Meta-Analysis. Chest, 158(1), S97-S102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.003
IFIS, 2023 https://ifis.libguides.com/literature_search_best_practice/screening-search-results. Assessed on the 14/02/2024
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W.M. et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Rev Manag Sci 16, 2577–2595 (2022).
Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Metasynthesis: An Original Method to Synthesise Qualitative Literature in Psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., ... & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), W-65.
Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175-194.
Macaskill, P., Takwoingi, Y., Deeks, J. J., & Gatsonis, C. (2023). Understanding meta‐analysis. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, 203-247.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21. PMID: 19621072; PMCID: PMC2707599.
Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2017, February 27). Chapter 9 Methods for literature reviews. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach - NCBI Bookshelf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/?report=reader
Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta-analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? Psychology & Marketing, 39(6), 1099-1115.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know?. International business review, 29(4), 101717.
Pohlen, V. (2021). Citation Management Tools: by Nancy R. Glassman, Ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018, 186pp., $65.00, ISBN 978-1-4422-6837-1.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351-376.
Rozas, L. W., & Klein, W. C. (2010). The value and purpose of the traditional qualitative literature review. Journal of evidence-based social work, 7(5), 387-399
Siddiqi, S., & Sharan, A. (2015). Keyword and keyphrase extraction techniques: a literature review. International Journal of Computer Applications, 109(2).
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
Thorne, S. (2022). Qualitative meta-synthesis. Nurse Author & Editor, 32(1), 15-18.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review.
Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., & Barker, K. (2014). Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC medical research methodology, 14(1), 1-14.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
Copyright (c) 2024 Lawani-Luwaji Ebidor, Ilegbedion Godwin Ikhide
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
