dissertation review process

Managing the Dissertation Writing Process

Materials from workshop.

• Slides:  https://z.umn.edu/dissworkshopslides
• Revision Memo:  https://z.umn.edu/revisionmemo
• Dissertation Analysis handout (PDF)
• "How to Read like a Writer" (PDF) by Mike Bunn (in  Writing spaces : readings on writing Vol 2 )

Finding Dissertations

• Dissertations and Theses Global This link opens in a new window Collection of dissertations and theses from around the world, offering millions of works from thousands of universities. Each year hundreds of thousands of works are added. Full-text coverage spans from 1743 to the present, with citation coverage dating back to 1637.
• Google Scholar (Setup connection to get to PDFs) Use Google Scholar to find articles from academic publishers, professional societies, research institutes, and scholarly repositories from colleges and universities. If you are using from off-campus access, change the "Library Settings" to University of Minnesota Twin Cities. Look for the "FindIt@U of M Twin Cities" links in your Google Scholar search results to access full text and PDFs. View this tutorial to learn how to go from a general idea to a very precise set of results of journal articles and scholarly materials.
• University Digital Conservancy at the University of Minnesota A digital archive of M.A. and PhD theses at the University of Minnesota. The collection in this institutional repository can also be searched by keyword, date, authors and majors.

Sample of project management tools

Tool considerations:

• Devices -- “apps” vs. Laptop 
• Collaboration
• Fewer features vs. lots of features
• Learning curve
• Security/privacy 

More Options

• Open Project:  https://www.openproject.org/
• Redbooth:  https://redbooth.com/
• Notion:  https://www.notion.so/
• Freedcamp:  https://freedcamp.com/
• Smartsheet:  https://www.smartsheet.com/
• Click up:  https://clickup.com/
• Kanboard:  https://kanboard.org/

Student Writing Support from the Center for Writing

Student Writing Support (SWS) offers collaborative one-to-one writing consultations to help student writers develop confidence and effective writing strategies. SWS offers three kinds of consultations:

• walk-in consultations in 15  Nicholson Hall
• appointments in  Zoom
• appointments in  SWS.online

Our writing consultants will listen to your goals and concerns, read and respond to your written work, pose questions that help you clarify and articulate your ideas, and affirm the experiences and abilities you bring to your writing. We value your life experiences and languages, and we seek to provide a supportive space for you to share and develop your voice.

Sample of online books

• Restarting stalled research by Paul C. Rosenblatt ISBN: 9781483393551 Publication Date: 2016 Written for researchers and graduate students writing dissertations, this unique book offers detailed advice and perspective on many issues that can stall a research project and reveals what can be done to successfully resume it. Using a direct yet conversational style, author Paul C. Rosenblatt draws on his decades of experience to cover many diverse topics. The text guides readers through challenges such as clarifying the end goal of a project; resolving common and not-so-common writing problems; dealing with rejection and revision decisions; handling difficulties involving dissertation advisers and committee members; coping with issues of researcher motivation or self-esteem; and much more.

Get materials we don't own or from our print collection (Interlibrary Loan & Document Delivery)

• InterLibrary Loan & Digital Delivery Interlibrary Loan (ILL) & Digital Delivery offers access to materials needed for courses and research, including materials not currently available within the University of Minnesota Libraries, AND digital copies of articles and book chapters from our print and microform collections. Free for currently-affiliated University students, faculty, and staff.

Citation managers

What is a citation manager.

A citation manager is a software tool used to create personalized databases of citation information and notes. They allow you to:

• import and organize citation information from article indexes and other sources,
• export your citations into Word documents or other types of publications,
• format citations for your papers and bibliographies using APA and many other styles, and
• include your own notes.

Choosing a citation manager

• Guide to Citation Managers at UMN
• Wikipedia's comparison of reference management software

Browse scholarly journals available from the UMN Libraries on your tablet device, iPhone, or via the web using BrowZine .

• Read journal articles on your preferred device. 
• Create personal libraries of your favorite journals. 
• Set up alerts for new issues of journals.

For a quick overview, see this one-minute video about BrowZine. For more information, see  the full BrowZine guide.

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 Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started

Published on 26 March 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 5 May 2022.

A dissertation is a large research project undertaken at the end of a degree. It involves in-depth consideration of a problem or question chosen by the student. It is usually the largest (and final) piece of written work produced during a degree.

The length and structure of a dissertation vary widely depending on the level and field of study. However, there are some key questions that can help you understand the requirements and get started on your dissertation project.

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

When and why do you have to write a dissertation, who will supervise your dissertation, what type of research will you do, how should your dissertation be structured, what formatting and referencing rules do you have to follow, frequently asked questions about dissertations.

A dissertation, sometimes called a thesis, comes at the end of an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. It is a larger project than the other essays you’ve written, requiring a higher word count and a greater depth of research.

You’ll generally work on your dissertation during the final year of your degree, over a longer period than you would take for a standard essay . For example, the dissertation might be your main focus for the last six months of your degree.

Why is the dissertation important?

The dissertation is a test of your capacity for independent research. You are given a lot of autonomy in writing your dissertation: you come up with your own ideas, conduct your own research, and write and structure the text by yourself.

This means that it is an important preparation for your future, whether you continue in academia or not: it teaches you to manage your own time, generate original ideas, and work independently.

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

During the planning and writing of your dissertation, you’ll work with a supervisor from your department. The supervisor’s job is to give you feedback and advice throughout the process.

The dissertation supervisor is often assigned by the department, but you might be allowed to indicate preferences or approach potential supervisors. If so, try to pick someone who is familiar with your chosen topic, whom you get along with on a personal level, and whose feedback you’ve found useful in the past.

How will your supervisor help you?

Your supervisor is there to guide you through the dissertation project, but you’re still working independently. They can give feedback on your ideas, but not come up with ideas for you.

You may need to take the initiative to request an initial meeting with your supervisor. Then you can plan out your future meetings and set reasonable deadlines for things like completion of data collection, a structure outline, a first chapter, a first draft, and so on.

Make sure to prepare in advance for your meetings. Formulate your ideas as fully as you can, and determine where exactly you’re having difficulties so you can ask your supervisor for specific advice.

Your approach to your dissertation will vary depending on your field of study. The first thing to consider is whether you will do empirical research , which involves collecting original data, or non-empirical research , which involves analysing sources.

Empirical dissertations (sciences)

An empirical dissertation focuses on collecting and analysing original data. You’ll usually write this type of dissertation if you are studying a subject in the sciences or social sciences.

• What are airline workers’ attitudes towards the challenges posed for their industry by climate change?
• How effective is cognitive behavioural therapy in treating depression in young adults?
• What are the short-term health effects of switching from smoking cigarettes to e-cigarettes?

There are many different empirical research methods you can use to answer these questions – for example, experiments , observations, surveys , and interviews.

When doing empirical research, you need to consider things like the variables you will investigate, the reliability and validity of your measurements, and your sampling method . The aim is to produce robust, reproducible scientific knowledge.

Non-empirical dissertations (arts and humanities)

A non-empirical dissertation works with existing research or other texts, presenting original analysis, critique and argumentation, but no original data. This approach is typical of arts and humanities subjects.

• What attitudes did commentators in the British press take towards the French Revolution in 1789–1792?
• How do the themes of gender and inheritance intersect in Shakespeare’s Macbeth ?
• How did Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia influence nineteenth century utopian socialist thought?

The first steps in this type of dissertation are to decide on your topic and begin collecting your primary and secondary sources .

Primary sources are the direct objects of your research. They give you first-hand evidence about your subject. Examples of primary sources include novels, artworks and historical documents.

Secondary sources provide information that informs your analysis. They describe, interpret, or evaluate information from primary sources. For example, you might consider previous analyses of the novel or author you are working on, or theoretical texts that you plan to apply to your primary sources.

Dissertations are divided into chapters and sections. Empirical dissertations usually follow a standard structure, while non-empirical dissertations are more flexible.

Structure of an empirical dissertation

Empirical dissertations generally include these chapters:

• Introduction : An explanation of your topic and the research question(s) you want to answer.
• Literature review : A survey and evaluation of previous research on your topic.
• Methodology : An explanation of how you collected and analysed your data.
• Results : A brief description of what you found.
• Discussion : Interpretation of what these results reveal.
• Conclusion : Answers to your research question(s) and summary of what your findings contribute to knowledge in your field.

Sometimes the order or naming of chapters might be slightly different, but all of the above information must be included in order to produce thorough, valid scientific research.

Other dissertation structures

If your dissertation doesn’t involve data collection, your structure is more flexible. You can think of it like an extended essay – the text should be logically organised in a way that serves your argument:

• Introduction: An explanation of your topic and the question(s) you want to answer.
• Main body: The development of your analysis, usually divided into 2–4 chapters.
• Conclusion: Answers to your research question(s) and summary of what your analysis contributes to knowledge in your field.

The chapters of the main body can be organised around different themes, time periods, or texts. Below you can see some example structures for dissertations in different subjects.

• Political philosophy

This example, on the topic of the British press’s coverage of the French Revolution, shows how you might structure each chapter around a specific theme.

This example, on the topic of Plato’s and More’s influences on utopian socialist thought, shows a different approach to dividing the chapters by theme.

This example, a master’s dissertation on the topic of how writers respond to persecution, shows how you can also use section headings within each chapter. Each of the three chapters deals with a specific text, while the sections are organised thematically.

Like other academic texts, it’s important that your dissertation follows the formatting guidelines set out by your university. You can lose marks unnecessarily over mistakes, so it’s worth taking the time to get all these elements right.

Formatting guidelines concern things like:

• line spacing
• page numbers
• punctuation
• title pages
• presentation of tables and figures

If you’re unsure about the formatting requirements, check with your supervisor or department. You can lose marks unnecessarily over mistakes, so it’s worth taking the time to get all these elements right.

How will you reference your sources?

Referencing means properly listing the sources you cite and refer to in your dissertation, so that the reader can find them. This avoids plagiarism by acknowledging where you’ve used the work of others.

Keep track of everything you read as you prepare your dissertation. The key information to note down for a reference is:

• The publication date
• Page numbers for the parts you refer to (especially when using direct quotes)

Different referencing styles each have their own specific rules for how to reference. The most commonly used styles in UK universities are listed below.

You can use the free APA Reference Generator to automatically create and store your references.

APA Reference Generator

The words ‘ dissertation ’ and ‘thesis’ both refer to a large written research project undertaken to complete a degree, but they are used differently depending on the country:

• In the UK, you write a dissertation at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a thesis to complete a PhD.
• In the US, it’s the other way around: you may write a thesis at the end of a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and you write a dissertation to complete a PhD.

The main difference is in terms of scale – a dissertation is usually much longer than the other essays you complete during your degree.

Another key difference is that you are given much more independence when working on a dissertation. You choose your own dissertation topic , and you have to conduct the research and write the dissertation yourself (with some assistance from your supervisor).

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

At the bachelor’s and master’s levels, the dissertation is usually the main focus of your final year. You might work on it (alongside other classes) for the entirety of the final year, or for the last six months. This includes formulating an idea, doing the research, and writing up.

A PhD thesis takes a longer time, as the thesis is the main focus of the degree. A PhD thesis might be being formulated and worked on for the whole four years of the degree program. The writing process alone can take around 18 months.

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.

Caulfield, J. (2022, May 05). What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/what-is-a-dissertation/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples.

Literature Reviews

Capstone research guide, what is a literature review, steps in doing a literature review, your scholarly literature review video, webster university's writing center.

• Literature Review as a Process: Planning and Collecting your Literature Research
• Literature Review as a Product: Organizing your Writing
• Finding Examples of Literature Reviews
• General Resources

Need help? Ask a librarian or chat

Ask A Librarian  for help finding sources, narrowing or expanding your topic, and more!​

• Research Desk: 314-246-6950
• Toll-free: 800-985-4279
• Visit us:  Library hours
• Search our FAQs or email us 

Need advanced research and writing help? Visit the Capstone & Thesis research guide . The guide is intended for graduate students and those beginning an in-depth research paper or project, or a formal thesis or dissertation. 

A literature review is a thorough overview and critical analysis of the research already conducted and published on a specific topic. A literature review can be a standalone document written in order to explore the vast array of opinions, data, and voices concerning your topic of research. When writing for your thesis or dissertation, a literature review will be just one part of a much larger document, written to situate your research in the larger context of the topic itself. Diana Ridley in her text The Literature Review: A Step by Step Guide for Students  explains that,

your research is a small piece in a complicated puzzle jigsaw puzzle; it does not stand alone. It is dependent on what others have done before and will contribute to an ongoing story or debate. Your reader therefore needs to know about the whole jigsaw puzzle and not simply the shade or shape for your particular piece. In a literature review, you are contextualizing; you are describing the bigger picture that provides the background and creates the space or gap for your research (2008; pg. 5).

Therefore, the literature review should be more than just a summary of the resources and include, for example, interpretations, comparisons, evaluation, and clarification, of the research already performed on the topic. ​

A literature review as both product and process

Ridley also explains that the term literature review describes both a final product and a process itself. 

As a noun, the literature review is part of the final draft of your standalone document or part of your larger thesis or dissertation. It is the piece of writing that allows the reader to know that you have engaged in deep research of your topic. It also allows you to build a dialogued with the research performed before yours, by offering an analysis of those works in relation to your own. This piece of writing will allow you to identify ideas, theories, terminology, or the timeline of thought about the topic as it has developed over time (Ridley, 2008, pg. 2). This piece of writing is where you are headed as you embark on the literature review process. 

As a verb, the literature review is a continuous activity which begins as soon as you have selected a topic and begun your research (Ridley, 2008, pg. 3). While reading and collecting data, you will keep track of your findings in some sort of a research log or citation management system of your choice. Every author or idea you collect is an opportunity to build a connection in the larger research conducted on the topic and might hold a place in your literature review. 

1. Select your topic : Choose a topic you can manage in the timeframe you have to complete your project. Narrow down the topic if it is too broad and establish your research questions.

2. Develop a strategy : Strategy determines where you will find the best information about your topic. Identify a variety of sources (e.g. journal articles, books, documents, etc.) and the best tools to finding the sources.  

3. Research and evaluate : Execute your strategy by locating the specific sources. When searching for sources, think of various keyword and phrases related to your topic to help focus your search. As you search, evaluate your sources and determine that the information is credible.

• Visit the Introduction to Doing Research guide to find more information about evaluating information

4. Organize and synthesize : Arrange your review by ideas and summarize the sources you found. You are demonstrating your knowledge of your research topic by discussing what has been researched, debated, and reviewed about your topic.

5. Cite and review : Cite the resources you refer to in your project thoroughly and accurately. Double-check your writing to ensure you synthesized the information in your own words.

• Your Scholarly Literature Review (Recorded 2018, 30 min.) A literature review is a critical analysis of existing theory and research on a topic. Learn how to find peer-reviewed journal articles on your topic and analyze, organize, and present the research they contain. Click here to watch specific parts of this video.

Whether you are an experienced academic writer or this is your first paper, Webster University's Writing Center offers writing support for students. Find help with all kinds of research projects, including "reports; résumés and cover letters; admission essays and personal statements; summaries, critical analyses, and literature reviews; research and term papers; theses and dissertations; and more." Writing Center coaches are available at all stages of the writing process from brainstorming to draft revision and everything in-between.

Visit Writing Support to: 

• Schedule an appointment with a writing coach
• Submit a paper online to the Writing Center for review
• Select Writing Resources to find help with citation, grammar, avoiding plagiarism, and more
• Next: Literature Review as a Process: Planning and Collecting your Literature Research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 2:14 PM
• URL: https://library.webster.edu/litreview

LET US HELP

Welcome to Capella

Select your program and we'll help guide you through important information as you prepare for the application process.

FIND YOUR PROGRAM

Connect with us

A team of dedicated enrollment counselors is standing by, ready to answer your questions and help you get started.

• Capella University Blog
• PhD/Doctorate

What are the steps in writing a dissertation?

December 11, 2019

The doctoral dissertation is the crowning achievement of your PhD program and an accomplishment of which you can be very proud. It’s also a significant undertaking. For any large project like this, understanding the steps and sequence can help reduce some of the anxiety you may be feeling about writing a dissertation.

Curtis Brant, PhD, Dean of Research & Scholarship at Capella University, provides details of the primary steps required to complete a dissertation. 

Generally, a dissertation will have five chapters:

• An outline of the full background of your study
• A comprehensive literature review supporting your research
• A discussion of your choice of research design, data collection and analysis, and details of the research steps
• The actual data analyses and results, and
• The final evaluation and interpretation of your results.

As you progress through your program, each of the steps described below is designed to help you make concrete progress on your dissertation in smaller, manageable chunks. 

Step 1: Project Ideation.

 In your coursework, you will learn a great deal about the theories and practices central to your field of study. You will gain broad exposure to the field to help you to start thinking about a topic of inquiry for your project. You will also learn more about research ethics and methodologies so that in the next phase you will be ready to formally develop your project proposal. 

Step 2: Project Development.

Next, you will narrow down your choice of topics and begin to build the detailed format of your project. In this step, you will develop a detailed research plan that outlines the theoretical basis for your research, the questions you hope to answer, a research methodology, and proposed data analyses. In creating such a detailed research plan, you will also be developing much of the content for the first three chapters of your dissertation. You will submit your plan for approval to faculty to help prepare you for the next phase of completing your actual research. 

Step 3: Project Implementation.

 This step begins with submitting your study for approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB will review your project to ensure it meets the standards for ethical research. Once you get IRB approval, you can start to gather the data that you will analyze in the next step. During this step, you will also write and synthesize much of the content for the remaining chapters of your dissertation.

Step 4: Project Conclusion.

In this step you will complete your data collection and analyze the results. You will also finish writing the final two chapters of your dissertation in which you summarize your findings and connect your findings back to the questions and theories you discussed in earlier chapters. Prior to submitting your final dissertation for approval by your faculty review and edit it to ensure synthesis of all the content.

Step 5: University Approvals.

In the final step of completing your dissertation, you will submit your project for final format editing and approval from your faculty. 

Whatever step you’re on, one of the key factors to success is time management. Every step requires considerable work. Breaking down each step (as Capella does) is a good approach, as is diligently scheduling time every week to continue working. It may feel overwhelming to contemplate the entire process at once, but bundling it into smaller goals helps it become less daunting.

What’s more, as you progress through the steps of your project, your hard work will begin to pay off as you see the prospect of earning your PhD become a reality. Knowing that you’re contributing knowledge to your chosen field can be rewarding. It’s hard work but it’s followed by an immense feeling of satisfaction when you reach the end.

Capella University offers PhD and professional doctoral degree programs ranging from business to education and health to technology. Learn more about our online PhD programs .

You may also like

Can I transfer credits into a doctoral program?

The difference between a dissertation and doctoral capstone

Start learning today.

Get started on your journey now by connecting with an enrollment counselor. See how Capella may be a good fit for you, and start the application process.

Please Exit Private Browsing Mode

Your internet browser is in private browsing mode. Please turn off private browsing mode if you wish to use this site.

Are you sure you want to cancel?

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 Udemy 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
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

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 Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Dissertation and Thesis Format Review: Format Review Process

• Format Review Process
• Format Review Tips
• After Format Review
• Art Therapy/Chicago
• CFT/Chicago
• CIP/Chicago
• DCES/Chicago
• MACP/Vancouver
• MAIOP/Vancouver
• PsyD/Chicago
• PsyD/Vancouver

Adler provides students completing dissertations or theses with the services of professional format reviewers to assess  your work for adherence to APA format and departmental style guidelines.

The Process, Step-by-Step

1. Your advisor will tell you when you are ready to submit your dissertation or thesis for format review. 

2. Submit your dissertation or thesis to the Writing Center at [email protected] to begin the process.

• Email your dissertation or thesis in its final format ( including your reference section)  as an attachment in Word or as a PDF.
• You will also email a a separate document containing only your references as a Word document or a PDF, attached to the same email.

3.  The Writing Center will assign a format reviewer and send them your files. A ssignments are made during business hours, CT, and are not made on Chicago-campus holidays. 

4. The Writing Center  will send you an email confirming receipt and providing the name and email address of your reviewer.

5.  Allow 10 business days for the first round of format review.

6. Your reviewer will let you know of issues that need to be addressed.  

• Reviewers will note and correct minor errors in track changes so that students can quickly make these small corrections.  These will not be added to the feedback documents that reviewers provide to students.

7.  When you have made the corrections, resubmit the document to your format reviewer.

8.  Allow 10 business days for each round of format review required. 

9. When the format review is complete, the reviewer will notify you via  email and will send you a signed clearance form.

Important Notes Before You Submit

IRB letter:

• You must include your IRB/REB letter.  If it's missing, your work will automatically need to be reviewed again before it's approved.

Turnaround time:

• Each round of comments from your format reviewer takes 10 days. Allow enough time for multiple rounds of comments especially as we near the August 31 deadline for degree conferral.
• Format reviewers do not review your work for grammar, spelling, word choice or other writing issues or copy editing issues.  
• You can get help with your writing through the Writing Center, and it's recommended that you do so throughout the process of writing your dissertation or thesis, and that you start early.
• If you want your work copy edited before you submit it for APA review, Adler provides referrals to editors  in Chicago and Vancouver that you can hire to do this for you.
• Next: Format Review Tips >>
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2023 9:09 AM
• URL: https://library.adler.edu/FormatReview

Addressing Reviewer Comments: Refining Your Dissertation

Embrace the Feedback Process

The dissertation journey is a rigorous and demanding one, and as you near the finish line, you encounter a critical phase: addressing reviewer comments. These comments, whether from your dissertation committee or peer reviewers, are a fundamental part of the academic process. They can feel like a mix of praise and criticism, and how you approach them can significantly impact the final quality of your work.

First and foremost, it's essential to embrace the feedback process with an open and growth-oriented mindset. Understand that reviewer comments are not a personal attack on your abilities or the worth of your research. Instead, they are a mechanism designed to elevate your work to the highest academic standards. Here's how to effectively embrace the feedback process:

1. Shift Your Perspective: Instead of viewing reviewer comments as hurdles to overcome, consider them as stepping stones toward improvement. Each comment, no matter how critical, presents an opportunity to refine and strengthen your dissertation.

2. Recognize the Value: Reviewer comments are a form of professional guidance that many researchers pay for through conferences or workshops. In this context, receiving feedback for free is a valuable privilege. It means that experts are invested in your work and are willing to help you succeed.

3. Separate Your Ego: It's natural to feel a personal connection to your dissertation. However, during the feedback process, it's crucial to separate your ego from your work. Remember that constructive criticism is aimed at enhancing the quality of your research, not diminishing your worth.

4. Focus on Improvement: Approach each comment as a specific area for improvement. Consider how addressing this feedback will enhance the overall rigor and credibility of your dissertation. Embracing feedback is an act of dedication to producing your best work.

5. Seek Clarification: If you find a comment unclear or ambiguous, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewer or committee member. A better understanding of their perspective can guide your revisions effectively.

6. Trust the Process: The feedback process is a well-established part of academia. Trust that it has helped countless researchers refine their work and contribute valuable insights to their respective fields. By embracing this process, you align yourself with a tradition of scholarly excellence.

7. Collaborate and Learn: Engaging with feedback is an opportunity to collaborate with experienced scholars. It's also a chance to learn and grow as a researcher. The insights gained from addressing reviewer comments can shape your future work and improve your academic writing skills.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

Organize and analyze.

Once you've received reviewer comments on your dissertation, the next crucial step is to organize and analyze this feedback. This phase is essential for making sense of the various suggestions, critiques, and recommendations you've received. Here's a detailed look at how to effectively organize and analyze reviewer comments.

1. Create a Systematic Framework: Start by creating a systematic framework for organizing the comments. This framework should help you categorize and prioritize the feedback. Common categories include methodology, literature review, data analysis, and presentation. Having a clear structure will prevent you from feeling overwhelmed by the volume of comments.

2. Catalog Comments: Begin by cataloging all the comments you've received. This involves creating a comprehensive list of each comment, specifying who provided it (e.g., committee member, peer reviewer), and noting the page or section of your dissertation it pertains to. This catalog serves as a reference point for your revisions.

3. Identify Common Themes: As you review the comments, you'll likely notice common themes or recurring issues. These may include suggestions related to clarity, methodology, or the organization of your work. Identifying these overarching themes will help you address multiple comments at once and streamline your revision process.

4. Prioritize Comments: Not all comments are of equal importance, and some may conflict with others. Prioritize comments based on their significance to the overall quality and validity of your dissertation. Focus on addressing comments that have the most substantial impact first.

5. Understand the Reviewer's Perspective: Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer or committee member. Try to understand their perspective and the rationale behind their comments. Consider their expertise and the academic standards they are applying. This empathetic approach can help you appreciate the value of their feedback.

6. Seek Clarification: If a comment is unclear or you require additional information to address it effectively, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewer. Engaging in a dialogue can provide insights into their expectations and help you craft more precise revisions.

7. Align with Your Research Goals: While addressing comments, keep your research goals and objectives in mind. Ensure that revisions align with the core purpose of your dissertation. Avoid making changes that deviate from your research agenda.

8. Maintain Consistency: As you revise your dissertation, aim for consistency in your approach. Ensure that changes made to one section do not create inconsistencies or conflicts with other parts of your work. Maintaining a cohesive narrative is crucial.

9. Document Changes: Keep meticulous records of the revisions you make in response to reviewer comments. Documenting changes ensures transparency and accountability in the revision process. It also helps when you need to justify your decisions during the defense.

10. Stay Organized: Throughout the organization and analysis process, stay organized. Use digital tools, spreadsheets, or project management software to track your progress and manage your revisions efficiently. A well-organized approach saves time and reduces stress.

Organizing and analyzing reviewer comments is a pivotal step in refining your dissertation. It empowers you to make informed decisions about which revisions to prioritize and ensures that your final work aligns with academic standards and your research goals. By systematically addressing feedback, you set the stage for a successful defense and the completion of a high-quality dissertation.

Prioritize Revisions

Once you've organized and analyzed the feedback on your dissertation, the next critical phase is prioritizing revisions. Not all comments carry the same weight, and your time and effort are valuable resources. Prioritizing revisions strategically ensures that you focus on the most significant and impactful changes. Here's how to effectively prioritize revisions based on reviewer comments:

1. Distinguish between Major and Minor Comments: Reviewer comments can vary widely in their impact on your dissertation. Some may point to fundamental flaws in your research, while others may be minor suggestions for improvement. Begin by distinguishing between major and minor comments. Major comments typically relate to issues that affect the overall validity, clarity, or methodology of your work.

2. Address Critical Flaws First: Start by addressing critical flaws or comments that could undermine the integrity of your dissertation. These may include errors in research methodology, gaps in the literature review, or issues with data analysis. By resolving these foundational problems, you ensure the core quality of your work.

3. Focus on Coherence and Flow: After addressing critical flaws, pay attention to comments related to the overall coherence and flow of your dissertation. Reviewers often comment on the logical progression of your arguments, transitions between sections, and the clarity of your writing. Improving these aspects enhances the readability and impact of your work.

4. Address Fundamental Methodological Issues: If reviewer comments highlight methodological concerns, prioritize these revisions. Methodology is the backbone of any research, and addressing issues in this area is essential for the validity of your findings. Ensure that your research design, data collection, and analysis methods meet rigorous standards.

5. Enhance Clarity and Precision: Comments related to clarity, precision, and language should also be prioritized. Clear and concise writing is vital in academic writing. Address suggestions for improving sentence structure, eliminating jargon, and enhancing the readability of your work. Clarity in communication is key to conveying your research effectively.

6. Consider Consistency and Formatting: While formatting and consistency comments may seem minor, they contribute to the overall professionalism of your dissertation. Ensure that your citations, references, headings, and formatting adhere to the required style guide. Consistency in these elements reflects attention to detail.

7. Seek Feedback on Revisions: As you make revisions based on reviewer comments, seek feedback from mentors, advisors, or colleagues. External input can help you validate the effectiveness of your revisions and identify areas that may still require improvement.

8. Keep the Big Picture in Mind: Throughout the prioritization process, keep the big picture of your dissertation in mind. Ensure that revisions align with your research objectives and do not compromise the core message of your work. Balancing the need for changes with the preservation of your research integrity is essential.

9. Maintain a Transparent Record: Document the revisions you make in response to reviewer comments. Maintain a transparent record of changes, including the rationale behind each revision. This documentation not only serves as a reference for your defense but also demonstrates your commitment to addressing feedback.

Engage in Dialogue

As you embark on the journey of refining your dissertation in response to reviewer comments, one of the most effective strategies is to engage in a constructive dialogue. This dialogue extends beyond mere revisions and involves active communication with your dissertation committee, peer reviewers, or advisors. Here's why engaging in dialogue is crucial and how to make the most of it:

1. Clarify Ambiguities: Reviewer comments may occasionally be vague or open to interpretation. Engaging in dialogue allows you to seek clarification on these comments. By understanding the reviewers' perspectives better, you can tailor your revisions more precisely to meet their expectations.

2. Demonstrate Commitment: Actively engaging with reviewer comments demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. It shows that you value the input of experts in your field and are dedicated to addressing their concerns and suggestions.

3. Show Willingness to Collaborate: Engaging in dialogue fosters a sense of collaboration between you and the reviewers. It communicates your openness to working together to improve the dissertation. This collaborative spirit can lead to more productive exchanges and a more supportive review process.

4. Defend Thoughtfully: In some cases, you may disagree with certain comments or suggestions. Engaging in dialogue allows you to defend your choices thoughtfully and academically. Be prepared to provide well-reasoned justifications for your decisions, which can demonstrate your research expertise.

5. Seek Additional Guidance: Beyond clarification, engaging with your dissertation committee or reviewers can be an opportunity to seek additional guidance. You can ask for recommendations on specific literature, methodologies, or approaches to address the comments effectively.

6. Maintain Regular Communication: Keep the lines of communication open and maintain regular contact with your dissertation committee or reviewers. Provide updates on your progress, share draft revisions, and seek feedback at various stages of the revision process. This proactive approach can help prevent surprises during your defense.

7. Manage Expectations: Engaging in dialogue allows you to manage expectations effectively. If there are comments that you cannot address due to limitations or time constraints, communicate this transparently. Managing expectations can lead to more realistic and feasible revisions.

8. Showcase a Growth Mindset: Demonstrating a growth mindset is an essential aspect of engaging in dialogue. Embrace feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement rather than as criticism. This mindset shift can positively influence how reviewers perceive your responsiveness to their comments.

9. Seek Alignment: Ensure that your revisions align with the expectations of your dissertation committee or reviewers. Use the dialogue to confirm that your changes accurately address their concerns and suggestions. Alignment with their expectations contributes to a smoother review process.

10. Leverage Professionalism: Approach all interactions with professionalism and respect. Remember that your reviewers are experts in their fields, and maintaining a respectful and collegial tone in your dialogue is essential.

Engaging in a constructive dialogue with your dissertation committee or reviewers is a valuable component of the revision process. It allows you to clarify comments, demonstrate commitment, and seek collaborative solutions. By maintaining open and respectful communication, you enhance the quality of your dissertation and navigate the review process more effectively.

Revise and Improve

After you've organized, prioritized, and engaged in a constructive dialogue with your dissertation committee or reviewers, the next crucial step is to embark on the revision journey. This phase, characterized by thorough and systematic revisions, is where you transform feedback into tangible improvements. Here's a detailed guide on how to effectively revise and improve your dissertation:

1. Start with the Most Critical Feedback: Begin by addressing the most critical feedback—the comments that go to the heart of your dissertation's quality and validity. This may include revising your research methodology, refining your argument structure, or improving data analysis.

2. Maintain Clarity and Consistency: Pay close attention to comments related to clarity, coherence, and consistency. Ensure that your dissertation flows logically and that there are smooth transitions between sections. Review your writing style to eliminate jargon and ambiguity.

3. Strengthen Your Argument: Evaluate comments that pertain to the strength of your argument. Reviewers often provide insights into areas where your argument may be weak or where additional evidence is needed. Strengthen your claims with robust evidence and persuasive reasoning.

4. Address Methodological Concerns: If there are methodological concerns or suggestions for improvement, implement these changes diligently. Methodology is the backbone of your research, and addressing these comments is crucial for the validity of your findings.

5. Proofread and Edit: Conduct a comprehensive proofreading and editing pass. Eliminate grammatical errors, typos, and punctuation issues. Ensure that your writing is polished and conforms to the required style guide (e.g., APA, MLA).

6. Be Concise and Precise: Review your writing for conciseness and precision. Avoid unnecessary wordiness and ensure that every sentence serves a clear purpose. Precision in language enhances the readability and impact of your dissertation.

7. Incorporate Visuals: If reviewers suggested the inclusion of visuals (e.g., graphs, charts, tables), incorporate them thoughtfully. Visuals can help convey complex information more effectively and enhance the overall presentation of your research.

8. Cross-Check Citations and References: Verify the accuracy of all citations and references. Ensure that every source cited in your dissertation is correctly formatted and included in the reference list. Inaccurate or missing citations can undermine your work's credibility.

9. Seek External Feedback: Beyond the feedback from your dissertation committee or reviewers, seek external feedback from peers, mentors, or colleagues. Fresh perspectives can uncover areas for improvement that you may have overlooked.

10. Maintain a Transparent Record: Document all revisions and changes made in response to reviewer comments. This transparent record serves as evidence of your diligence and commitment to addressing feedback.

11. Stay Aligned with Your Research Goals: Throughout the revision process, keep your research goals and objectives in mind. Ensure that revisions align with the core purpose of your dissertation. Avoid making changes that deviate from your research agenda.

12. Review with a Critical Eye: Approach your revised dissertation with a critical eye. Re-read your work as if you were a reviewer, and evaluate the effectiveness of your revisions. Make additional improvements as needed.

13. Proof of Progress: As you work through the revisions, share progress updates with your dissertation committee or reviewers. This demonstrates your commitment to addressing their feedback and allows them to monitor your progress.

Seek Additional Input

In the journey of refining your dissertation based on reviewer comments, seeking additional input is a valuable step to ensure the comprehensiveness and excellence of your revisions. While the feedback from your dissertation committee or peer reviewers is instrumental, widening the circle of input can provide fresh perspectives and insights. Here's how to effectively seek additional input:

1. Collaborate with Peers: Collaborating with peers who are also working on dissertations or research projects can be mutually beneficial. They can offer a peer's perspective and share their experiences in addressing feedback. Peer input can uncover areas for improvement that may not have been evident initially.

2. Consult Subject Matter Experts: Depending on the specific comments and areas of your dissertation, consider consulting subject matter experts in relevant fields. Their specialized knowledge can help you address complex or technical feedback effectively. Engaging with experts can also lead to valuable discussions and suggestions.

3. Connect with Writing Centers: Many academic institutions have writing centers staffed with experienced writing tutors. These centers offer support in improving writing style, grammar, and overall dissertation structure. Seeking guidance from writing center professionals can enhance the clarity and readability of your work.

4. Engage with Research Advisors: Your research advisor, if different from your dissertation committee chair, can provide guidance and input on revisions. They are familiar with your research journey and can offer valuable insights into aligning revisions with your research goals.

5. Attend Workshops and Seminars: Universities and academic organizations often host workshops and seminars on dissertation writing and revision. Participating in such events can expose you to diverse perspectives and strategies for addressing reviewer comments effectively. It also provides an opportunity to network with fellow researchers.

6. Utilize Online Communities: Online academic communities and forums can be valuable resources for seeking additional input. Platforms like academic subreddits, LinkedIn groups, or specialized research forums allow you to share your challenges, seek advice, and benefit from the collective wisdom of the academic community.

7. Solicit Feedback from Trusted Colleagues: Trusted colleagues, mentors, or advisors who may not be directly involved in your dissertation committee can offer valuable insights. Their distance from your work can provide an objective viewpoint and identify areas that require improvement.

8. Leverage Professional Editing Services: Professional dissertation editing services can provide comprehensive feedback on your revisions. These services often employ experts in various fields who can review your work for clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic standards. While they may not replace the input of your committee, they can provide an additional layer of feedback.

9. Conduct Peer Reviews: Consider conducting peer reviews of your revised dissertation chapters. Exchange chapters with fellow graduate students or colleagues and provide constructive feedback to each other. Peer reviews can help identify issues and inconsistencies that may have been overlooked.

10. Stay Open to Diverse Perspectives: When seeking additional input, stay open to diverse perspectives and opinions. Different reviewers may have varying suggestions for improvement. Embrace the opportunity to consider multiple viewpoints and choose revisions that align with your research goals.

Seeking additional input beyond your dissertation committee or peer reviewers can enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of your revisions. Collaboration with peers, consultation with experts, engagement with writing centers, and participation in academic communities all contribute to a more robust and refined dissertation. This collective input ensures that your work reflects the highest standards of academic rigor and excellence.

Addressing reviewer comments is an integral part of the dissertation process. Embrace feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement. By organizing, prioritizing, and implementing revisions effectively, you can refine your dissertation and increase your chances of a successful defense. Remember that the feedback you receive is a valuable resource that contributes to your development as a scholar and researcher.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources