mini review essay

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

• Review Literature as Topic*

• About this blog
• PhD Resources

Writing a Mini-Review: A Crucial Task in PhD Research

Introduction

One of the research tasks that’s given me a tremendous amount of benefit during my PhD is the writing of a mini-review.  I use the term “mini-review” only because this task is something akin to completing a book review (only a little smaller)…and because frankly, I don’t know what else to call what I’m doing.

What is a mini-review

A mini-review (like a book review) is simply the careful summary of a particular scholar’s work.  It is usually a 2-3 page articulation of a work’s main thesis, supporting arguments and major points.

After this is complete, a final step in the mini-review is to take the content of 1-2 pages and shrink that down to one paragraph that you place at the top as a summary of the whole review.

Of course, creating a mini-review implies that you’ve actually sat down and spent some time in the book or article.  While it may take some time to put it together, the rewards are many (as I will enumerate later on.)

The Why of a Mini-Review

There are at least two major reasons for spending some time on this task:

1) You avoid the temptation to skim a work

Let’s face it, it is often very tempting to superficially skim a work, perhaps combine 2-3 book reviews and think you have an idea of an author’s contribution to your thesis.

It doesn’t take great skill to pull this off.  It is quite a different matter to really wrestle with an author’s argument and to reflect on how it fits within your overall thesis.

2) You develop the critical skill of summarizing

There are two skills that are absolutely essentially to the completion of your PhD (these aren’t the only two, but they are pretty important).

One is the ability to summarize an argument the other is the ability to synthesize various works into a cohesive narrative.

One entire chapter of your dissertation (your literature review) is essentially the concise summation (and synthesis) of dozens and dozens of works related to your topic.

But beyond that, every section of your dissertation is an interaction of your ideas with the ideas of other scholars (whose work you must summarize…)  Ditto for being able to create rich and meaningful footnotes that capture the essence of a work.

We might even say that summarizing arguments is the work horse of your PhD program around which you create your original contribution.

Benefits of Doing Mini-Reviews

The benefits to doing this kind of leg work early on in your research, and as you work your way through the dissertation are many:

1) You will be completing work for your literature review

Simply take your summary of your mini-review, the final step I mentioned above under “What is a Mini-Review” and you’ve got a pretty good entry to fit somewhere in your literature review.

2) Create expanded bibliographies to provide to your supervisor

Prior to my meetings with my supervisor I would often create a YTD summary of my readings for the time period between our chats.  This document often served as a springboard to many of our discussions and it gave my supervisor a quick glance into the scholarship related to my topic.

3) When you sit down to write you will have a wealth of material to draw upon

It is one thing to draw upon someone else’s book review to try to fill in some gaps in your dissertation.  It is quite another to have a 1-2 page summary of a work that you have labored to create.

Not only is your knowledge of an author’s work personal and deep, which allows you to have meaningful interactions, but also, your ability to draw connections (both to your thesis and to other related works) is greatly enhanced after completing a mini-review.

4) Your mini-reviews are a great resource for new insights or memory refreshers

Reading your own mini-review is like reading the most salient set of cliff notes on a particular work.  If it’s been a while since you’ve picked up a particular work, your mini-review will bring it all to mind.

In addition, reading my mini-reviews has sometimes sparked new ideas and fresh insights for my dissertation if only because some time may have elapsed since the original reading / creation of the book / mini-review.

In the interim, my knowledge and maturity about my topic may have shifted, allowing a fresh re-reading of my mini-review.

5) Writing a mini-review gets you into the groove of writing

If there is one regret I’ve had as I’ve worked on my dissertation it’s been that I’ve done too much research (note-taking) and not enough writing.

While gathering and collating sources is important, the key to a dissertation is output, and the only way of getting output is to slog your way through it.

Mini-reviews get you in the PhD mode.  They get you thinking like someone in the academy.

How do you say something concisely, how do you accurately reflect others’ views, what is important and what is not, is this a good argument or not, etc.

A Sample Mini-Review

Click on the link below to see a sample mini-review I created for an article on the Miletus Speech

Lambrecht: Paul’s Farewell Address

While the creation of mini-reviews may take some time, there is often no substitute for an honest wrestling with a particular author’s work.

Endeavoring in such labor, however, pays off rich dividends in your personal knowledge and in the wealth of source material that will be available for different parts of your dissertation.

Happy researching!

3 Responses to Writing a Mini-Review: A Crucial Task in PhD Research

Pingback: Sample Mini-Review – “Paul’s Farewell” by Lambrecht | Phd Tips and Dissertation Advice

Our Children may perform better in school and feel more confident about themselves if they are told that failure is a normal part of learning, rather than being pressured to succeed at all costs, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

Pingback: Annotated Bibliography: Why You Should Prepare One | Phd Tips and Dissertation Advice

Comments are closed.

How to Prepare / Succeed in a PhD Program

Download our Guide! Top 10 Dissertation Writing Tips

• Search for:
• Application
• Applying to PhD Program
• Arguments in a Thesis
• Bibliography
• Bibliography Software
• Dissertation Proposal
• Dissertation Topic
• Finding a Supervisor
• Organization
• PhD Resource – Book Review
• Preparation
• Software Tips
• Uncategorized

Top Posts & Pages

• Phd Advice: How to Make Progress When You Write
• PhD Tips: Generating Ideas for a Dissertation Topic in Biblical Studies

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Mini-review

Mini-reviews provide a concise summary of a specific research topic or field relevant to Bioelectronic Medicine . They put previous research and findings in context and present current developments in a critical and focused manner.  Key aims of mini-reviews are to provide coverage of mature or emerging subjects, evaluations of progress in specified areas, and/or critical assessments of new technologies. Mini-reviews should be balanced and an excessive focus on the authors’ own work should be avoided. Mini-reviews should be no longer than 3,000 words, contain no more than two figures or tables, and contain about 60 references. The mini-review abstract should not exceed 200 words. Bioelectronic Medicine strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. Please see Springer Nature’s information on recommended repositories . Where a widely established research community expectation for data archiving in public repositories exists, submission to a community-endorsed, public repository is mandatory. A list of data where deposition is required, with the appropriate repositories, can be found on the Editorial Policies Page .

The Editors of  Bioelectronic Medicine welcome authors to send any pre-submission inquiries they might have here . We ask that you please include “Pre-submission inquiry” and the journal name in the subject line of your email and that you include the title and abstract of your proposed submission within the message. Our Editors will do their best to respond to you in a timely manner.

Please note: we ask that you review the sections on this entire page before submitting your work, as omission of any necessary content will delay the processing of your manuscripts. Some information which is often forgotten includes (but is not limited to) the following, but please go through the entire page to make sure you include all necessary sections/information:

Cover letter

• Title page ( Bioelectronic Medicine strongly advises having only one Corresponding Author, for ease of communication during the editorial workflow and production of your article)

Conclusions

List of abbreviations, ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Figures, tables and additional files

A note to authors from the Feinstein Institutes: please do not submit a manuscript with a membership code, without being invited to do so by our editors. Feinstein authorship does not automatically warrant use of a membership code.

You may suggest up to three potential reviewers in your cover letter. You should not suggest recent collaborators (people who you wrote with, within the last three years) or colleagues who work in the same institution as yourselves. You should provide institutional email addresses where possible, or information which will help the Editor to verify the identity of the reviewer (for example an ORCID or Scopus ID) as well as a rationale as to why they would be a suitable reviewer. Likewise, for anyone identified as an Opposed Reviewer, please provide a rationale.  See our Editorial policies for guidance on suggesting peer reviewers, and Submission Guidelines for further information on what you should include in your cover letter.

Preparing your manuscript

The information below details the section headings that you should include in your manuscript and what information should be within each section.

Please note that your manuscript must include a 'Declarations' section including all of the subheadings (please see below for more information).

The title page should:

• "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review"
• or for non-clinical or non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the Group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• indicate the corresponding author  (Please note :  Bioelectronic Medicine strongly  advises having only one Corresponding Author, for ease of communication during the editorial workflow and Production of your article)

The Abstract should not exceed 200 words and should be structured with a background, main body of the abstract and short conclusion. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract.

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

The Background section should explain the background to the article, its aims, a summary of a search of the existing literature and the issue under discussion.

This should contain the body of the article, and may also be broken into subsections with short, informative headings.

This should state clearly the main conclusions and include an explanation of their relevance or importance to the field.

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

• Availability of data and material

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section (the sections must be included, even if the content provided is a ‘Not applicable’ statement) .

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval.

See our editorial policies for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section  (the section must be included, even if the content provided is a ‘Not applicable’ statement) .

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.

You can use your institutional consent form or our consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our editorial policies for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain any data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section (the section must be included, even if the content provided is a ‘Not applicable’ statement) .

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets): 

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here .

BioMed Central also requires that authors cite any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors initials to refer to each author's competing interests in this section. If you are a staff member of The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and/or Northwell Health, or a board member for Bioelectronic Medicine , it is required to list this in the Competing Interests statement.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section (the section must be included, even if the only content provided is the aforementioned statement) .

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared (the section must be included, even if the content provided is a ‘Not applicable’ statement) .

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship, including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section (the section must be included, even if the content provided is a ‘Not applicable’ statement) .

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Endnotes should be designated within the text using a superscript lowercase letter and all notes (along with their corresponding letter) should be included in the Endnotes section. Please format this section in a paragraph rather than a list.

Examples of the BioMed Central reference style are shown below. Please note- Mini-reviews should contain about 60 references.

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice.

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do. Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link (e.g. for blogs) they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers) Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Med. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI) Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

FTP site Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012.

See General formatting guidelines for information on how to format figures, tables and additional files.  Please note- Mini-reviews should contain no more than two figures or tables

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Instructions for Editors
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

Annual Journal Metrics

2023 Speed 3 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 41 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  332,742 downloads 1,664 Altmetric mentions 

• Follow us on Twitter

Bioelectronic Medicine

ISSN: 2332-8886

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

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 Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

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

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

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.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,109,473 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Mini review

The Mini review article type denotes a review with a more concise format compared with a standard review article. 

Preparing your manuscript

The title page should:

• present a title that includes, if appropriate, the research design or for non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the group name as an author  and include the names of the individual members of the group in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• indicate the corresponding author

The abstract should briefly summarize the aim, findings or purpose of the article. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract.

Beginning January 2022, we welcome submissions that include a graphical abstract (GA). This image should be a summary of the findings from the presented research allowing readers to quickly deduce the content in a visual format. The purpose is to highlight your work – draw the readers in quickly so they want to read more.

This graphical abstract figure (drawing, structure, or reaction scheme), preferably in color (free), will be used in the Table of Contents and in the abstract section on the title page of the article. Cover art is often chosen from graphical abstract figures.

For the GA, include a short title and description (about 50 words).The figure should be in one of the following file types: .tiff, .eps, .jpg, .bmp, .doc, or .pdf. It should be 8 cm (3.15 inches) wide x 4 cm (1.57 inches) high when printed at full scale (100%), and should have high quality image and text. Please insure that the illustration maintains this aspect ratio and is still informative upon reduction.

Please supply the GA figure at 100% using the following specifications/sizes:

• 300 dpi – halftone
• 600 dpi - with text
• 600 dpi - combine halftone and text (embedded text)
• 1200 dpi - bitmap (pure text and lines (b/w))
• 300/600/1200 dpi - combine embedded images and vector objects
• For "rastered" images (.pdf, .doc, .bmp, .jpg), the resolution should be at least 300 dpi.

​​​​​​​ Keywords

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

This should contain the body of the article, and may also be broken into subsections with short, informative headings.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Availability of data and materials

Competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available  here .

SpringerOpen  also requires that authors cite any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014.  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]

If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors’ initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. If the funder has a specific role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, this should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our  editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes should be designated within the text using a superscript number. It is not allowed to use footnotes for references/citations.

Examples of the Basic Springer reference style are shown below. 

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice.

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith J, Jones M Jr, Houghton L (1999) Future of health insurance. N Engl J Med 965:325-329.

Article by DOI (with page numbers)

Slifka MK, Whitton JL (2000) Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. J Mol Med 78:74-80. doi:10.1007/s001090000086.

Article by DOI (before issue publication and with page numbers)

Slifka MK, Whitton JL (2000) Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. J Mol Med. doi:10.1007/s001090000086.

Article in electronic journal by DOI (no paginated version)

Slifka MK, Whitton JL (2000) Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Journal issue with issue editor

Smith J (ed) (1998) Rodent genes. Mod Genomics J 14(6):126-233.

Journal issue with no issue editor

Mod Genomics J (1998) Rodent genes. Mod Genomics J 14(6):126-233.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Brown B, Aaron M (2001) The politics of nature. In: Smith J (ed) The rise of modern genomics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York.

Complete book, authored

South J, Blass B (2001) The future of modern genomics. Blackwell, London.

Complete book, edited

Smith J, Brown B (eds) (2001) The demise of modern genomics. Blackwell, London.

Complete book, also showing a translated edition [Either edition may be listed first.]

Adorno TW (1966) Negative Dialektik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. English edition: Adorno TW (1973) Negative Dialectics (trans: Ashton EB). Routledge, London.

Chapter in a book in a series without volume titles

Schmidt H (1989) Testing results. In: Hutzinger O (ed) Handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 2E. Springer, Heidelberg, p 111.

Chapter in a book in a series with volume titles

Smith SE (1976) Neuromuscular blocking drugs in man. In: Zaimis E (ed) Neuromuscular junction. Handbook of experimental pharmacology, vol 42. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 593-660.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito, Yukio, and Hyuga, Hiroyuki. (2007) Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Topics in Current Chemistry. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Proceedings as a book (in a series and subseries)

Zowghi D (1996) A framework for reasoning about requirements in evolution. In: Foo N, Goebel R (eds) PRICAI'96: topics in artificial intelligence. 4th Pacific Rim conference on artificial intelligence, Cairns, August 1996. Lecture notes in computer science (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence), vol 1114. Springer, Heidelberg, p 157.

Article within conference proceedings with an editor (without a publisher)

Aaron M (1999) The future of genomics. In: Williams H (ed) Proceedings of the genomic researchers, Boston, 1999.

Article within conference proceedings without an editor (without a publisher)

Chung S-T, Morris RL (1978) Isolation and characterization of plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid from Streptomyces fradiae. In: Abstracts of the 3rd international symposium on the genetics of industrial microorganisms, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 4-9 June 1978.

Article presented at a conference

Chung S-T, Morris RL (1978) Isolation and characterization of plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid from Streptomyces fradiae. Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on the genetics of industrial microorganisms, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 4-9 June 1978.

Norman LO (1998) Lightning rods. US Patent 4,379,752, 9 Sept 1998.

Dissertation

Trent JW (1975) Experimental acute renal failure. Dissertation, University of California.

Book with institutional author

International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1966) Nomina anatomica. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.

In press article

Major M (2007) Recent developments. In: Jones W (ed) Surgery today. Springer, Dordrecht (in press).  

Online document

Doe J (1999) Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. Available via DIALOG. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase (1998) US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J (2000) Title of supplementary material. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe J (1999) Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html. Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe J (1999) Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt. Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre (2006) The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org. Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

General formatting information

Manuscripts must be written in concise English. For help on scientific writing, or preparing your manuscript in English, please see Springer's  Author Academy .

Quick points:

• Use double line spacing
• Include line and page numbering
• Use SI units: Please ensure that all special characters used are embedded in the text, otherwise they will be lost during conversion to PDF
• Do not use page breaks in your manuscript

File formats

The following word processor file formats are acceptable for the main manuscript document:

• Microsoft word (DOC, DOCX)
• Rich text format (RTF)
• TeX/LaTeX 

Please note: editable files are required for processing in production. If your manuscript contains any non-editable files (such as PDFs) you will be required to re-submit an editable file if your manuscript is accepted.

For more information, see ' Preparing figures ' below.

Additional information for TeX/LaTeX users

You are encouraged to use the Springer Nature LaTeX template when preparing a submission. A PDF of your manuscript files will be compiled during submission using pdfLaTeX and TexLive 2021. All relevant editable source files must be uploaded during the submission process. Failing to submit these source files will cause unnecessary delays in the production process.  

Style and language

For editors and reviewers to accurately assess the work presented in your manuscript you need to ensure the English language is of sufficient quality to be understood. If you need help with writing in English you should consider:

• Getting a fast, free online grammar check .
• Visiting the English language tutorial which covers the common mistakes when writing in English.
• Asking a colleague who is proficient in English to review your manuscript for clarity.
• Using a professional language editing service where editors will improve the English to ensure that your meaning is clear and identify problems that require your review. Two such services are provided by our affiliates Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts . SpringerOpen authors are entitled to a 10% discount on their first submission to either of these services. To claim 10% off English editing from Nature Research Editing Service, click here . To claim 10% off American Journal Experts, click here .

Please note that the use of a language editing service is not a requirement for publication in AAPS Open and does not imply or guarantee that the article will be selected for peer review or accepted.  为便于编辑和评审专家准确评估您稿件中陈述的研究工作，您需要确保文稿英语语言质量足以令人理解。如果您需要英文写作方面的帮助，您可以考虑：

• 获取快速、免费的在线  语法检查 。
• 查看一些有关英语写作中常见语言错误的 教程 。
• 请一位以英语为母语的同事审阅您的稿件是否表意清晰。
• 使用专业语言编辑服务，编辑人员会对英语进行润色，以确保您的意思表达清晰，并提出需要您复核的问题。例如我们的附属机构 Nature Research Editing Service 以及合作伙伴 American Journal Experts 都可以提供此类专业服务。SpringerOpen作者享受首次订单10%优惠，该优惠同时适用于两家公司。您只需点击以下链接即可开始。使用 Nature Research Editing Service的编辑润色10%的优惠服务，请点击 这里 。使用 American Journal Experts的10%优惠服务，请点击 这里 。

请注意，使用语言编辑服务并非在期刊上发表文章的必要条件，这也并不意味或保证文章将被选中进行同行评议或被接受。 エディターと査読者があなたの論文を正しく評価するには、使用されている英語の質が十分であることが必要とされます。英語での論文執筆に際してサポートが必要な場合には、次のオプションがあります：

• 高速なオンライン  文法チェック  を無料で受ける。
• 英語で執筆する際のよくある間違いに関する 英語のチュートリアル を参照する。
• 英語を母国語とする同僚に、原稿内の英語が明確であるかをチェックしてもらう。
• プロの英文校正サービスを利用する。校正者が原稿の意味を明確にしたり、問題点を指摘し、英語を向上させます。 Nature Research Editing Service と American Journal Experts の2つは弊社と提携しているサービスです。SpringerOpenのジャーナルの著者は、いずれかのサービスを初めて利用する際に、10%の割引を受けることができます。Nature Research Editing Serviceの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。. American Journal Expertsの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。

英文校正サービスの利用は、このジャーナルに掲載されるための条件ではないこと、また論文審査や受理を保証するものではないことに留意してください。 영어 원고의 경우, 에디터 및 리뷰어들이 귀하의 원고에 실린 결과물을 정확하게 평가할 수 있도록, 그들이 충분히 이해할 수 있을 만한 수준으로 작성되어야 합니다. 만약 영작문과 관련하여 도움을 받기를 원하신다면 다음의 사항들을 고려하여 주십시오:

• 영어 튜토리얼 페이지 에 방문하여 영어로 글을 쓸 때 자주하는 실수들을 확인합니다.
• 귀하의 원고의 표현을 명확히 해줄 영어 원어민 동료를 찾아서 리뷰를 의뢰합니다
• 리뷰에 대비하여, 원고의 의미를 명확하게 해주고 리뷰에서 요구하는 문제점들을 식별해서 영문 수준을 향상시켜주는 전문 영문 교정 서비스를 이용합니다. Nature Research Editing Service 와 American Journal Experts 에서 저희와 협약을 통해 서비스를 제공하고 있습니다. SpringerOpen에서는 위의 두 가지의 서비스를 첫 논문 투고를 위해 사용하시는 경우, 10%의 할인을 제공하고 있습니다. Nature Research Editing Service이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주시고, American Journal Experts 이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주십시오.

영문 교정 서비스는 게재를 위한 요구사항은 아니며, 해당 서비스의 이용이 피어 리뷰에 논문이 선택되거나 게재가 수락되는 것을 의미하거나 보장하지 않습니다.

Data and materials

For all journals, SpringerOpen strongly encourages all datasets on which the conclusions of the manuscript rely to be either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main paper or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spread sheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible. Please see the list of recommended repositories in our editorial policies.

For some journals, deposition of the data on which the conclusions of the manuscript rely is an absolute requirement. Please check the Instructions for Authors for the relevant journal and article type for journal specific policies.

For all manuscripts, information about data availability should be detailed in an ‘Availability of data and materials’ section. For more information on the content of this section, please see the Declarations section of the relevant journal’s Instruction for Authors. For more information on SpringerOpen's policies on data availability, please see our editorial policies .

Formatting the 'Availability of data and materials' section of your manuscript

The following format for the 'Availability of data and materials section of your manuscript should be used:

"The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) available in the [repository name] repository, [unique persistent identifier and hyperlink to dataset(s) in http:// format]."

The following format is required when data are included as additional files:

"The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) included within the article (and its additional file(s))."

For databases, this section should state the web/ftp address at which the database is available and any restrictions to its use by non-academics.

For software, this section should include:

• Project name: e.g. My bioinformatics project
• Project home page: e.g. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mged
• Archived version: DOI or unique identifier of archived software or code in repository (e.g. enodo)
• Operating system(s): e.g. Platform independent
• Programming language: e.g. Java
• Other requirements: e.g. Java 1.3.1 or higher, Tomcat 4.0 or higher
• License: e.g. GNU GPL, FreeBSD etc.
• Any restrictions to use by non-academics: e.g. licence needed

Information on available repositories for other types of scientific data, including clinical data, can be found in our editorial policies .

What should be cited?

Only articles, clinical trial registration records and abstracts that have been published or are in press, or are available through public e-print/preprint servers, may be cited.

Unpublished abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications should not be included in the reference list, but may be included in the text and referred to as "unpublished observations" or "personal communications" giving the names of the involved researchers. Obtaining permission to quote personal communications and unpublished data from the cited colleagues is the responsibility of the author. Either footnotes or endnotes are permitted. Journal abbreviations follow Index Medicus/MEDLINE.

Any in press articles cited within the references and necessary for the reviewers' assessment of the manuscript should be made available if requested by the editorial office.

Preparing figures

When preparing figures, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Figure titles (max 15 words) and legends (max 300 words) should be provided in the main manuscript, not in the graphic file.
• Tables should NOT be submitted as figures but should be included in the main manuscript file.
• Multi-panel figures (those with parts a, b, c, d etc.) should be submitted as a single composite file that contains all parts of the figure.
• Figures should be numbered in the order they are first mentioned in the text, and uploaded in this order.
• Figures should be uploaded in the correct orientation.
• Figure keys should be incorporated into the graphic, not into the legend of the figure.
• Each figure should be closely cropped to minimize the amount of white space surrounding the illustration. Cropping figures improves accuracy when placing the figure in combination with other elements when the accepted manuscript is prepared for publication on our site. For more information on individual figure file formats, see our detailed instructions.
• Individual figure files should not exceed 10 MB. If a suitable format is chosen, this file size is adequate for extremely high quality figures.
• Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures (or tables) that have previously been published elsewhere. In order for all figures to be open access, authors must have permission from the rights holder if they wish to include images that have been published elsewhere in non open access journals. Permission should be indicated in the figure legend, and the original source included in the reference list.

Figure file types

We accept the following file formats for figures:

• EPS (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• PDF (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• Microsoft Word (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• PowerPoint (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• TIFF (suitable for images)
• JPEG (suitable for photographic images, less suitable for graphical images)
• PNG (suitable for images)
• BMP (suitable for images)
• CDX (ChemDraw - suitable for molecular structures)

Figure size and resolution

Figures are resized during publication of the final full text and PDF versions to conform to the SpringerOpen standard dimensions, which are detailed below.

Figures on the web:

• width of 600 pixels (standard), 1200 pixels (high resolution).

Figures in the final PDF version:

• width of 85 mm for half page width figure
• width of 170 mm for full page width figure
• maximum height of 225 mm for figure and legend
• image resolution of approximately 300 dpi (dots per inch) at the final size

Figures should be designed such that all information, including text, is legible at these dimensions. All lines should be wider than 0.25 pt when constrained to standard figure widths. All fonts must be embedded.

Figure file compression

Vector figures should if possible be submitted as PDF files, which are usually more compact than EPS files.

• TIFF files should be saved with LZW compression, which is lossless (decreases file size without decreasing quality) in order to minimize upload time.
• JPEG files should be saved at maximum quality.
• Conversion of images between file types (especially lossy formats such as JPEG) should be kept to a minimum to avoid degradation of quality.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with figures, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing tables

When preparing tables, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Tables should be numbered and cited in the text in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, Table 2 etc.).
• Tables less than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed in the appropriate location within the manuscript.
• Tables larger than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed at the end of the document text file. Please cite and indicate where the table should appear at the relevant location in the text file so that the table can be added in the correct place during production.
• Larger datasets, or tables too wide for A4 or Letter landscape page can be uploaded as additional files. Please see [below] for more information.
• Tabular data provided as additional files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls ) or comma separated values (.csv). Please use the standard file extensions.
• Table titles (max 15 words) should be included above the table, and legends (max 300 words) should be included underneath the table.
• Tables should not be embedded as figures or spreadsheet files, but should be formatted using ‘Table object’ function in your word processing program.
• Color and shading may not be used. Parts of the table can be highlighted using superscript, numbering, lettering, symbols or bold text, the meaning of which should be explained in a table legend.
• Commas should not be used to indicate numerical values.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with tables, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing additional files

As the length and quantity of data is not restricted for many article types, authors can provide datasets, tables, movies, or other information as additional files.

All Additional files will be published along with the accepted article. Do not include files such as patient consent forms, certificates of language editing, or revised versions of the main manuscript document with tracked changes. Such files, if requested, should be sent by email to the journal’s editorial email address, quoting the manuscript reference number.

Results that would otherwise be indicated as "data not shown" should be included as additional files. Since many web links and URLs rapidly become broken, SpringerOpen requires that supporting data are included as additional files, or deposited in a recognized repository. Please do not link to data on a personal/departmental website. Do not include any individual participant details. The maximum file size for additional files is 20 MB each, and files will be virus-scanned on submission. Each additional file should be cited in sequence within the main body of text.

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
• Follow us on Twitter

Affiliated with

Annual Journal Metrics

2023 Speed 14 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 96 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  167,495 downloads 29 Altmetric mentions 

• More about our metrics
• ISSN: 2364-9534 (electronic)

Mini-Reviews

Mini-reviews are summaries of recent insights or advances in specific research areas within the scope of AMB Express . A key aim of mini-reviews is to evaluate recent progress in a specific field, put research findings published in the preceding years into context and explain future directions for research as appropriate.

The journal is interested in publishing excellent Mini-Reviews. These reviews must be short and concise, timely, critical and in-depth, address novel aspects or concepts and must be attractive for readers.

If you are intending to submit a Mini-Review and publish it in this journal, please answer the following questions and provide the following information. This inquiry letter must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Alexander Steinbüchel, by e-mail ( [email protected] ).

This request is mandatory; only if the questions are answered completely, the proposal will be considered.

(1) The title of the proposed Mini-Review (must be short and concise; it must not contain more than 80 characters)

(2) An abstract of the proposed Mini-Review (It must contain no more than 200 words).

(3) Your CV with a publication list, in which original   publications that are related to the topic of the proposed Mini-Review, are marked.

It is a strict policy of the journal to consider Mini-Reviews only from authors who have in the past successfully studied the subject of the Mini-Review and who can document this by at least a few original publications.

Literature surveys of advanced students are generally only considered if they have already gained experience and published original papers.

(4) How is the content of the proposed Mini-Review distinguished from previously published Mini-Reviews on various aspects of this topic? Explain the distance of your manuscript to two or three related review articles (please prove reference).

Re-publications of old contents, aspects and concepts are not considered.

(5) Regarding novelty : Please outline the novel aspect of the proposed Mini-Review. Why should a scientist read this Mini-Review? Why is it needed? What is novel?

(6) At least 50% of the cited literature should be not older than 5 years. Can you ensure this?

(7) The references must be balanced according to the geographic regions from which they were published. Relevant literature must be cited. Can you ensure this?

(8) When do you plan to submit the manuscript?

Preparing your manuscript

The title page should:

• "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review"
• or for non-clinical or non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• list the full names and institutional addresses for all authors
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• indicate the corresponding author

This should contain the body of the article, and may also be broken into subsections with short, informative headings.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section.

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval.

See our  editorial policies  for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images or videos), consent to publish must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent to publish.

You can use your institutional consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our  editorial policies  for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors’ initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our  editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our  editorial policies  for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes should be designated within the text using a superscript number. It is not allowed to use footnotes for references/citations.

Examples of the Basic Springer reference style are shown below. 

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice.

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith J, Jones M Jr, Houghton L (1999) Future of health insurance. N Engl J Med 965:325-329.

Article by DOI (with page numbers)

Slifka MK, Whitton JL (2000) Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. J Mol Med 78:74-80. doi:10.1007/s001090000086.

Article by DOI (before issue publication and with page numbers)

Slifka MK, Whitton JL (2000) Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. J Mol Med. doi:10.1007/s001090000086.

Article in electronic journal by DOI (no paginated version)

Slifka MK, Whitton JL (2000) Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Journal issue with issue editor

Smith J (ed) (1998) Rodent genes. Mod Genomics J 14(6):126-233.

Journal issue with no issue editor

Mod Genomics J (1998) Rodent genes. Mod Genomics J 14(6):126-233.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Brown B, Aaron M (2001) The politics of nature. In: Smith J (ed) The rise of modern genomics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York.

Complete book, authored

South J, Blass B (2001) The future of modern genomics. Blackwell, London.

Complete book, edited

Smith J, Brown B (eds) (2001) The demise of modern genomics. Blackwell, London.

Complete book, also showing a translated edition [Either edition may be listed first.]

Adorno TW (1966) Negative Dialektik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. English edition: Adorno TW (1973) Negative Dialectics (trans: Ashton EB). Routledge, London.

Chapter in a book in a series without volume titles

Schmidt H (1989) Testing results. In: Hutzinger O (ed) Handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 2E. Springer, Heidelberg, p 111.

Chapter in a book in a series with volume titles

Smith SE (1976) Neuromuscular blocking drugs in man. In: Zaimis E (ed) Neuromuscular junction. Handbook of experimental pharmacology, vol 42. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 593-660.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito, Yukio, and Hyuga, Hiroyuki. (2007) Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Topics in Current Chemistry. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Proceedings as a book (in a series and subseries)

Zowghi D (1996) A framework for reasoning about requirements in evolution. In: Foo N, Goebel R (eds) PRICAI'96: topics in artificial intelligence. 4th Pacific Rim conference on artificial intelligence, Cairns, August 1996. Lecture notes in computer science (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence), vol 1114. Springer, Heidelberg, p 157.

Article within conference proceedings with an editor (without a publisher)

Aaron M (1999) The future of genomics. In: Williams H (ed) Proceedings of the genomic researchers, Boston, 1999.

Article within conference proceedings without an editor (without a publisher)

Chung S-T, Morris RL (1978) Isolation and characterization of plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid from Streptomyces fradiae. In: Abstracts of the 3rd international symposium on the genetics of industrial microorganisms, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 4-9 June 1978.

Article presented at a conference

Chung S-T, Morris RL (1978) Isolation and characterization of plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid from Streptomyces fradiae. Paper presented at the 3rd international symposium on the genetics of industrial microorganisms, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 4-9 June 1978.

Norman LO (1998) Lightning rods. US Patent 4,379,752, 9 Sept 1998.

Dissertation

Trent JW (1975) Experimental acute renal failure. Dissertation, University of California.

Book with institutional author

International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1966) Nomina anatomica. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam.

In press article

Major M (2007) Recent developments. In: Jones W (ed) Surgery today. Springer, Dordrecht (in press).  

Online document

Doe J (1999) Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. Available via DIALOG. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase (1998) US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J (2000) Title of supplementary material. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe J (1999) Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html. Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe J (1999) Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt. Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre (2006) The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org. Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

General formatting information

Manuscripts must be written in concise English. For help on scientific writing, or preparing your manuscript in English, please see Springer's  Author Academy .

Quick points:

• Use double line spacing
• Include line and page numbering
• Use SI units: Please ensure that all special characters used are embedded in the text, otherwise they will be lost during conversion to PDF
• Do not use page breaks in your manuscript

File formats

The following word processor file formats are acceptable for the main manuscript document:

• Microsoft word (DOC, DOCX)
• Rich text format (RTF)
• TeX/LaTeX (use either BioMed Central's TeX template)

Please note: editable files are required for processing in production. If your manuscript contains any non-editable files (such as PDFs) you will be required to re-submit an editable file if your manuscript is accepted.

For more information, see ' Preparing figures ' below.

Additional information for TeX/LaTeX users

Please use either BioMed Central's TeX template and BibTeX stylefile if you use TeX format. Submit your references using either a bib or bbl file. When submitting TeX submissions, please submit both your TeX file and your bib/bbl file as manuscript files. Please also convert your TeX file into a PDF (please do not use a DIV file) and submit this PDF as a supplementary file with the name 'Reference PDF'. This PDF will be used by our production team as a reference point to check the layout of the article as the author intended. Please also note that all figures must be coded at the end of the TeX file and not inline. 

The Editorial Manager system checks for any errors in the Tex files. If an error is present then the system PDF will display LaTex code and highlight and explain the error in a section beginning with an exclamation mark (!).

All relevant editable source files must be uploaded during the submission process. Failing to submit these source files will cause unnecessary delays in the production process.

TeX templates:

• BioMedCentral_article (ZIP format) - preferred template
• article (part of the standard TeX distribution )
• amsart (part of the standard TeX distribution )

Style and language

For editors and reviewers to accurately assess the work presented in your manuscript you need to ensure the English language is of sufficient quality to be understood. If you need help with writing in English you should consider:

• Visiting the English language tutorial which covers the common mistakes when writing in English.
• Asking a colleague who is a native English speaker to review your manuscript for clarity.
• Using a professional language editing service where editors will improve the English to ensure that your meaning is clear and identify problems that require your review. Two such services are provided by our affiliates Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts . SpringerOpen authors are entitled to a 10% discount on their first submission to either of these services. To claim 10% off English editing from Nature Research Editing Service, click here . To claim 10% off American Journal Experts, click here .

Please note that the use of a language editing service is not a requirement for publication in AMB Express and does not imply or guarantee that the article will be selected for peer review or accepted.  为便于编辑和评审专家准确评估您稿件中陈述的研究工作，您需要确保文稿英语语言质量足以令人理解。如果您需要英文写作方面的帮助，您可以考虑：

• 查看一些有关英语写作中常见语言错误的 教程 。
• 请一位以英语为母语的同事审阅您的稿件是否表意清晰。
• 使用专业语言编辑服务，编辑人员会对英语进行润色，以确保您的意思表达清晰，并提出需要您复核的问题。例如我们的附属机构 Nature Research Editing Service 以及合作伙伴 American Journal Experts 都可以提供此类专业服务。SpringerOpen作者享受首次订单10%优惠，该优惠同时适用于两家公司。您只需点击以下链接即可开始。使用 Nature Research Editing Service的编辑润色10%的优惠服务，请点击 这里 。使用 American Journal Experts的10%优惠服务，请点击 这里 。

请注意，使用语言编辑服务并非在期刊上发表文章的必要条件，这也并不意味或保证文章将被选中进行同行评议或被接受。 エディターと査読者があなたの論文を正しく評価するには、使用されている英語の質が十分であることが必要とされます。英語での論文執筆に際してサポートが必要な場合には、次のオプションがあります：

• 英語で執筆する際のよくある間違いに関する 英語のチュートリアル を参照する。
• 英語を母国語とする同僚に、原稿内の英語が明確であるかをチェックしてもらう。
• プロの英文校正サービスを利用する。校正者が原稿の意味を明確にしたり、問題点を指摘し、英語を向上させます。 Nature Research Editing Service と American Journal Experts の2つは弊社と提携しているサービスです。SpringerOpenのジャーナルの著者は、いずれかのサービスを初めて利用する際に、10%の割引を受けることができます。Nature Research Editing Serviceの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。. American Journal Expertsの10%割引を受けるには、 こちらをクリックしてください 。

英文校正サービスの利用は、このジャーナルに掲載されるための条件ではないこと、また論文審査や受理を保証するものではないことに留意してください。 영어 원고의 경우, 에디터 및 리뷰어들이 귀하의 원고에 실린 결과물을 정확하게 평가할 수 있도록, 그들이 충분히 이해할 수 있을 만한 수준으로 작성되어야 합니다. 만약 영작문과 관련하여 도움을 받기를 원하신다면 다음의 사항들을 고려하여 주십시오:

• 영어 튜토리얼 페이지 에 방문하여 영어로 글을 쓸 때 자주하는 실수들을 확인합니다.
• 귀하의 원고의 표현을 명확히 해줄 영어 원어민 동료를 찾아서 리뷰를 의뢰합니다
• 리뷰에 대비하여, 원고의 의미를 명확하게 해주고 리뷰에서 요구하는 문제점들을 식별해서 영문 수준을 향상시켜주는 전문 영문 교정 서비스를 이용합니다. Nature Research Editing Service 와 American Journal Experts 에서 저희와 협약을 통해 서비스를 제공하고 있습니다. SpringerOpen에서는 위의 두 가지의 서비스를 첫 논문 투고를 위해 사용하시는 경우, 10%의 할인을 제공하고 있습니다. Nature Research Editing Service이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주시고, American Journal Experts 이용시 10% 할인을 요청하기 위해서는 여기 를 클릭해 주십시오.

영문 교정 서비스는 게재를 위한 요구사항은 아니며, 해당 서비스의 이용이 피어 리뷰에 논문이 선택되거나 게재가 수락되는 것을 의미하거나 보장하지 않습니다.

What should be cited?

Only articles, clinical trial registration records and abstracts that have been published or are in press, or are available through public e-print/preprint servers, may be cited.

Unpublished abstracts, unpublished data and personal communications should not be included in the reference list, but may be included in the text and referred to as "unpublished observations" or "personal communications" giving the names of the involved researchers. Obtaining permission to quote personal communications and unpublished data from the cited colleagues is the responsibility of the author. Either footnotes or endnotes are permitted. Journal abbreviations follow Index Medicus/MEDLINE.

Any in press articles cited within the references and necessary for the reviewers' assessment of the manuscript should be made available if requested by the editorial office.

Preparing figures

When preparing figures, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Figure titles (max 15 words) and legends (max 300 words) should be provided in the main manuscript, not in the graphic file.
• Tables should NOT be submitted as figures but should be included in the main manuscript file.
• Multi-panel figures (those with parts a, b, c, d etc.) should be submitted as a single composite file that contains all parts of the figure.
• Figures should be numbered in the order they are first mentioned in the text, and uploaded in this order.
• Figures should be uploaded in the correct orientation.
• Figure keys should be incorporated into the graphic, not into the legend of the figure.
• Each figure should be closely cropped to minimize the amount of white space surrounding the illustration. Cropping figures improves accuracy when placing the figure in combination with other elements when the accepted manuscript is prepared for publication on our site. For more information on individual figure file formats, see our detailed instructions.
• Individual figure files should not exceed 10 MB. If a suitable format is chosen, this file size is adequate for extremely high quality figures.
• Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures (or tables) that have previously been published elsewhere. In order for all figures to be open access, authors must have permission from the rights holder if they wish to include images that have been published elsewhere in non open access journals. Permission should be indicated in the figure legend, and the original source included in the reference list.

Figure file types

We accept the following file formats for figures:

• EPS (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• PDF (suitable for diagrams and/or images)
• Microsoft Word (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• PowerPoint (suitable for diagrams and/or images, figures must be a single page)
• TIFF (suitable for images)
• JPEG (suitable for photographic images, less suitable for graphical images)
• PNG (suitable for images)
• BMP (suitable for images)
• CDX (ChemDraw - suitable for molecular structures)

Figure size and resolution

Figures are resized during publication of the final full text and PDF versions to conform to the SpringerOpen standard dimensions, which are detailed below.

Figures on the web:

• width of 600 pixels (standard), 1200 pixels (high resolution).

Figures in the final PDF version:

• width of 85 mm for half page width figure
• width of 170 mm for full page width figure
• maximum height of 225 mm for figure and legend
• image resolution of approximately 300 dpi (dots per inch) at the final size

Figures should be designed such that all information, including text, is legible at these dimensions. All lines should be wider than 0.25 pt when constrained to standard figure widths. All fonts must be embedded.

Figure file compression

Vector figures should if possible be submitted as PDF files, which are usually more compact than EPS files.

• TIFF files should be saved with LZW compression, which is lossless (decreases file size without decreasing quality) in order to minimize upload time.
• JPEG files should be saved at maximum quality.
• Conversion of images between file types (especially lossy formats such as JPEG) should be kept to a minimum to avoid degradation of quality.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with figures, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Preparing tables

When preparing tables, please follow the formatting instructions below.

• Tables should be numbered and cited in the text in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, Table 2 etc.).
• Tables less than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed in the appropriate location within the manuscript.
• Tables larger than one A4 or Letter page in length can be placed at the end of the document text file. Please cite and indicate where the table should appear at the relevant location in the text file so that the table can be added in the correct place during production.
• Larger datasets, or tables too wide for A4 or Letter landscape page can be uploaded as additional files. Please see [below] for more information.
• Tabular data provided as additional files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls ) or comma separated values (.csv). Please use the standard file extensions.
• Table titles (max 15 words) should be included above the table, and legends (max 300 words) should be included underneath the table.
• Tables should not be embedded as figures or spreadsheet files, but should be formatted using ‘Table object’ function in your word processing program.
• Color and shading may not be used. Parts of the table can be highlighted using superscript, numbering, lettering, symbols or bold text, the meaning of which should be explained in a table legend.
• Commas should not be used to indicate numerical values.

If you have any questions or are experiencing a problem with tables, please contact the customer service team at [email protected] .

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 3.7 - 2-year Impact Factor 4.0 - 5-year Impact Factor 1.019 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 0.693 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 10 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 68 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  1,061,137 downloads 284 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics
• ISSN: 2191-0855 (electronic)

AMBE Call for Editor-in-Chief

Springer Nature announces an opportunity for an exceptional candidate to serve as Editor-in-Chief for the journal AMB Express (AMBE) .

AMBE is a high-quality Open Access journal that brings together research in the area of Applied and Industrial Microbiology with a particular interest in 'White Biotechnology' and 'Red Biotechnology'. The emphasis is on processes employing microorganisms, eukaryotic cell cultures or enzymes for the biosynthesis, transformation and degradation of compounds. This includes fine and bulk chemicals, polymeric compounds and enzymes or other proteins. Downstream processes are also considered. Integrated processes combining biochemical and chemical processes are also published. Reports on the use of new procedures or tools in a clinical setting are only considered for publication if microorganisms, viruses, enzymes or other proteins from microorganisms or metabolites of microorganisms are involved as crucial and central part of the new procedure or tool.

The journal Impact Factor (2022) is 3.7, and it received over a million article downloads in 2023.

The current Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Alexander Steinbüchel, will conclude his term of office in December 2024, and we are looking to recruit a successor who would start working in early autumn 2024 with a gradual handover of duties from the current editor and become fully installed as of January 2025. The appointment will be for a three-year term and includes an annual editorial stipend. The position is open to highly regarded experts in applied microbiology with international recognition and proven scientific leadership in a renowned academic or research institution. 

Candidates should have a PhD or equivalent degree and be able to demonstrate a strong research and publication record. Prior experience in peer-review activities and other editorial functions is highly desirable. We are searching for a motivated and enthusiastic scientist with a vision of growing and developing the journal to serve the scientific community even better.

Responsibilities include working alongside the Associate Editors to manage the peer review of manuscripts under consideration by the journal, closely collaborating with the publisher to select Editors and the Editorial Board, and commissioning submissions in areas of interest and scope. The Editor-in-Chief will work routinely with Springer Nature on journal development with the goal of furthering the journal’s impact and reach.

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief include: ●    Working in consultation with the Journal Editors or other Editors that may be appointed, the Editor-in-Chief will exercise control of the editorial development and editorial content of the journal and oversees the application of high editorial standards to all published contributions. 

●    Supplying the Publisher with refereed and accepted manuscripts and other editorial material, prepared in accordance with the guidelines to authors.

●    In consultation with Publisher, selecting Editors and an Editorial Board that provides both international representation and diverse expertise.

●    Soliciting high quality reviews and other commissioned content on topics of interest.

●    If they desire, to periodically select Guest Editors who shall be responsible for soliciting and acquiring manuscript for topical collections.

●    To use their best efforts to promote and to assist the Publisher in promoting the journal at relevant meetings, online and within the appropriate scientific communities.

●    Checking the content of the journal with a view to ensuring that there are no material infringing editorial policies. They will also promptly inform the Publisher of any resulting issues, and be available to discuss and support resulting issues.

●    Supporting ongoing diversity and inclusion goals in helping to ensure the journal is reflective of the global community that it serves.

●    Adhering to standards of editorial good practice, as defined in the Publisher’s Code of Conduct for Editors-in-Chief. The Code is based on guidelines and best practice recommendations issued by organizations such as the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

●    Participating in Springer Nature’s Transfer Service by offering the transfer option, where appropriate, to authors whose manuscripts have been rejected from the journal, and considering manuscripts received by through the Transfer Service. 

●    Participating in regular meetings with the Publisher as well as an Annual Editorial Board meeting, to discuss the ongoing development of the journal and to set and accomplish journal development goals.

All applications should be sent to Barbara Zöhrer, Senior Publisher, at [email protected]  by 15 May 2024 .

Candidates should include the following documents with their formal application: •     Cover letter (max. 2 pages) summarizing their qualifications and motivation, including an explanation why they consider themselves suitable for the position.  •    Curriculum vitae (max. 3 pages) including relevant publications and achievements. •     Vision statement (max. 3 pages) addressing the following points: -    Analysis of the current situation of AMB Express -    Vision and strategy for further enhancing the journal through editorial aspects -    Strategy on encouraging and building a supportive and inclusive culture based on the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Editorial Board.

• Learning Tips
• Exam Guides
• School Life

How Long Mini Literature Review for your Short or Long Essay

• by Joseph Kenas
• November 30, 2023
• Custom Essay writing

A literature review is a descriptive summary of past research on a particular topic. A literature review’s goal is to teach readers about important knowledge and ideas that have been established on a given topic.

Its goal is to compare, contrast, and/or link findings discovered while analyzing other people’s work. Literature reviews are frequently produced to place a study in the context of what is currently known about a subject in order to lay a foundation for the topic (or question) being investigated.

As part of their research, every Ph.D. student is obliged to conduct a literature review. The goal of a literature review is to place your summer study in the context of past work in your field. Keep in mind that science is a social and collaborative endeavor.

When you write a research paper, you’re contributing to an ongoing conversation. The purpose of a literature review is to assist you in obtaining information a sense of what’s going on in that conversation and how you might contribute by adding your own voice

What is a Mini Literature Review?

A mini-review is merely a thorough description of a single issue, including supporting arguments and key points. Reading articles, taking notes, brainstorming, and creative writing are all common phases in writing a full-length review article. However, the mini-review may just cover one topic or answer one question. 

The Mini Literature Review was created to help young researchers to submit their work fast and simply. It is also intended that by using this approach, the quality of literature reviews in other published works will increase.

In particular, the Mini Literature Review should include papers from conference proceedings and workshops, as well as industry or trade journals and research. Current research sources should also be covered and included.

What is the Purpose of a Mini Literature Review?

The purpose of the Mini Literature Review article is to quickly and easily showcase a specific issue or set of related topics, as well as to emphasize where there are gaps in the literature and possibilities for further research.

A literary review is not a book report where you rate a book by giving it a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.”

It is a survey of published work in a given topic or subfield, sometimes with the goal of establishing a research agenda for future studies.

A literature review is not a random list of prior work; rather, it evaluates previous work in order to suggest future research.

The purpose of the literature review you’re producing is to show why your current work (or any other study) is important.

Why Should You Write a Mini-Review?

1) You’re trying to find out the answer to a specific question/topic, and you don’t need to go over every detail.

2) Because a review part in a research publication is usually limited to two pages, you can publish it as a stand-alone mini-review piece.

How Long Should a Mini Literature Review Be

Writing a mini literature review is easier compared to a typical full review. However, the length differs from project to project. What should the length of the Mini Literature Review be?

Generally, a mini literature review should be around 5 pages, depending on the type of project or the length of the project. The maximum length of a Mini Literature Review article, including references, should be less than 5 pages.

However, this length might vary depending on the subject of the instructions of your professor.

Difference Between a Mini Literature Review and a Literature Review

A Literature review paper combines the findings of multiple primary literature studies to form a logical argument or detailed overview of an area. A review paper’s objective is to summarize recent accomplishments in a given field.

The report presents the current state of knowledge on the subject in general.

It gives the reader a better knowledge of the subject by discussing the findings of recent research publications.

On the other hand, the purpose of the Mini Literature Review article is to quickly and easily showcase a specific issue or set of related topics. It also emphasizes where there are gaps in the literature and possibilities for further research. 

Read more about the best length for literature review to understand more about the difference with full reviews.

What Makes a Mini Literature Review Long or Short

Generally, a mini literature review is shorter than the main literature review. This is because, while a literature review focuses on combining findings from multiple papers to draw conclusions on a large area of study, a mini literature review deals with a specific issue or topic.

It is important to note that both literature review and mini literature review follow the same format. The only difference is that one is broader and the other one is narrow.

Check out the guide on how to write term papers for more insight.

Steps to Follow in Mini Literature Review

Begin by reading and taking notes on three to four reference articles, review articles, or essential research publications that your research mentor has provided or recommended.

In light of your summer research project, consider how your work is informed by, built on, or responds to this body of work. This is why, in the stepwise guide to writing essays , we took you through several steps.

• As you get more knowledge about your field, such searches will become more crucial; consult your research. When browsing library databases, talk to your mentor about what keywords would be appropriate. Briefly describe your research field and the specific problem or subject you’ll be addressing.
• Summarize how the writers addressed this area of study using around 3-4 important studies- Why it is significant to the field, or how it is relevant to the field. 
• Researcher discoveries and methodologies and how they connect to your own planned work. Clarify how you intend to confirm prior work, attempt a new method, or expand existing work in new ways. In other words, your assessment of earlier work should establish the relevance and significance of your own work. Your review of the literature should address the following question: how am I standing on the shoulders of others?
• Include a reference list in an approved format (This list will serve as the beginning of your bibliography for your entire study).
• The length of your literature review should be between 3 and 4 pages – double-spaced

Joseph is a freelance journalist and a part-time writer with a particular interest in the gig economy. He writes about schooling, college life, and changing trends in education. When not writing, Joseph is hiking or playing chess.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Mini Reviews in 2023

NLRP1- A CINDERELLA STORY: a perspective of recent advances in NLRP1 and the questions they raise

This mini review discusses recent discoveries in NLRP1 inflammasome biology, human specificity, its response to cellular stress and the implications for targeting inflammasome-mediated disease.

• Kristian Barry
• Christopher Murphy
• Ashley Mansell

Durotaxis and negative durotaxis: where should cells go?

This mini review highlights and compares the principles of durotaxis and negative durotaxis as part of cell migratory processes.

• Congcong Ji
• Yuxing Huang

Current capabilities and future perspectives of FCS: super-resolution microscopy, machine learning, and in vivo applications

The Mini Review discusses recent developments in fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) and combinations of FCS with super-resolution imaging and machine learning.

• Jagadish Sankaran
• Thorsten Wohland

Paradoxical pharmacological dissociations result from drugs that enhance delta oscillations but preserve consciousness

A mini-review reflects on the use of pharmacological drug challenges to explore EEG delta oscillations which persist despite the preservation of human consciousness.

• Joel Frohlich
• Pedro A. M. Mediano
• Alireza Gharabaghi

In-vivo corneal confocal microscopy: Imaging analysis, biological insights and future directions

This Mini Review provides a focus on corneal confocal microscopy and insights into the neuroanatomy of the corneal surface using this technique and open debates are highlighted.

• Jeremy Chung Bo Chiang
• Maitreyee Roy
• Arun V. Krishnan

Uncovering biology by single-cell proteomics

• M. Shahid Mansuri
• Kenneth Williams
• Angus C. Nairn

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Entertainment

‘Ezra’ review: Strong performances propel heartfelt road trip dramedy

Movie review.

Director Tony Goldwyn opens his family dramedy “Ezra” in the warm, collegial comfort of a comedy club. Max (Bobby Cannavale) perches on a stool, a handheld camera drifting closer and closer as he tells jokes about his life — including his autistic son — layering truths with punchlines, walking a tightrope of tones. It’s an invitation from Goldwyn, and screenwriter Tony Spiridakis, to sit down and listen awhile as they unfurl this heartfelt, humorous and sometimes harrowing yarn.

It establishes right away that Max is the proud and loving father of Ezra (William A. Fitzgerald, an autistic actor making his film debut), who has no problem grappling with the realities of raising an autistic child. Throughout the events that follow, we never lose sight of that, because Max fiercely loves his son, and that understanding offers a sense of emotional safety as the plot that unfolds becomes increasingly high stakes.

Related MOVIE REVIEWS

• ‘Babes’ review: The hilarious ups and down of friendship (and pregnancy)
• ‘The Garfield Movie’ review: A bizarre animated tale far from purr-fect
• ‘Evil Does Not Exist’ review: An enchanting melody by Ryusuke Hamaguchi

It’s this place setting, as well as the strong lead performances, that allow Goldwyn to thread the needle on a story that could potentially go off the rails. “Ezra” is the story of a father, desperate to protect his son, who takes him on a cross-country road trip where they experience catharsis and healing. It’s a fairly traditional road movie formula with an autism twist. Also, the “road trip” is technically a “kidnapping,” since Max spirits Ezra out of bed from the home of ex-wife Jenna (Rose Byrne), and the film never shies away from that reality, in fact relying on this perceived danger to ramp up the dramatic tension and set characters in motion.

The kidnapping stems from a misunderstanding that spirals into an unfortunate accident, coupled with Max’s own traumatic triggers. It’s never fully explicated in the screenplay, but Max’s past mental health issues and possibly undiagnosed autism spectrum disorder are frequently alluded to, thrumming below the surface. His experience makes him an understanding father to Ezra, but also somewhat hampers his ability to properly parent his son. Upset that Ezra might be medicated with antipsychotics and placed in a special education school, Max assesses that the doctors, pharmaceutical companies and the state are in collusion to keep himself and his son apart. He’s not necessarily wrong, but his desire to expose Ezra to the world and treat him like any other kid bumps up against Jenna’s wish to provide her son with every accommodation and suggested treatment.

Every character choice in “Ezra” is plausible because it comes from a place of emotional honesty, both in the script and performances. We understand why Max acts in the extreme, and also why Jenna is hesitant to call the authorities, but feels forced to do so, because their characters are well-established and perfectly performed.

It’s no surprise that longtime life partners Byrne and Cannavale have an easy chemistry, and Cannavale and Robert De Niro, who plays his gruff father, Stan, have sparkling, rapid-fire New York-accented rapport. While Cannavale holds the center as the complex Max, demonstrating his range, as well as his ability to lead a movie, De Niro, unsurprisingly, is magnetic. It’s not a huge role, but his performance is beautifully expressed.

Goldwyn has called in the big guns to set “Ezra” up for success, and in addition to Cannavale, Byrne and De Niro, he has cast supporting actors such as Vera Farmiga, Rainn Wilson, himself in a small role, and his “Ghost” co-star Whoopi Goldberg, who plays Max’s agent. She calls him when he’s on the road to Michigan to visit a friend (Wilson) at a summer camp, to let him know that he’s been booked on Jimmy Kimmel and needs to be in L.A. in a week, extending their trip even further across the country. Despite Ezra’s protestations, they head West, with Max convinced he needs his son as a good-luck charm for his set. Meanwhile, Stan and Jenna hit the road in hot pursuit, and “Ezra” becomes a dueling odd-couple road movie.

The film is an actor’s showcase, and it’s the performances that hold everything together, especially the young Fitzgerald, who is terrific as Ezra, a young man who communicates his preferences and boundaries clearly — he’s often the only character saying exactly what he means. But Goldwyn’s direction is sure-handed in navigating the complicated tone that tiptoes through comedy and pathos. He pushes his style with cinematographer Danny Moder, utilizing those handheld close-ups for more emotionally intense moments, and imparting a sense of gritty authenticity to a story that often requires a suspended disbelief.

“Ezra” could tip into melodrama, but Goldwyn sidesteps that with a rather facile ending, seemingly skipping a story beat in the denouement. You crave one more moment to wrap things up, but sometimes it’s better to leave us wanting more, avoiding the treacle and focusing on the heart — and the humor — of the matter.

With Bobby Cannavale, William A. Fitzgerald, Rose Byrne, Robert De Niro. Directed by Tony Goldwyn, from a screenplay by Tony Spiridakis. 100 minutes. Rated R for language, some sexual references and drug use. Opens May 30 at multiple theaters.

Most Read Entertainment Stories

• Review: Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam hit another gear in Seattle on night 2
• Daughter of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt files court petition to remove father's last name
• Jennifer Lopez cancels summer tour: 'I am completely heartsick and devastated'
• Why West Seattle's Paper Boat Booksellers is a neighborhood favorite
• 10 things to do in the Seattle area this weekend

A charming look at a reader’s many moods

Elisa Gabbert’s essays in “Any Person Is the Only Self” are brimming with pleasure and curiosity about a life with books.

Tell people you read and write for a living, and they picture a ghostly creature, an idea only incidentally appended to a body. What they often fail to understand is that the life of the mind is also a physical life — a life spent lugging irksomely heavy volumes around on the Metro and annotating their margins with a cramping hand. The poet, essayist and New York Times poetry columnist Elisa Gabbert is rare in grasping that reading is, in addition to a mental exercise, a movement performed in a particular place.

“If I remember anything about a book, I also remember where I read it — what room, what chair,” she writes in her charming new essay collection, “ Any Person Is the Only Self .” Writing, too, proves spatial: “I think essays, like buildings, need structure and mood. The first paragraph should function as a foyer or an antechamber, bringing you into the mood.”

The 16 delightfully digressive pieces in this collection are all moods that involve books in one way or another. But they are not just about the content of books, although they are about that, too: They are primarily about the acts of reading and writing, which are as much social and corporeal as cerebral.

In the first essay — the foyer — Gabbert writes about the shelf of newly returned books at her local library. “The books on that shelf weren’t being marketed to me,” she writes. “They weren’t omnipresent in my social media feeds. They were very often old and very often ugly. I came to think of that shelf as an escape from hype.” The haphazard selections on the shelf were also evidence of other people — the sort of invisible but palpable community of readers that she came to miss so sharply during the pandemic.

In another essay, she learns of a previously unpublished story by one of her favorite authors, Sylvia Plath, who makes frequent appearances throughout this book. Fearing that the story will disappoint her, Gabbert puts off reading it. As she waits, she grows “apprehensive, even frightened.”

There are writers who attempt to excise themselves from their writing, to foster an illusion of objectivity; thankfully, Gabbert is not one of them. On the contrary, her writing is full of intimacies, and her book is a work of embodied and experiential criticism, a record of its author’s shifting relationships with the literature that defines her life. In one piece, she rereads and reappraises books she first read as a teenager; in another, she and her friends form a “Stupid Classics Book Club,” to tackle “all the corny stuff from the canon that we really should have read in school but never had.”

Gabbert is a master of mood, not polemic, and accordingly, her writing is not didactic; her essays revolve around images and recollections rather than arguments. In place of the analytic pleasures of a robustly defended thesis, we find the fresh thrills of a poet’s perfected phrases and startling observations. “Parties are about the collective gaze, the ability to be seen from all angles, panoramically,” she writes in an essay about fictional depictions of parties. She describes the photos in a book by Rachael Ray documenting home-cooked meals — one of the volumes on the recently returned shelf — as “poignantly mediocre.” Remarking on a listicle of “Books to Read by Living Women (Instead of These 10 by Dead Men),” Gabbert wonders, “Since when is it poor form to die?”

“Any Person Is the Only Self” is both funny and serious, a winning melee of high and low cultural references, as packed with unexpected treasures as a crowded antique shop. An academic text on architecture, the Austrian poet Rainer Maria Rilke, a rare memory disorder whose victims recall every aspect of their autobiographies in excruciatingly minute detail, “Madame Bovary,” YouTube videos about people who work as professional cuddlers, a psychological study about whether it is possible to be sane in an insane asylum — all these feature in Gabbert’s exuberant essays. She is a fiercely democratic thinker, incapable of snobbery and brimming with curiosity.

Perhaps because she is so indefatigably interested, she gravitates toward writers who see literature as a means of doubling life, allowing it to hold twice as much. Plath confessed in her journals that she wrote in an attempt to extend her biography beyond its biological terminus: “My life, I feel, will not be lived until there are books and stories which relive it perpetually in time.” The very act of keeping a diary, then, splits the self in two.

Plath once insisted that bad things could never happen to her and her peers because “we’re different.” Gabbert asks “Different why?” and concludes that everyone is different: “We are we , not them. Any person is the only self.” But that “only” is, perhaps counterintuitively, not constrained or constricted. Walt Whitman famously wrote that his only self comprised “multitudes,” and Gabbert echoes him when she reflects, “If there is no one self, you can never be yourself, only one of your selves.” And indeed, she is loath to elevate any of her many selves over any of the others. When she rereads a book that she loved in her adolescence, she thinks she was right to love it back then. “That self only knew what she knew,” she writes. “That self wasn’t wrong .” Both her past self and her present self have an equal claim to being Elisa Gabbert, who is too fascinated by the world’s manifold riches to confine herself to a single, limited life.

Becca Rothfeld is the nonfiction book critic for The Washington Post and the author of “All Things Are Too Small: Essays in Praise of Excess.”

Any Person Is the Only Self

By Elisa Gabbert

FSG Originals. 230 pp. $18, paperback.

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

The 7 Best Mini Chainsaws for Landscaping and Lawn Care

These compact tools can be just as useful as their larger siblings, featuring the same aggressive cutting action without the extra weight and bulk.

Gear-obsessed editors choose every product we review. We may earn commission if you buy from a link. Why Trust Us?

Mini chainsaws are also powered by rechargeable batteries – requiring minimal maintenance to keep them in working order – which start up at the push of a button, and ready in seconds to tackle that brush pile, lop off stray branches, or dice up a downed tree limb.

The Best Mini Chainsaws

• Best Overall: Greenworks 24V Cordless Mini Chainsaw
• Best Compact: Greenworks 24V Brushless Mini Chainsaw
• Most Affordable: Potenco Mini Chainsaw
• Best Commercial-Grade: DeWalt 12-inch Brushless Mini Chainsaw
• Best Value: Worx Cordless 10-Inch Mini Chainsaw

What to Consider

While mini chainsaws don’t have an official definition, the options on our list come in two distinct types. The smaller models have a single handle and light enough for one-handed cutting, while larger ones are essentially scaled-down versions of full-size chainsaws, with a rear and top handle for two-handed operation and control.

Most mini chainsaws are powered by rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, and typically range from 18 to 24-volts. The higher the voltage, the more power the battery can output, and combined with the saw’s cutting speed (measured in feet per second, or ft/s) indicate how easily the motor can handle tough or dense cutting tasks.

The length of your mini chainsaw’s cutting bar indicates the size of wood it can effectively cut, so make sure you choose one long enough to complete your task. A mini chainsaw’s maximum cut diameter is slightly smaller than the length of the bar, so while a 6-inch bar can’t handle more than about 4-inch diameter branches, a 12-inch version can take down a 10-inch diameter tree if needed.

While all mini chainsaws are lightweight compared to full-size models, some are heavier than others. If you have strength issues, or just want to reduce arm and shoulder fatigue during lengthy cutting projects, look for the lightest option that can still handle your task. This not only helps you maintain proper form while operating, but is more portable and convenient to store.

Mini chainsaws can include many features that make its operation and maintenance much easier for the user. To reduce the maintenance requirements on your end, and ultimately extend the lifespan of your tool, look for a saw with an automatic chain oiler. User-friendly chain tightening mechanisms are another useful feature, ensuring proper tension during heavy use.

Since mini chainsaws are just as dangerous as full-size saws, look for important safety features like trigger locks, blade covers, and chain brakes. Regardless of the chainsaw you use, always wear proper eye protection to prevent injury from flying debris.

How We Selected

We have years of experience using a variety of chainsaws, large and small, through our time spent as a landscaper as well as for at-home projects. This experience, combined with extensive online research, helped us curate this list of mini chainsaw options. To ensure that our list includes the best option for a variety of cutting tasks, we included a range of styles and sizes, from tiny 4-inch blades to 10 and 12-inch options. Although these larger saws might be a stretch to consider “mini”, they’re still useful options for those who need to lop off thicker branches and tree limbs than the 4-8-inch blades are capable of.

Greenworks 24V Cordless Mini Chainsaw

We’re big fans of Greenworks power equipment, and this mini chainsaw is a prime example of why. Its user-friendly design is easy for first-timers to figure out, and thanks to its 10-inch bar, provides an impressive amount of cutting power. The thick, rubberized rear handle, combined with the wide top handle, makes this saw especially easy to control and maneuver as you work.

A large handle guard stands between your hand and the blade, and the safety lock—which must be pressed in order to activate the trigger—eliminates the risk of accidental starts.

Another perk is the comprehensive user guide that comes with this saw, which not only explains how the tool works, but also details techniques for using the saw effectively—and, more importantly, safely.

Greenworks 24V Brushless Mini Chainsaw

This Greenworks saw is a versatile combination of power and portability. It chews through light-duty pruning tasks with ease and its 24-volt battery has more cutting power and torque than commonly used 20-volt versions. That means they work s quickly, and with less user effort required.

A brushless motor and fade-free technology increase efficiency even more, and ensure you’re cutting with consistent power every time. Weighing just 3.4-pounds (including the battery) this saw is comfortable to carry around as you work and to maneuver into the best cutting angle for awkwardly positioned branches.

Another plus is that the 2.0Ah battery is compatible with other Greenworks tools, which is helpful if you already have a collection.

Potenco Mini Chainsaw

If you plan on pruning branches less than 4 inches in diameter, and don’t have the need or budget for a larger machine, consider this handheld Potenco saw. Its 1.7-pound weight is perfect for overhead cuts, and although the 4-inch blade lacks the functionality of larger options, it’s much more convenient for accessing hard to reach areas.

A built-in blade cover blocks flying debris while you cut, and helps prevent accidents by only exposing the bottom of the blade. There’s also a security lock that minimizes the chance of an accidental start.

Two batteries are included, and by keeping one charging at all times their individual runtimes are less of an issue.

DeWalt 12-inch Brushless Mini Chainsaw

If you have heavy-duty projects lined-up but don’t want to deal with larger, lumberjack-style chainsaws, this powerful 12-inch mini chainsaw is worth a look. The large chain brake immediately halts the chain’s movement in case of kickback, and the convenient wraparound handle is comfortable to orient and position when making angled cuts.

This specific model does not include a battery, but if you have other tools in DeWalt’s 20-volt family, those batteries are compatible. If you don’t have any batteries on hand, this version includes a 5 Ah battery for about $50 more.

It’s not the most affordable option out there, and may be overkill for some, but if you have a lot of heavy-duty work to do, this durable, high-quality tool is worth the investment. DeWalt tools also have a good warranty, offer a year of free service, and a 90-day money-back guarantee.

Worx Cordless 10-Inch Mini Chainsaw

Despite the affordable price, this versatile Worx saw still provides a lot of bang for your buck. Its 10-inch bar and 20-volt motor are robust enough to handle serious pruning and trimming tasks, and the automatic lubrication system ensures that you’re always cutting with maximum efficiency. The light, 6.2-pound weight increases control and overall comfort when cutting, and also comes in handy for elevated and overhead cuts.

Another plus is that it comes with a 2.0Ah battery that has a convenient three-LED level indicator and is compatible with other Worx power tools.

The brushed motor lacks the efficiency and durability of the brushless versions used by more expensive tools though, so this saw isn’t the most practical choice for tackling frequent, heavy-duty projects.

Milwaukee Fuel Hatchet 8-inch Mini Pruning Saw

If you have the budget for it, and either have a spare M18 battery on hand, or are comfortable buying one separately, this high-quality saw is a smart investment. The 8-inch blade is capable of slicing through 6-inch branches, while still compact enough to wield comfortably all day. It even includes metal bucking spikes–a feature usually only found on full-size chainsaws–to keep your log or branch stable and secure while cutting.

Since this model doesn’t include a battery, it’s best for those who already have an M18 Fuel power tool collection. The upside to that is, unlike many mini chainsaw brands, you have the option to use high-capacity battery packs. The ability to use a 5 or 6 Ah battery— instead of the 2.0Ah used by most other saws means longer runtime without stopping to recharge.

Black+Decker 20V Max Mini Pruning Chainsaw

This 6-inch pruning saw is designed with maximum control and maneuverability in mind, making it a great choice for beginners. With a rubber-coated pistol grip and top-mounted pommel-style handle, both hands can maintain a solid, stable grip on the machine at all times, and comfortably twist and adjust the blade angle with ease.

A built-in tip guard gives the blade a stable grip on the material being cut—particularly when attempting upward cuts—and a large hand guard protects you from flying debris and kickbacks. Its 1.5 Ah battery lacks the capacity of more common 2.0 Ah versions, which limits the saws overall runtime.

Alex Rennie is a freelance writer who specializes in the Home Improvement, DIY, and Tool space. As a former residential and commercial carpenter, Alex uses his hands-on experience to write practical buying guides, how-to articles, and product reviews. His work has also appeared in Business Insider's Insider Picks, and before his writing career, he was a full-time carpenter living in New York City. There, he worked as part of a team designing, building, and installing large furniture pieces, as well as performing a variety of home repair and maintenance projects. Alex currently lives in Los Angeles, CA, and spends his free time exploring the beaches and mountains with his fiancé and their dog Louie.

Rachel Klein is a Senior Commerce Editor for Popular Mechanics , where she writes about everything from garden hose reels and patio furniture to mesh wifi systems and robot vacuums. She started her career as a daily newspaper reporter and was a travel editor for more than a decade before she started testing and reviewing luggage, noise-cancelling headphones, and other travel-related products. Fast-forward another five years and her area of expertise includes home decor, appliances, tech, and outdoor adventure gear. In her spare time, you'll find her planning her next trip, reading historical fiction, and seeing as much art as she can squeeze into a weekend. 

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Lawn Care .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

The 5Best Lawn Mower Blades for Residential Mowers

11 Best Weed Killers for a Lush, Healthy Garden

The 7 Best Self-Propelled Lawn Mowers

The Best Electric Mowers of 2024 for Any Yard

The Best Robot Lawn Mowers

The Best Post Hole Diggers for Landscaping

6 Riding Lawn Mowers to Shape up Your Yard

The 8 Best Leaf Vacuums to Keep Your Lawn Tidy

The Ultimate Guide to Buying a Lawn Mower

The 6 Best Zero-Turn Mowers of 2024

The Best Dethatchers for a Healthier Lawn

Benedict Cumberbatch’s Disturbing but Poignant ‘Eric’ Is About Much More Than a Missing Boy: TV Review

By Aramide Tinubu

Aramide Tinubu

• ‘Diarra From Detroit’ Creator Says Series Is an ‘Unapologetically Black Show’ That Invites ‘Everyone to Join the Party’ 13 hours ago
• Patina Miller Says Raquel’s Confidence in ‘Raising Kanan’ Has Empowered Her Too  2 days ago
• Benedict Cumberbatch’s Disturbing but Poignant ‘Eric’ Is About Much More Than a Missing Boy: TV Review 4 days ago

Popular on Variety

When Edgar fails to arrive at school, Ledroit is put on the case. Still haunted by a lost Black teen, Ledroit is driven to get the Andersons a different outcome. This is no easy feat in a city determined to discard what is deemed unsavory, and everyone involved with the case is hiding something. As Ledroit chases down leads, slowed by inadequate technology, red tape and his own pain, the horrors of NYC’s government policies come to light. It becomes clear that misconduct and violence at the highest levels are complicit in harming the city’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

Ultimately, “Eric” is about much more than a missing boy. The series revolves around corruption and inhumanity, topics that will thunder in the viewer’s mind long after the final episode. Disturbing but profound, the show asks why only certain people are allowed happy endings and what that means for those who won’t ever see justice.

“Eric” premieres May 30 on Netflix .

More From Our Brands

Trump, who famously tried to ban tiktok, joins tiktok, wagyu steak, candy rooms and private clubs: the the hidden world of vip perks at nba arenas, michael jordan card sells for $2.9m, a record for his cards, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, get 50% off paramount+ with showtime annual plan with limited-time promo code, verify it's you, please log in.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

The Ethicist

Can i use a.i. to grade my students’ papers.

The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on artificial intelligence platforms, and whether it’s hypocritical for teachers to use these tools while forbidding students from doing the same.

By Kwame Anthony Appiah

I am a junior-high-school English teacher. In the past school year, there has been a significant increase in students’ cheating on writing assignments by using artificial intelligence. Our department feels that 13-year-old students will only become better writers if they practice and learn from the successes and challenges that come with that.

Recently our department tasked students with writing an argumentative essay, an assignment we supported by breaking down the process into multiple steps. The exercise took several days of class time and homework to complete. All of our students signed a contract agreeing not to use A.I. assistance, and parents promised to support the agreement by monitoring their children when they worked at home. Yet many students still used A.I.

Some of our staff members uploaded their grading rubric into an A.I.-assisted platform, and students uploaded their essays for assessment. The program admittedly has some strengths. Most notable, it gives students writing feedback and the opportunity to edit their work before final submission. The papers are graded within minutes, and the teachers are able to transfer the A.I. grade into their roll book.

I find this to be hypocritical. I spend many hours grading my students’ essays. It’s tedious work, but I feel that it’s my responsibility — if a student makes an effort to complete the task, they should have my undivided attention during the assessment process.

Here’s where I struggle: Should I embrace new technology and use A.I.-assisted grading to save time and my sanity even though I forbid my students from using it? Is it unethical for teachers to ask students not to use A.I. to assist their writing but then allow an A.I. platform to grade their work? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

You have a sound rationale for discouraging your students from using A.I. to draft their essays. As with many other skills, writing well and thinking clearly will improve through practice. By contrast, you already know how to grade papers; you don’t need the practice.

What matters is whether an A.I.-assisted platform can reliably appraise and diagnose your students’ writing, providing the explanation and guidance these students need to improve. In theory, such tools — and I see that there are several on the market, including from major educational publishers — have certain advantages. The hope is that they can grade without inconsistency, without getting tired, without being affected by the expectations that surely affect those of us who hand-grade student work.

I notice you haven’t raised concerns about whether the platform provides reliable assessments; you’ll have to decide if it does. (If it isn’t quite up to snuff, it might become so in a year or two, so your question will persist.) Provided the platform does a decent job of assessment, though, I don’t see why you must do it all yourself. You should review the A.I.-annotated versions of your students’ writing, check that you agree with the output, and make notes of issues to bring up in class. But time saved in evaluating the papers might be better spent on other things — and by “better,” I mean better for the students. There are pedagogical functions, after all, that only you can perform.

In sum: It’s not hypocritical to use A.I. yourself in a way that serves your students well, even as you insist that they don’t use it in a way that serves them badly.

Readers Respond

The previous question was from a reader who asked about professional boundaries. He wrote: “I am a retired, married male psychiatrist. A divorced female former patient of mine contacted me recently, 45 years after her treatment ended. Would it be OK to correspond with her by email? Or is this a case of ‘once a patient, always a patient?’”

In his response, the Ethicist noted: “The relevant professional associations tend to have strictures that are specifically about sexual relationships with former patients. … In light of the potential for exploitation within the therapist-patient relationship, these rules are meant to maintain clear boundaries, protect patient welfare, uphold the integrity of the profession and eliminate any gray areas that could lead to ethical breaches. But though you do mention her marital status, and yours, you’re just asking about emailing her — about establishing friendly relations. The question for you is whether she might be harmed by this, whether whatever knowledge or trust gained from your professional relationship would shadow a personal one. Yes, almost half a century has elapsed since your professional relationship, but you still have to be confident that a correspondence with her clears this bar. If it does, you may email with a clear conscience.” ( Reread the full question and answer here. )

As always, I agree with the Ethicist. I would add that the letter writer’s former patient doesn’t realize that the therapist is actually two different people — the professional and the regular person underneath. Therapists portray their professional selves to their clients. The former client may be disappointed upon meeting the therapist outside of the professional context. Additionally, the feelings she has toward the therapist may be based on transference, and they would need to address that. — Annemarie

I am a clinical psychologist. While the Ethicist’s description of professional ethical boundaries is correct, there is more to the story, and I disagree with his conclusion. A very big question here is why this former patient contacted him after 45 years. That is a question that is best explored and answered within the context of a therapeutic relationship. He would be well- advised to respond in a kind and thoughtful way to convey the clear message that he is not available for ongoing communication, and he should suggest that she consult with another therapist if she feels that would be helpful. — Margaret

In my case, it was the therapist who reached out to me, seeking to establish a friendship several years after our sessions ended. I was surprised, but he shared that he had since experienced a similar personal tragedy to one I had explored with him in sessions. Since it had been several years since we saw each other professionally, I responded. There was never any hint of romantic or sexual interest. Still, as he continued to reach out to me, clearly desiring a friendship, it never felt right to me. It did feel unprofessional, as his knowledge of me was borne out of a relationship meant to be professional, never personal, as warmly as we might have felt during our sessions. I ended up being disappointed in him for seeking out my friendship. — Liam

I am a (semi)retired psychiatrist who has been practicing since 1974. In my opinion, “once a patient, always a patient” is correct. Establishing any type of personal relationship with a former patient could undo progress the patient may have made in treatment, and is a slippery slope toward blatantly unethical behavior. As psychiatrists, our responsibility is to work with patients in confronting and resolving issues that are preventing them from having a reality-based perception of their life. With such an outlook, they are more capable of establishing satisfying relationships with others. An ethical psychiatrist is not in the business of providing such satisfaction to his or her patients. — Roger

I think there is a difference between being friendly and being friends with a former client. As someone who used to attend therapy with a therapist I think dearly of, she made it clear to me that it was OK to send her emails with life updates after our therapeutic relationship ended. But beyond that, I think it would be inappropriate and uncomfortable to pursue a friendship with her, and vice versa, because of the patient-provider relationship that we previously had and the power dynamic that existed between us. The letter writer didn’t share the content of the email his former patient sent to him, but if it’s just a friendly life update, I think it’s fine to write back and thank her for sharing. Beyond that, I feel like it would be unprofessional to meet or pursue a deeper relationship. — Meghan

Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. His books include “Cosmopolitanism,” “The Honor Code” and “The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity.” To submit a query: Send an email to [email protected]. More about Kwame Anthony Appiah

Jump to navigation

Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye

Reconsidering her groundbreaking novel The Bluest Eye (1970) in 2007, Toni Morrison wrote, 

“Hearing ‘civilized’ languages debase humans, watching cultural exorcisms debase literature, seeing oneself preserved in the amber of disqualifying metaphors -- I can say that my narrative project is as difficult today as it was then.” 

To engage directly with Morrison’s own words in our present time, “cultural exorcisms debas[ing] literature” have skyrocketed in the form of book bans during the past three or four years. And one of many books targeted as part of these efforts is The Bluest Eye. 

Teaching Octavia E. Butler: SAMLA 96 Special Session

Teaching Octavia E. Butler: Call for Papers SAMLA 96

The South Atlantic Modern Language Association

November 15-17, 2024 Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront Jacksonville, FL

We invite proposals from educators, graduate students, independent scholars, and anyone passionate about incorporating Butler’s works into their teaching and learning environments.

Panelists are encouraged to share specific lesson plans, classroom activities, and resources that effectively engage students with Butler’s texts. Discussions on the challenges and opportunities of teaching Butler in diverse educational settings are also welcome.

Dalloway Day Mini-Conference

The Center at West Park (CWP) is hosting Dalloway Day - a celebration of Virginia Woolf’s 1925 novel Mrs Dalloway - on June 21st. The event, beginning at 5pm, will feature a mini-conference session (approximately 2-hours) and a film screening.

We would like to invite interested parties - established and emerging scholars, students, and general readers - to submit proposals (200 to 300 words) for 15 to 20 minute papers on the novel or aspects of Woolf’s work.

Please send proposals to [email protected] .

If you’re interested in attending the event without presenting, we’d also love to add you to the mailing list for the event. 

James Baldwin Review Volume 11 (2025) Call for Papers: “European Baldwins”

Volume 11 (2025) Call for Papers: “European Baldwins”

Reading Taylor Swiftly

“Reading Taylor Swiftly”CFP for Post-45 Contemporaries

Co-editors:

Stephanie Burt, Donald and Catherine Loker Professor of English, Harvard University

Gabriel Hankins, Associate Professor of English, Clemson University

Queering Arcadia: the early modern pastoral across gender and genre

In Richard Barnfield’s The Affectionate Shepheard (1594), the identity of the aptly-named Ganymede, who is gendered as a “boy,” appears to be labile in the eye of the poetic persona: “If thou wilt be my Boy, or else my Bride.” Such indefiniteness surrounding gender identity is typical of early modern English pastoral, which relies on classical precedents to idealise the life of enamoured shepherds in idyllic landscapes. Indefiniteness is also noticeable in the figure of the “amorous girl-boy” Ganymede in Thomas Lodge’s romance Rosalynde (1592), as well as in that of their Shakespearean counterpart in the pastoral comedy As You Like It (c. 1599).

Knowing India: Academic Social Responsibility and the Humanities

Offered by Centre for Translation of Indian Literatures (CENTIL), Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University

SPARC Project (Scheme for the Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration) in association with the Humanities in India Partnership Programme, University of East Anglia.

Comparative Literature and Translation: Mapping Milestones, Tracing Trajectories

Comparative Literature and Translation:

Mapping Milestones, Tracing Trajectories

Department of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University

in collaboration with the

Comparative Literature Association of India

( 23rd – 25th July 2024 )

Three-Day International Online Conference in Memory of

 Dr. Chandra Mohan,

former General Secretary of CLAI

"The ‘growth’ of Translation Studies: View from Asia" A Panel Proposal from the International Comparative Literature Association (ICLA) Research Committee on Translation Studies

The ‘growth’ of Translation Studies: View from Asia