reviews research paper

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Why I’ve removed journal titles from the papers on my CV

Career Column 09 AUG 24

Why we quit: how ‘toxic management’ and pandemic pressures fuelled disillusionment in higher education

Career News 08 AUG 24

Scientists are falling victim to deepfake AI video scams — here’s how to fight back

Career Feature 07 AUG 24

Our local research project put us on the global stage — here’s how you can do it, too

Comment 06 AUG 24

Hybrid conferences should be the norm — optimize them so everyone benefits

Editorial 06 AUG 24

How a space physicist is shaking up China’s research funding

News Q&A 02 AUG 24

The UK launched a metascience unit. Will other countries follow suit?

Nature Index 07 AUG 24

Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Senior Lecturer/Lecturer

The School of Science and Engineering (SSE) at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CUHK-Shenzhen) sincerely invites applications for mul...

Shenzhen, China

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CUHK Shenzhen)

Postdoctoral Fellowships at West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine of Sichuan University

Open to PhD students, PhD, Post-Doc and residents.

Chengdu, Sichuan, China

West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital

Welcome Global Talents to West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine of Sichuan University

Top Talents; Leading Talents; Excellent Overseas Young Talents on National level; Overseas Young Talents

Open Faculty Position in Mathematical and Information Security

We are now seeking outstanding candidates in all areas of mathematics and information security.

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

GREAT BAY INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY： Institute of Mathematical and Information Security

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. 

From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we’ll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these insights will streamline your writing journey.

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

What Is A Review Paper?

Diving into the realm of scholarly communication, you might have stumbled upon a research review article.

This unique genre serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic. 

Unlike a standard research article that presents original experiments, a review paper delves into published literature, aiming to: 

• clarify, and
• evaluate previous findings.

Imagine you’re tasked to write a review article. The starting point is often a burning research question. Your mission? To scour various journals, piecing together a well-structured narrative that not only summarises key findings but also identifies gaps in existing literature.

This is where the magic of review writing shines – it’s about creating a roadmap for future research, highlighting areas ripe for exploration.

Review articles come in different flavours, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses being the gold standards. The methodology here is meticulous, with a clear protocol for selecting and evaluating studies.

This rigorous approach ensures that your review is more than just an overview; it’s a critical analysis that adds depth to the understanding of the subject.

Crafting a good review requires mastering the art of citation. Every claim or observation you make needs to be backed by relevant literature. This not only lends credibility to your work but also provides a treasure trove of information for readers eager to delve deeper.

Types Of Review Paper

Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions.

Systematic Review Paper

First up is the systematic review, the crème de la crème of review types. It’s known for its rigorous methodology, involving a detailed plan for:

• identifying,
• selecting, and
• critically appraising relevant research. 

The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses, where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions. This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.

Literature Review Paper

Then there’s the literature review, a broader type you might encounter.

Here, the goal is to give an overview of the main points and debates on a topic, without the stringent methodological framework of a systematic review.

Literature reviews are great for getting a grasp of the field and identifying where future research might head. Often reading literature review papers can help you to learn about a topic rather quickly.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews allow for a more flexible approach. Authors of narrative reviews draw on existing literature to provide insights or critique a certain area of research.

This is generally done with a less formal structure than systematic reviews. This type is particularly useful for areas where it’s difficult to quantify findings across studies.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are gaining traction for their ability to map out the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying:

• key concepts,
• theories, and

Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews have a more exploratory approach, which can be particularly useful in emerging fields or for topics that haven’t been comprehensively reviewed before.

Each type of review serves a unique purpose and requires a specific skill set. Whether you’re looking to summarise existing findings, synthesise data for evidence-based practice, or explore new research territories, there’s a review type that fits the bill. 

Knowing how to write, read, and interpret these reviews can significantly enhance your understanding of any research area.

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

A review paper has a pretty set structure, with minor changes here and there to suit the topic covered. The format not only organises your thoughts but also guides your readers through the complexities of your topic.

Title & Abstract

Starting with the title and abstract, you set the stage. The title should be a concise indicator of the content, making it easier for others to quickly tell what your article content is about.

As for the abstract, it should act as a descriptive summary, offering a snapshot of your review’s scope and findings. 

Introduction

The introduction lays the groundwork, presenting the research question that drives your review. It’s here you:

• justify the importance of your review,
• delineating the current state of knowledge and
• highlighting gaps.

This section aims to articulate the significance of the topic and your objective in exploring it.

Methodology

The methodology section is the backbone of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, detailing the research methods employed to select, assess, and synthesise studies. 

This transparency allows readers to gauge the rigour and reproducibility of your review. It’s a testament to the integrity of your work, showing how you’ve minimised bias.

The heart of your review lies in the body, where you:

• analyse, and
• critique existing literature.

This is where you synthesise evidence, draw connections, and present both sides of any argument. Well-structured paragraphs and clear subheadings guide readers through your analysis, offering insights and fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.

Discussion & Conclusion

The discussion or conclusion section is where you weave together the main points, reflecting on what your findings mean for the field.

It’s about connecting the dots, offering a synthesis of evidence that answers your initial research question. This part often hints at future research directions, suggesting areas that need further exploration due to gaps in existing knowledge.

Lastly, the citation list is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others. Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

Writing a review article quickly without sacrificing quality might seem like a tall order, but with the right approach, it’s entirely achievable. 

Clearly Define Your Research Question

Clearly define your research question. A focused question not only narrows down the scope of your literature search but also keeps your review concise and on track.

By honing in on a specific aspect of a broader topic, you can avoid the common pitfall of becoming overwhelmed by the vast expanse of available literature. This specificity allows you to zero in on the most relevant studies, making your review more impactful.

Efficient Literature Searching

Utilise databases specific to your field and employ advanced search techniques like Boolean operators. This can drastically reduce the time you spend sifting through irrelevant articles.

Additionally, leveraging citation chains—looking at who has cited a pivotal paper in your area and who it cites—can uncover valuable sources you might otherwise miss.

Organise Your Findings Systematically

Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies. This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant.

Tools like citation management software can be invaluable here, helping you keep track of your sources and their key points. We list out some of the best AI tools for academic research here. 

Build An Outline Before Writing

Don’t underestimate the power of a well-structured outline. A clear blueprint of your article can guide your writing process, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.

This roadmap not only speeds up the writing process by providing a clear direction but also helps maintain coherence, ensuring your review article delivers a compelling narrative that advances understanding in your field.

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

When it’s time to write, start with sections you find easiest. This might be the methodology or a particular thematic section where you feel most confident.

Getting words on the page can build momentum, making it easier to tackle more challenging sections later.

Remember, your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect; the goal is to start articulating your synthesis of the literature.

Learn How To Write An Article Review

Mastering the review paper format is a crucial step towards efficient academic writing. By adhering to the structured components outlined, you can streamline the creation of a compelling review article.

Embracing these guidelines not only speeds up the writing process but also enhances the clarity and impact of your work, ensuring your contributions to scholarly discourse are both valuable and timely.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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.

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
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

• The question(s) to be dealt with
• Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
• To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

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 .

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

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

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

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 thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved August 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

• Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
• Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
• Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
• Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
• Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
• Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
• Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
• Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours: 

• Maxwell Library
• Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
• Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

• Where Do I Start?
• How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
• How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
• Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece:  An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short. 

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

• Journal Title and Author
• Abstract 
• Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
• Literature Review
• Methods/Methodology
• Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions.  Common sections of these articles include:

• an Introduction
• Discussion/Conclusion
• works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
• INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
• Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
• UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
• << Previous: Where Do I Start?
• Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

The Cowles Library website will be unavailable on Tuesday, Aug. 6th from 1:00 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. due to a scheduled migration to a new platform. You can reach our list of Research Databases at https://library.drake.edu/az/databases

• Research, Study, Learning
• Archives & Special Collections

• Cowles Library

In This Section:

• Find Journal Articles
• Find Articles in Related Disciplines
• Find Streaming Video

Conducting a Literature Review

• Organizations, Associations, Societies
• For Faculty

What is a Literature Review?

Description.

A literature review, also called a review article or review of literature, surveys the existing research on a topic. The term "literature" in this context refers to published research or scholarship in a particular discipline, rather than "fiction" (like American Literature) or an individual work of literature. In general, literature reviews are most common in the sciences and social sciences.

Literature reviews may be written as standalone works, or as part of a scholarly article or research paper. In either case, the purpose of the review is to summarize and synthesize the key scholarly work that has already been done on the topic at hand. The literature review may also include some analysis and interpretation. A literature review is  not  a summary of every piece of scholarly research on a topic.

Why are literature reviews useful?

Literature reviews can be very helpful for newer researchers or those unfamiliar with a field by synthesizing the existing research on a given topic, providing the reader with connections and relationships among previous scholarship. Reviews can also be useful to veteran researchers by identifying potentials gaps in the research or steering future research questions toward unexplored areas. If a literature review is part of a scholarly article, it should include an explanation of how the current article adds to the conversation. (From: https://library.drake.edu/englit/criticism)

How is a literature review different from a research article?

Research articles: "are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question....they are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion." Source: https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/litrev.pdf)

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a Literature Search

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles . In SuperSearch and most databases, you may find it helpful to select the Advanced Search mode and include "literature review" or "review of the literature" in addition to your other search terms.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed. Most of the databases you will need are linked to from the Cowles Library Psychology Research guide .

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail. You may want to use a Citation Manager to help you keep track of the citations you have found. 

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a  summary style  in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft. (note: this step is only if you are using the literature review to write a research paper. Many times the literature review is an end unto itself).

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

These steps were taken from: https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html#6.-Incorporate-the-literature-r

• << Previous: Find Streaming Video
• Next: Organizations, Associations, Societies >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:43 AM

Borrow & Request

Use materials placed on reserve by your instructors

Borrow books directly from other Iowa academic library partners

Borrow material from libraries around the world

Ask the library to purchase books or other research materials

Collections

Drake history and Iowa political papers

Online access to unique items from the University Archives

Books, eBooks, and videos we highlight throughout the year

Research Support

Handpicked by experts for your area of study

Schedule a one-on-one session with a librarian

A guide to the research process

Librarians who specialize in your area of study

Find, organize, and use your citations

Writing Center, Speaking Center, and other Tutoring

Tools & resources to help develop your study skills

Teaching Support

What we teach and how we can help in your courses

Connect with a librarian

Put material on reserve for your courses

Help with course material adoptions and textbook alternatives

Explore, adopt, adapt, and create open educational resources

Resources to help you publish your research

Collections & Exhibits

Research & teaching, records management, about the archives.

What we do and why

Hours, directions, and guidelines for your Archives visit

Reach, follow, and support the Archives

Guides, tutorials, and library expertise to help you succeed as a scholar

Borrowing materials, finding a study space, locating services

Library services and support directed toward Drake Online and other off-campus students

Provide feedback or resolve a problem with the library

Faculty & Staff

Resources and information literacy expertise to support your teaching

Ask a Question

Cowles Library faculty and staff profiles

What's happening at Cowles Library

Student employment at Cowles Library

Where we are and when we're open

Services for Drake alumni and visitors

Library Spaces

Navigate the library

Check availability and reserve a room

Technology in the library

Mission & Planning

Cowles Library mission and vision

Policies governing use of library resources, space, and services

Library support for diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice

• 2507 University Avenue
• Des Moines, IA 50311
• (515) 271-2111

Trouble finding something? Try searching , or check out the Get Help page.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A review of computer vision-based crack detection methods in civil infrastructure: progress and challenges.

1. Introduction

2. crack detection combining traditional image processing methods and deep learning, 2.1. crack detection based on image edge detection and deep learning, 2.2. crack detection based on threshold segmentation and deep learning, 2.3. crack detection based on morphological operations and deep learning, 3. crack detection based on multimodal data fusion, 3.1. multi-sensor fusion, 3.2. multi-source data fusion, 4. crack detection based on image semantic understanding, 4.1. crack detection based on classification networks, 4.2. crack detection based on object detection networks, 4.3. crack detection based on segmentation networks.

5. Datasets

6. evaluation index, 7. discussion, 8. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Azimi, M.; Eslamlou, A.D.; Pekcan, G. Data-driven structural health monitoring and damage detection through deep learning: State-of-the-art review. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 2778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Han, X.; Zhao, Z. Structural surface crack detection method based on computer vision technology. J. Build. Struct. 2018 , 39 , 418–427. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruachottikul, P.; Cooharojananone, N.; Phanomchoeng, G.; Chavarnakul, T.; Kovitanggoon, K.; Trakulwaranont, D. Deep learning-based visual defect-inspection system for reinforced concrete bridge substructure: A case of thailand’s department of highways. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2021 , 11 , 949–965. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gehri, N.; Mata-Falcón, J.; Kaufmann, W. Automated crack detection and measurement based on digital image correlation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020 , 256 , 119383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohan, A.; Poobal, S. Crack detection using image processing: A critical review and analysis. Alex. Eng. J. 2018 , 57 , 787–798. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Fan, J.; Nie, J.; Kong, S.; Qi, Y. Review and prospect of digital-image-based crack detection of structure surface. China Civ. Eng. J. 2021 , 54 , 79–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh, Y.-A.; Tsai, Y.J. Machine learning for crack detection: Review and model performance comparison. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 34 , 04020038. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Bao, Y.; Chen, J.; Zuo, W.; Li, H. Surface fatigue crack identification in steel box girder of bridges by a deep fusion convolutional neural network based on consumer-grade camera images. Struct. Health Monit. 2019 , 18 , 653–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Deng, L.; Shao, X. Fatigue design of steel bridges considering the effect of dynamic vehicle loading and overloaded trucks. J. Bridge Eng. 2016 , 21 , 04016048. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, K.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Qin, X. Simplified evaluation of shear stiffness degradation of diagonally cracked reinforced concrete beams. Materials 2023 , 16 , 4752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Canny, J. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1986 , PAMI-8 , 679–698. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Otsu, N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. Automatica 1975 , 11 , 23–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sohn, H.G.; Lim, Y.M.; Yun, K.H.; Kim, G.H. Monitoring crack changes in concrete structures. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2005 , 20 , 52–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Qiao, H.; Feng, Q.; Xue, C. Internal corrosion cracks evolution in reinforced magnesium oxychloride cement concrete. Adv. Cem. Res. 2023 , 36 , 15–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loutridis, S.; Douka, E.; Trochidis, A. Crack identification in double-cracked beams using wavelet analysis. J. Sound Vib. 2004 , 277 , 1025–1039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, C.L. Detection of multidamage to reinforced concrete using support vector machine-based clustering from digital images. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2021 , 28 , e2841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kyal, C.; Reza, M.; Varu, B.; Shreya, S. Image-based concrete crack detection using random forest and convolution neural network. In Computational Intelligence in Pattern Recognition: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Pattern Recognition (CIPR 2021), Held at the Institute of Engineering and Management, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, on 24–25 April 2021 ; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 471–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jia, H.; Lin, J.; Liu, J. Bridge seismic damage assessment model applying artificial neural networks and the random forest algorithm. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 2020 , 6548682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, M.J.; Kim, J.; Jeong, S.; Jang, A.; Bae, J.; Ju, Y.K. Machine learning-based concrete crack depth prediction using thermal images taken under daylight conditions. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 2151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 2015 , 521 , 436–444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Cao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W. Computer vision-based concrete crack detection using u-net fully convolutional networks. Autom. Constr. 2019 , 104 , 129–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, G.; Ma, B.; He, S.; Ren, X.; Liu, Q. Automatic tunnel crack detection based on u-net and a convolutional neural network with alternately updated clique. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chaiyasarn, K.; Buatik, A.; Mohamad, H.; Zhou, M.; Kongsilp, S.; Poovarodom, N. Integrated pixel-level cnn-fcn crack detection via photogrammetric 3d texture mapping of concrete structures. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhou, G. Automatic pixel-level multiple damage detection of concrete structure using fully convolutional network. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019 , 34 , 616–634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, X.; Li, G.; Li, X. Lightweight bridge crack detection method based on segnet and bottleneck depth-separable convolution with residuals. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 161649–161668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azouz, Z.; Honarvar Shakibaei Asli, B.; Khan, M. Evolution of crack analysis in structures using image processing technique: A review. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 3862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamishebahar, Y.; Guan, H.; So, S.; Jo, J. A comprehensive review of deep learning-based crack detection approaches. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 1374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, S.; Gao, Z.; Zhou, Y.; He, B.; Djerrad, A. Real-time automatic crack detection method based on drone. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2023 , 38 , 849–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Humpe, A. Bridge inspection with an off-the-shelf 360 camera drone. Drones 2020 , 4 , 67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Truong-Hong, L.; Lindenbergh, R. Automatically extracting surfaces of reinforced concrete bridges from terrestrial laser scanning point clouds. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 135 , 104127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cusson, D.; Rossi, C.; Ozkan, I.F. Early warning system for the detection of unexpected bridge displacements from radar satellite data. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2021 , 11 , 189–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonaldo, G.; Caprino, A.; Lorenzoni, F.; da Porto, F. Monitoring displacements and damage detection through satellite MT-INSAR techniques: A new methodology and application to a case study in rome (Italy). Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 1177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, Z.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, J.; Ma, A.; Zhang, L. Building damage assessment for rapid disaster response with a deep object-based semantic change detection framework: From natural disasters to man-made disasters. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021 , 265 , 112636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Ren, M.; Zhou, B.; Sun, M.; Feng, Z.; Chen, B.; Zhi, X. A multiscale enhanced pavement crack segmentation network coupling spectral and spatial information of UAV hyperspectral imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2024 , 128 , 103772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, F.; Liu, J.; Wang, L. Deep learning and infrared thermography for asphalt pavement crack severity classification. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.; Han, Y.; Xu, L. Recognition of road cracks based on multi-scale retinex fused with wavelet transform. Array 2022 , 15 , 100193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Qian, Z.; Tan, Y.; Xie, Y.; Li, M. Investigation of pavement crack detection based on deep learning method using weakly supervised instance segmentation framework. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022 , 358 , 129117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R.J.; Maguire, M. Comparison of deep convolutional neural networks and edge detectors for image-based crack detection in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018 , 186 , 1031–1045. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Munawar, H.S.; Hammad, A.W.; Haddad, A.; Soares, C.A.P.; Waller, S.T. Image-based crack detection methods: A review. Infrastructures 2021 , 6 , 115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, D.; Li, X.; Hu, F.; Mathiopoulos, P.T.; Di, S.; Sui, M.; Peethambaran, J. Edpnet: An encoding–decoding network with pyramidal representation for semantic image segmentation. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 3205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mo, S.; Shi, Y.; Yuan, Q.; Li, M. A survey of deep learning road extraction algorithms using high-resolution remote sensing images. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 1708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, D.; Li, J.; Di, S.; Peethambaran, J.; Xiang, G.; Wan, L.; Li, X. Critical points extraction from building façades by analyzing gradient structure tensor. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Yeoh, J.K.; Chua, D.K. Deep learning-based enhancement of motion blurred UAV concrete crack images. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 34 , 04020028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flah, M.; Nunez, I.; Ben Chaabene, W.; Nehdi, M.L. Machine learning algorithms in civil structural health monitoring: A systematic review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021 , 28 , 2621–2643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, G.; Li, X.; Zhou, J.; Liu, D.; Ren, W. Pixel-level bridge crack detection using a deep fusion about recurrent residual convolution and context encoder network. Measurement 2021 , 176 , 109171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, R.; Chuah, J.H.; Talip, M.S.A.; Mokhtar, N.; Shoaib, M.A. Structural crack detection using deep convolutional neural networks. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 133 , 103989. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Dang, L.M.; Lee, S.; Moon, H. Pixel-level tunnel crack segmentation using a weakly supervised annotation approach. Comput. Ind. 2021 , 133 , 103545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, J.; Song, J. Weakly supervised network based intelligent identification of cracks in asphalt concrete bridge deck. Alex. Eng. J. 2020 , 59 , 1307–1317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Bao, T.; Xu, B.; Shu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Du, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhang, K. A deep residual neural network framework with transfer learning for concrete dams patch-level crack classification and weakly-supervised localization. Measurement 2022 , 188 , 110641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Q.; Shi, W.; Chen, J.; Lin, W. Deep convolution neural network-based transfer learning method for civil infrastructure crack detection. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 116 , 103199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dais, D.; Bal, I.E.; Smyrou, E.; Sarhosis, V. Automatic crack classification and segmentation on masonry surfaces using convolutional neural networks and transfer learning. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 125 , 103606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdellatif, M.; Peel, H.; Cohn, A.G.; Fuentes, R. Combining block-based and pixel-based approaches to improve crack detection and localisation. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 122 , 103492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dan, D.; Dan, Q. Automatic recognition of surface cracks in bridges based on 2D-APES and mobile machine vision. Measurement 2021 , 168 , 108429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weng, X.; Huang, Y.; Wang, W. Segment-based pavement crack quantification. Autom. Constr. 2019 , 105 , 102819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kao, S.-P.; Chang, Y.-C.; Wang, F.-L. Combining the YOLOv4 deep learning model with UAV imagery processing technology in the extraction and quantization of cracks in bridges. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 2572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, X.; Xu, X.; He, X.; Wei, X.; Yang, H. Intelligent crack detection method based on GM-ResNet. Sensors 2023 , 23 , 8369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Choi, Y.; Park, H.W.; Mi, Y.; Song, S. Crack detection and analysis of concrete structures based on neural network and clustering. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 1725. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guo, J.-M.; Markoni, H.; Lee, J.-D. BARNet: Boundary aware refinement network for crack detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021 , 23 , 7343–7358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, J.; Lin, H.; Wei, X.; Wang, Y. Adaptive canny and semantic segmentation networks based on feature fusion for road crack detection. IEEE Access 2023 , 11 , 51740–51753. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ranyal, E.; Sadhu, A.; Jain, K. Enhancing pavement health assessment: An attention-based approach for accurate crack detection, measurement, and mapping. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024 , 247 , 123314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, K.; Chen, B.M. Industrial UAV-based unsupervised domain adaptive crack recognitions: From database towards real-site infrastructural inspections. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2022 , 70 , 9410–9420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Hu, W.; Wang, W.; Xu, X.; Wang, M.; Shi, Y.; Qiu, S.; Tutumluer, E. Automated crack severity level detection and classification for ballastless track slab using deep convolutional neural network. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 124 , 103484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, W.; Liu, J.; Xu, T.; Wang, Z. Muraldiff: Diffusion for ancient murals restoration on large-scale pre-training. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell. 2024 , 8 , 2169–2181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bradley, D.; Roth, G. Adaptive thresholding using the integral image. J. Graph. Tools 2007 , 12 , 13–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sezgin, M.; Sankur, B.l. Survey over image thresholding techniques and quantitative performance evaluation. J. Electron. Imaging 2004 , 13 , 146–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapur, J.N.; Sahoo, P.K.; Wong, A.K. A new method for gray-level picture thresholding using the entropy of the histogram. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 1985 , 29 , 273–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pal, N.R.; Pal, S.K. A review on image segmentation techniques. Pattern Recognit. 1993 , 26 , 1277–1294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flah, M.; Suleiman, A.R.; Nehdi, M.L. Classification and quantification of cracks in concrete structures using deep learning image-based techniques. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020 , 114 , 103781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mazni, M.; Husain, A.R.; Shapiai, M.I.; Ibrahim, I.S.; Anggara, D.W.; Zulkifli, R. An investigation into real-time surface crack classification and measurement for structural health monitoring using transfer learning convolutional neural networks and otsu method. Alex. Eng. J. 2024 , 92 , 310–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, Z.; Xu, W. Deep learning and image preprocessing-based crack repair trace and secondary crack classification detection method for concrete bridges. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2024 , 20 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, T.; Li, H.; Qian, Z.; Niu, C.; Huang, R. Research on weakly supervised pavement crack segmentation based on defect location by generative adversarial network and target re-optimization. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 411 , 134668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, H.; Wang, X.; Han, T.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, P. Research on a U-Net bridge crack identification and feature-calculation methods based on a CBAM attention mechanism. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, D.; Benipal, S.S.; Gopal, D.L.; Cha, Y.-J. Hybrid pixel-level concrete crack segmentation and quantification across complex backgrounds using deep learning. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 118 , 103291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lei, Q.; Zhong, J.; Wang, C. Joint optimization of crack segmentation with an adaptive dynamic threshold module. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2024 , 25 , 6902–6916. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lei, Q.; Zhong, J.; Wang, C.; Xia, Y.; Zhou, Y. Dynamic thresholding for accurate crack segmentation using multi-objective optimization. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Turin, Italy, 18 September 2023 ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 389–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent, L.; Soille, P. Watersheds in digital spaces: An efficient algorithm based on immersion simulations. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1991 , 13 , 583–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, H.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, D.; Chen, J. Deep learning-based instance segmentation of cracks from shield tunnel lining images. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2022 , 18 , 183–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, Z.; Lin, H.; Li, C.; Su, J.; Bruno, S.; Loprencipe, G. Use of parallel resnet for high-performance pavement crack detection and measurement. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kong, S.Y.; Fan, J.S.; Liu, Y.F.; Wei, X.C.; Ma, X.W. Automated crack assessment and quantitative growth monitoring. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2021 , 36 , 656–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, L.M.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Park, Y.; Oh, C.; Nguyen, T.N.; Moon, H. Automatic tunnel lining crack evaluation and measurement using deep learning. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2022 , 124 , 104472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrushia, A.D.; Anand, N.; Lubloy, E. Deep learning based thermal crack detection on structural concrete exposed to elevated temperature. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2021 , 24 , 1896–1909. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, L.M.; Wang, H.; Li, Y.; Nguyen, L.Q.; Nguyen, T.N.; Song, H.-K.; Moon, H. Deep learning-based masonry crack segmentation and real-life crack length measurement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022 , 359 , 129438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, A.; Gharehbaghi, V.; Le, N.T.; Sterling, L.; Chaudhry, U.I.; Crawford, S. ASR crack identification in bridges using deep learning and texture analysis. Structures 2023 , 50 , 494–507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, C.; Li, L.; Yan, J.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, H.; Catbas, F.N. Pixel-level fatigue crack segmentation in large-scale images of steel structures using an encoder–decoder network. Sensors 2021 , 21 , 4135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jian, L.; Chengshun, L.; Guanhong, L.; Zhiyuan, Z.; Bo, H.; Feng, G.; Quanyi, X. Lightweight defect detection equipment for road tunnels. IEEE Sens. J. 2023 , 24 , 5107–5121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, H.; Qiu, D.; Ding, K.-L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, T.; Wan, S. Automatic pavement crack detection in multisource fusion images using similarity and difference features. IEEE Sens. J. 2023 , 24 , 5449–5465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alamdari, A.G.; Ebrahimkhanlou, A. A multi-scale robotic approach for precise crack measurement in concrete structures. Autom. Constr. 2024 , 158 , 105215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, H.; Kollosche, M.; Laflamme, S.; Clarke, D.R. Multifunctional soft stretchable strain sensor for complementary optical and electrical sensing of fatigue cracks. Smart Mater. Struct. 2023 , 32 , 045010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, D.-Z.; Wang, Y.-W.; Ni, Y.-Q. Nonlinear autoregression-based non-destructive evaluation approach for railway tracks using an ultrasonic fiber bragg grating array. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 411 , 134728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, M.; Tan, X.; Mahjoubi, S.; Bao, Y. Strain transfer effect on measurements with distributed fiber optic sensors. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 139 , 104262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shukla, H.; Piratla, K. Leakage detection in water pipelines using supervised classification of acceleration signals. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 117 , 103256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Ren, M.; Zhou, B. A new method for automated monitoring of road pavement aging conditions based on recurrent neural network. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022 , 23 , 24510–24523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; He, X.; Xue, B.; Wu, T.; Ren, K.; Zhao, T. Segment-anything embedding for pixel-level road damage extraction using high-resolution satellite images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2024 , 131 , 103985. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, S.E.; Eem, S.-H.; Jeon, H. Concrete crack detection and quantification using deep learning and structured light. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020 , 252 , 119096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, Y.; Mao, Z.; Wu, J.; Padir, T.; Hajjar, J.F. Towards automated detection and quantification of concrete cracks using integrated images and lidar data from unmanned aerial vehicles. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2021 , 28 , e2757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Q.; Wang, S.; Chen, X.; Jiang, W.; Li, R.; Gu, X. Pavement crack detection based on point cloud data and data fusion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2023 , 381 , 20220165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, H.; Lee, S.; Ahn, E.; Shin, M.; Sim, S.-H. Crack identification method for concrete structures considering angle of view using RGB-D camera-based sensor fusion. Struct. Health Monit. 2021 , 20 , 500–512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Lu, W.; Lou, J. Automatic concrete defect detection and reconstruction by aligning aerial images onto semantic-rich building information model. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2023 , 38 , 1079–1098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pozzer, S.; Rezazadeh Azar, E.; Dalla Rosa, F.; Chamberlain Pravia, Z.M. Semantic segmentation of defects in infrared thermographic images of highly damaged concrete structures. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2021 , 35 , 04020131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaur, R.; Singh, S. A comprehensive review of object detection with deep learning. Digit. Signal Process. 2023 , 132 , 103812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, V.K.; Mir, R.N. A comprehensive and systematic look up into deep learning based object detection techniques: A review. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2020 , 38 , 100301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, L.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Y.D.; Zhu, Y.J. Road crack detection using deep convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 25–28 September 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 3708–3712. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, C.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.; Huang, Y. Structural crack detection and recognition based on deep learning. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 2868. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajadurai, R.-S.; Kang, S.-T. Automated vision-based crack detection on concrete surfaces using deep learning. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 5229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, B.; Yuvaraj, N.; Sri Preethaa, K.; Arun Pandian, R. Surface crack detection using deep learning with shallow CNN architecture for enhanced computation. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021 , 33 , 9289–9305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, D.; Osborne, J.A.; Perez-Duenas, E.; Cunningham, R.; Li, Z. Automated crack classification for the CERN underground tunnel infrastructure using deep learning. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2023 , 131 , 104668. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, K.; Reichard, G.; Xu, X.; Akanmu, A. Automated crack segmentation in close-range building façade inspection images using deep learning techniques. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 43 , 102913. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Z.; Wang, J.; Cui, B.; Wang, D.; Wang, X. Patch-based weakly supervised semantic segmentation network for crack detection. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020 , 258 , 120291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buatik, A.; Thansirichaisree, P.; Kalpiyapun, P.; Khademi, N.; Pasityothin, I.; Poovarodom, N. Mosaic crack mapping of footings by convolutional neural networks. Sci. Rep. 2024 , 14 , 7851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L. Detection of pavement cracks by deep learning models of transformer and UNet. arXiv 2023 , arXiv:2304.12596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Huda, Z.; Peng, B.; Algburi, R.N.A.; Al-antari, M.A.; Rabea, A.-J.; Zhai, D. A hybrid deep learning pavement crack semantic segmentation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023 , 122 , 106142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shamsabadi, E.A.; Xu, C.; Rao, A.S.; Nguyen, T.; Ngo, T.; Dias-da-Costa, D. Vision transformer-based autonomous crack detection on asphalt and concrete surfaces. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, S.; Tang, W.; Huang, G.; Huangfu, L.; Yang, D. Weakly supervised patch label inference networks for efficient pavement distress detection and recognition in the wild. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2023 , 24 , 5216–5228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, G.; Huang, S.; Huangfu, L.; Yang, D. Weakly supervised patch label inference network with image pyramid for pavement diseases recognition in the wild. In Proceedings of the ICASSP 2021—2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Toronto, ON, Canada, 6–11 June 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 7978–7982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo, J.-M.; Markoni, H. Efficient and adaptable patch-based crack detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022 , 23 , 21885–21896. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• König, J.; Jenkins, M.D.; Mannion, M.; Barrie, P.; Morison, G. Weakly-supervised surface crack segmentation by generating pseudo-labels using localization with a classifier and thresholding. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022 , 23 , 24083–24094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Huda, Z.; Peng, B.; Algburi, R.N.A.; Al-antari, M.A.; Rabea, A.-J.; Al-maqtari, O.; Zhai, D. Asymmetric dual-decoder-U-Net for pavement crack semantic segmentation. Autom. Constr. 2023 , 156 , 105138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wen, T.; Lang, H.; Ding, S.; Lu, J.J.; Xing, Y. PCDNet: Seed operation-based deep learning model for pavement crack detection on 3d asphalt surface. J. Transp. Eng. Part B Pavements 2022 , 148 , 04022023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, A.; Gangisetti, G.; Eftekhar Azam, Y.; Khazanchi, D. Weakly supervised crack segmentation using crack attention networks on concrete structures. Struct. Health Monit. 2024 , 23 , 14759217241228150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kompanets, A.; Pai, G.; Duits, R.; Leonetti, D.; Snijder, B. Deep learning for segmentation of cracks in high-resolution images of steel bridges. arXiv 2024 , arXiv:2403.17725. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, Y.; Yeoh, J.K. Robust pixel-wise concrete crack segmentation and properties retrieval using image patches. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 123 , 103535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Girshick, R.; Donahue, J.; Darrell, T.; Malik, J. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, OH, USA, 23–28 June 2014; pp. 580–587. [ Google Scholar ]
• Girshick, R. Fast R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015; pp. 1440–1448. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–12 December 2015; Volume 28. [ Google Scholar ]
• He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Dollár, P.; Girshick, R. Mask R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2961–2969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Redmon, J.; Divvala, S.; Girshick, R.; Farhadi, A. You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 779–788. [ Google Scholar ]
• Redmon, J.; Farhadi, A. YOLO9000: Better, faster, stronger. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–26 July 2017; pp. 7263–7271. [ Google Scholar ]
• Redmon, J.; Farhadi, A. Yolov3: An incremental improvement. arXiv 2018 , arXiv:1804.02767. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bochkovskiy, A.; Wang, C.-Y.; Liao, H.-Y.M. Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection. arXiv 2020 , arXiv:2004.10934. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, C.-Y.; Bochkovskiy, A.; Liao, H.-Y.M. Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 18–22 June 2023; pp. 7464–7475. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, W.; Anguelov, D.; Erhan, D.; Szegedy, C.; Reed, S.; Fu, C.-Y.; Berg, A.C. SSD: Single shot multibox detector. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 11–14 October 2016; Part I 14. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 21–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, T.-Y.; Goyal, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; Dollár, P. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 2980–2988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, Y.; Li, D.; Xie, Q.; Wu, Q.; Wang, J. Automatic defect detection and segmentation of tunnel surface using modified mask R-CNN. Measurement 2021 , 178 , 109316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Shao, Y.; Shu, J. Automatic pixel-level crack detection and evaluation of concrete structures using deep learning. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2022 , 29 , e2981. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, R.; Yu, J.; Li, F.; Yang, R.; Wang, Y.; Peng, Z. Automatic bridge crack detection using unmanned aerial vehicle and faster R-CNN. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023 , 362 , 129659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tran, T.S.; Nguyen, S.D.; Lee, H.J.; Tran, V.P. Advanced crack detection and segmentation on bridge decks using deep learning. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023 , 400 , 132839. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Qian, S.; Tan, C. Automated bridge crack detection method based on lightweight vision models. Complex Intell. Syst. 2023 , 9 , 1639–1652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, R.; Liu, F.; Shi, P.; Wang, H.; Huang, Y. Preprocessing of crack recognition: Automatic crack-location method based on deep learning. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023 , 35 , 04022452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Yeoh, J.K.; Gu, X.; Dong, Q.; Chen, Y.; Wu, W.; Wang, L.; Wang, D. Automatic pixel-level detection of vertical cracks in asphalt pavement based on gpr investigation and improved mask R-CNN. Autom. Constr. 2023 , 146 , 104689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Zhu, H.; Huang, M. A deep learning-based fine crack segmentation network on full-scale steel bridge images with complicated backgrounds. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 114989–114997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alipour, M.; Harris, D.K.; Miller, G.R. Robust pixel-level crack detection using deep fully convolutional neural networks. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019 , 33 , 04019040. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.; Pan, Y.; Chen, M.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, X. FCN-SFW: Steel structure crack segmentation using a fully convolutional network and structured forests. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 214358–214373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hang, J.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Lai, T.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y. A deep learning semantic segmentation network with attention mechanism for concrete crack detection. Struct. Health Monit. 2023 , 22 , 3006–3026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yao, G.; Wei, F.; Wong, M. Autonomous crack and bughole detection for concrete surface image based on deep learning. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 85709–85720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Leng, Z.; Zhang, Z. A weakly-supervised transformer-based hybrid network with multi-attention for pavement crack detection. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 411 , 134134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.; Cai, Z.; Zhao, X.; Chen, C.; Liang, X.; Zou, T.; Wang, P. Pavement crack detection and recognition using the architecture of segNet. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020 , 18 , 100144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, S.; Ma, M.; Yang, L.; Liu, Y. Pixel-wise crack defect segmentation with dual-encoder fusion network. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024 , 426 , 136179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Su, C. Semi-supervised semantic segmentation network for surface crack detection. Autom. Constr. 2021 , 128 , 103786. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tabernik, D.; Šela, S.; Skvarč, J.; Skočaj, D. Segmentation-based deep-learning approach for surface-defect detection. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020 , 31 , 759–776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• König, J.; Jenkins, M.D.; Mannion, M.; Barrie, P.; Morison, G. Optimized deep encoder-decoder methods for crack segmentation. Digit. Signal Process. 2021 , 108 , 102907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Liu, H.; An, X.; Gong, Z.; Deng, F. Swincrack: Pavement crack detection using convolutional swin-transformer network. Digit. Signal Process. 2024 , 145 , 104297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lan, Z.-X.; Dong, X.-M. Minicrack: A simple but efficient convolutional neural network for pixel-level narrow crack detection. Comput. Ind. 2022 , 141 , 103698. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salton, G. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval ; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins, M.D.; Carr, T.A.; Iglesias, M.I.; Buggy, T.; Morison, G. A deep convolutional neural network for semantic pixel-wise segmentation of road and pavement surface cracks. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Rome, Italy, 3–7 September 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 2120–2124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsai, Y.-C.; Chatterjee, A. Comprehensive, quantitative crack detection algorithm performance evaluation system. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2017 , 31 , 04017047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, T. A study on evaluation standard for automatic crack detection regard the random fractal. arXiv 2020 , arXiv:2007.12082. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Yuan, Q.; Shi, Y.; Li, M. A Review of Computer Vision-Based Crack Detection Methods in Civil Infrastructure: Progress and Challenges. Remote Sens. 2024 , 16 , 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162910

Yuan Q, Shi Y, Li M. A Review of Computer Vision-Based Crack Detection Methods in Civil Infrastructure: Progress and Challenges. Remote Sensing . 2024; 16(16):2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162910

Yuan, Qi, Yufeng Shi, and Mingyue Li. 2024. "A Review of Computer Vision-Based Crack Detection Methods in Civil Infrastructure: Progress and Challenges" Remote Sensing 16, no. 16: 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162910

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

From large labs to small teams, mentorship thrives

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Each year, new MIT graduate students are tasked with the momentous decision of choosing a research group that will serve as their home for the next several years. Among many questions they face: join an established research effort, or work with a new faculty member in a growing group?

Professors Cynthia Breazeal, leading a group of over 30 students, and Ming Guo, with a lab of fewer than 10, demonstrate that excellent mentorship can thrive in a research group of any size.

Cynthia Breazeal: Flexible leadership

Cynthia Breazeal is a professor of media arts and sciences at MIT, where she founded and directs the Personal Robots group at the MIT Media Lab. She is also the MIT dean for digital learning, leading MIT Open Learning’s business and research and engagement units. Breazeal is a pioneer of social robotics and human-robot interaction, and her research group investigates social robots applied to education, pediatrics, health and wellness, and aging.

Breazeal’s focus on taking multidisciplinary approaches to her research has resulted in an inclusive and supportive lab environment. Moreover, she does not shy away from taking students with unconventional backgrounds.

One nominator joined Breazeal's lab as a design researcher without a computer science background. However, Breazeal recognized the value of their work within the context of her lab’s research directions. “I was a bit of an oddball in the group”, the nominator modestly recounts, “but had joined to help make the work in the group more human-centered.”

Throughout the student's academic journey, Breazeal offered unwavering support, whether by connecting them with experts to solve specific problems or guiding them through the academic job search process.

Over the Covid-19 pandemic, Breazeal prioritized gathering student feedback through a survey about how she could best support her research group. In response to this input, Breazeal established the Senior Research Team (SRT) within her group.

The SRT includes PhD holders such as postdocs and research scientists who provide personalized mentorship to one or two graduate students per semester. The SRT members serve as dedicated advocates and points of contact, with weekly check-ins to address questions within the lab. Additionally, SRT members meet by themselves weekly to discuss student concerns and bring up urgent issues with Breazeal directly. Lastly, students can sign up for meetings with Breazeal and participate in paper review sessions with her and co-authors.

In the nominator’s opinion, this new system was implemented because Breazeal cares about her students and her lab culture. With over 30 members in her group, Breazeal cannot provide hands-on support for everyone daily, but she still deeply cares about each person's experience in the lab. The nominator shared that Breazeal “understands as she progresses in her career, she needs to make sure that she is changing and creating new systems for her research group to continue to operate smoothly.”

Ming Guo: Emphasizing learning over achievement

Ming Guo is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Guo’s group works at the interface of mechanics, physics, and cell biology, seeking to understand how physical properties and biological function affect each other in cellular systems.

A key aspect of Guo’s mentorship style is his ability to foster an environment where students feel comfortable expressing their difficulties. He actively shows empathy for his students’ lives outside of the lab, often reaching out to provide support during challenging times. When one nominator found themselves faced with significant personal difficulties, Guo made a point to check in regularly, ensuring the student had a support network of friends and labmates.

Guo champions his students both academically and personally. For instance, when a collaborating lab placed unrealistic expectations on a student’s experimental output, Guo openly praised the student’s efforts and achievements in a joint meeting, alleviating pressure and highlighting the student’s hard work.

In addition, Guo encourages vulnerable conversations about issues affecting students, such as political developments and racial inequities. During the graduate student unionization process, he fostered open discussion, showing genuine interest in understanding the challenges faced by graduate students and using these insights to better support them.

In Guo’s research group, learning and development are prioritized over achievements and goals. When students encounter challenges in their research, Guo helps them maintain perspective by validating their struggles and recognizing the skills they acquire through difficult experiments. By celebrating their progress and emphasizing the importance of the learning process, he ensures that students understand the value of their experiences beyond outcomes. This approach not only boosts their confidence, but also fosters a deeper appreciation for the scientific process and their own development as researchers.

Guo says that he feels most energized and happy when he talks to students. He looks forward to the new ideas that they present. One nominator commented on how much Guo enjoys giving feedback at group meetings: “Sometimes he isn’t convinced in the beginning, but he has cultivated our lab atmosphere to be conducive to extended discussion.”

The nominator continues, “When things do work and become really interesting, he is extremely excited with us and pushes us to share our own ideas with the wider research community.” 

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Cynthia Breazeal
• The Guo Lab of Cell Mechanics
• Committed to Caring

Related Topics

• Awards, honors and fellowships
• Mechanical engineering
• School of Architecture and Planning

Related Articles

Paying it forward

Twenty-three MIT faculty honored as “Committed to Caring” for 2023-25

Support outside the comfort zone

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Alex Shalek named director of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science

Read full story →

New tool empowers pavement life-cycle decision-making while reducing data collection burden

A new model offers robots precise pick-and-place solutions

With sustainable cement, startup aims to eliminate gigatons of CO₂

3 Questions: Preparing students in MIT’s naval ROTC program

Going Dutch on climate

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics