Literature review

Since the concept of a systematic review was formalized (codified) in the 1970s, a basic division among types of reviews is the dichotomy of narrative reviews versus systematic reviews. The term literature review without further specification still refers (even now, by convention) to a narrative review.

The main types of narrative reviews are evaluative, exploratory, and instrumental.^[2]

A fourth type of review, the systematic review, also reviews the literature (the scientific literature), but because the term literature review conventionally refers to narrative reviews, the usage for referring to it is "systematic review". A systematic review is focused on a specific research question, trying to identify, appraise, select, and synthesize all high-quality research evidence and arguments relevant to that question. A meta-analysis is typically a systematic review using statistical methods to effectively combine the data used on all selected studies to produce a more reliable result.^[3]

Torraco (2016)^[4] describes an integrative literature review. The purpose of an integrative literature review is to generate new knowledge on a topic through the process of review, critique, and then synthesis of the literature under investigation.

George et al (2023)^[5] offer an extensive overview of review approaches and describe six different types of review, each with their own unique purpose. First, the exploratory or scoping review which focuses on broadness as opposed to depth. Second, the systematic or integrative review which integrates empirical studies on a topic. Third, the meta-narrative review which is a qualitative review approach that uses literature to compare different research or practice communities. Fourth, the problematizing or critical review which proposes new ways of thinking about a concept by linking it with other literature. Fifth, the meta-analysis and meta-regression which provide an integration of quantitative studies and identify moderators. And, finally, the mixed research synthesis which combines other review approaches in the same paper. They also propose a model for selecting an approach by looking at the purpose, object, subject, community and practices of the review.

Shields and Rangarajan (2013) distinguish between the process of reviewing the literature and a finished work or product known as a literature review.^{[6]: 193–229} The process of reviewing the literature is often ongoing and informs many aspects of the empirical research project.

The process of reviewing the literature requires different kinds of activities and ways of thinking.^[7] Shields and Rangarajan (2013) and Granello (2001) link the activities of doing a literature review with Benjamin Bloom's revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain (ways of thinking: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating).^[6][8]

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping traditional literature review across various disciplines.^[9] Generative pre-trained transformers, such as ChatGPT, are often used by students^[10] and academics for review purposes.^[11]

Nevertheless, the employment of ChatGPT in academic reviews is problematic due to ChatGPT's propensity to "hallucinate".^[12] In response, efforts are being made to mitigate these hallucinations through the integration of plugins. For instance, Rad et al. (2023) used ScholarAI for review in cardiothoracic surgery.^{[13][example needed]}

 

Wikiversity has learning resources about Literature review

• Empirical study of literature
• Living review
• Media monitoring
• Review journal

• Cooper, Harris M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. Applied Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0761913481.
• Creswell, John W. (2013). "Review of the Literature". Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781452226101.
• Dellinger, Amy B. (2005). "Validity and the Review of Literature". Research in the Schools. 12 (2): 41–54.
• Dellinger, Amy B.; Leech, Nancy L. (2007). "Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research". Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1 (4): 309–332. doi:10.1177/1558689807306147. S2CID 145367484.
• Galvan, José L. (2015). Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (6th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing. ISBN 978-1936523375.
• Green, Bart N.; Johnson, Claire D.; Adams, Alan (2006). "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade". Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 5 (3): 101–114. doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6. PMC 2647067. PMID 19674681.
• Phelps, Richard P. (2018). "To save the research literature, get rid of the literature review". LSE Impact Blog, London School of Economics.