the importance of conducting literature review in a research project

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Importance Of Proofreading For Scientific Writing Methods and Significance

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

Comments are closed.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 What is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

- Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

• Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 1:59 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

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

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.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• Types of Literature Reviews
• Tutorials This link opens in a new window
• Research Iteration
• Guides & Handbooks

The literature of a literature review is not made up of novels and short stories and poetry—but is the collection of writing and research that has been produced on a particular topic.

The purpose of the literature review is to give you an overview of a particular topic. Your job is to discover the research that has been done, the major perspectives, and the significant thinkers and writers (experts) who have published on the topic you’re interested in. In other words, it’s a survey of what has been written and argued about your topic.

By the time you complete your literature review you should have written an essay that demonstrates that you:

• Understand the history of what’s been written and researched on your topic.
• Know the significance of the current academic thinking on your topic, including what the controversies are.
• Have a perspective about what work remains to be done on your topic.

Thus, a literature review synthesizes your research into an explanation of what is known and what is not known on your topic. If the topic is one from which you want to embark on a major research project, doing a literature review will save you time and help you figure out where you might focus your attention so you don’t duplicate research that has already been done.

Just to be clear: a literature review differs from a research paper in that a  literature review  is a summary and synthesis of the major arguments and thinking of experts on the topic you’re investigating, whereas a  research paper  supports a position or an opinion you have developed yourself as a result of your own analysis of a topic.

Another advantage of doing a literature review is that it summarizes the intellectual discussion that has been going on over the decades—or centuries—on a specific topic and allows you to join in that conversation (what academics call academic discourse) from a knowledgeable position.

The following presentation will provide you with the basic steps to follow as you work to complete a literature review.

" Literature Reviews " by  Excelsior Online Writing Lab  is licensed under  CC BY 4.0 International

• Next: Types of Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Mar 4, 2024 10:44 AM
• URL: https://library.ric.edu/conducting-a-literature-review

600 Mt. Pleasant Ave

Providence, RI 02908

Social Media Links

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License unless otherwise noted.

©2024 Rhode Island College. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to collect relevant, timely research on your chosen topic, and synthesize it into a cohesive summary of existing knowledge in the field. This then prepares you for making your own argument on that topic, or for conducting your own original research.

Depending on your field of study, literature reviews can take different forms. Some disciplines require that you synthesize your sources topically, organizing your paragraphs according to how your different sources discuss similar topics. Other disciplines require that you discuss each source in individual paragraphs, covering various aspects in that single article, chapter, or book.

Within your review of a given source, you can cover many different aspects, including (if a research study) the purpose, scope, methods, results, any discussion points, limitations, and implications for future research. Make sure you know which model your professor expects you to follow when writing your own literature reviews.

Tip : Literature reviews may or may not be a graded component of your class or major assignment, but even if it is not, it is a good idea to draft one so that you know the current conversations taking place on your chosen topic. It can better prepare you to write your own, unique argument.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

• Literature reviews allow you to gain familiarity with the current knowledge in your chosen field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.
• Literature reviews also help you to gain an understanding of the theory(ies) driving the field, allowing you to place your research question into context.
• Literature reviews provide an opportunity for you to see and even evaluate successful and unsuccessful assessment and research methods in your field.
• Literature reviews prevent you from duplicating the same information as others writing in your field, allowing you to find your own, unique approach to your topic.
• Literature reviews give you familiarity with the knowledge in your field, giving you the chance to analyze the significance of your additional research.

Choosing Your Sources

When selecting your sources to compile your literature review, make sure you follow these guidelines to ensure you are working with the strongest, most appropriate sources possible.

Topically Relevant

Find sources within the scope of your topic

Appropriately Aged

Find sources that are not too old for your assignment

Find sources whose authors have authority on your topic

Appropriately “Published”

Find sources that meet your instructor’s guidelines (academic, professional, print, etc.)

Tip:  Treat your professors and librarians as experts you can turn to for advice on how to locate sources. They are a valuable asset to you, so take advantage of them!

Organizing Your Literature Review

Synthesizing topically.

Some assignments require discussing your sources together, in paragraphs organized according to shared topics between them.

For example, in a literature review covering current conversations on Alison Bechdel’s  Fun Home , authors may discuss various topics including:

• her graphic style
• her allusions to various literary texts
• her story’s implications regarding LGBT experiences in 20 th  century America.

In this case, you would cluster your sources on these three topics. One paragraph would cover how the sources you collected dealt with Bechdel’s graphic style. Another, her allusions. A third, her implications.

Each of these paragraphs would discuss how the sources you found treated these topics in connection to one another. Basically, you compare and contrast how your sources discuss similar issues and points.

To determine these shared topics, examine aspects including:

• Definition of terms
• Common ground
• Issues that divide
• Rhetorical context

Summarizing Individually

Depending on the assignment, your professor may prefer that you discuss each source in your literature review individually (in their own, separate paragraphs or sections). Your professor may give you specific guidelines as far as what to cover in these paragraphs/sections.

If, for instance, your sources are all primary research studies, here are some aspects to consider covering:

• Participants
• Limitations
• Implications
• Significance

Each section of your literature review, in this case, will identify all of these elements for each individual article.

You may or may not need to separate your information into multiple paragraphs for each source. If you do, using proper headings in the appropriate citation style (APA, MLA, etc.) will help keep you organized.

If you are writing a literature review as part of a larger assignment, you generally do not need an introduction and/or conclusion, because it is embedded within the context of your larger paper.

If, however, your literature review is a standalone assignment, it is a good idea to include some sort of introduction and conclusion to provide your reader with context regarding your topic, purpose, and any relevant implications or further questions. Make sure you know what your professor is expecting for your literature review’s content.

Typically, a literature review concludes with a full bibliography of your included sources. Make sure you use the style guide required by your professor for this assignment.

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Steps in conducting a literature review.

• Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

Conducting a literature review involves using research databases to identify materials that cover or are related in some sense to the research topic. In some cases the research topic may be so original in its scope that no one has done anything exactly like it, so research that is at least similar or related will provide source material for the literature review. The selection of databases will be driven by the subject matter and the scope of the project.

Selecting Databases -- Most academic libraries now provide access to a majority of their databases and their catalog via a so-called discovery tool. A discovery tool makes searching library systems more "Google-like" in that even the simplest of queries can be entered and results retrieved. However, many times the results are also "Google-like" in the sheer quantity of items retrieved. While a discovery tool can be invaluable for quickly finding a multitude of resources on nearly any topic, there are a number of considerations a researcher should keep in mind when using a discovery tool, especially for the researcher who is attempting a comprehensive literature review.

No discovery tool works with every database subscribed to by a library. Some libraries might subscribe to two or three hundred different research databases covering a large number of subject areas. Competing discovery systems might negotiate agreements with different database vendors in order to provide access to a large range of materials. There will be other vendors with whom agreements are not forthcoming, therefore their materials are not included in the discovery tool results. While this might be of only minor concern for a researcher looking to do a fairly limited research project, the researcher looking to do a comprehensive review of the literature in preparation for writing a master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation will run the risk of missing some materials by limiting the search just to a particular library's discovery system. If only one system covered everything that a researcher could possibly need, libraries would have no need to subscribe to hundreds of different databases. The reality is that no one tool does it all. Not even Google Scholar.

Book collections might be excluded from results delivered by a discovery tool. While many libraries are making results from their own catalogs available via their discovery tools, they might not cover books that are discoverable from other library collections, thus making a search of book collections incomplete. Most libraries subscribe to an international database of library catalogs known as WorldCat. This database will provide comprehensive coverage of books, media, and other physical library materials available in libraries worldwide.

Features available in a particular database might not be available in a discovery tool. Keep in mind that a discovery tool is a search system that enables searching across content from numerous individual databases. An individual database might have search features that cannot be provided through a discovery tool, since the discovery tool is designed to accommodate a large number of systems with a single search. For example, the nursing database  CINAHL  includes the ability to limit a search to specific practice areas, to limit to evidence-based practice, to limit to gender, and to search using medical subject headings, among other things, all specialized facets that are not available in a discovery tool. To have these advanced capabilities, a researcher would need to go directly to  CINAHL  and search it natively.

Some discovery tools are set, by default, to limit search results to those items directly available through a particular library's collections. While many researchers will be most concerned with what is immediately available to them at their own library, a researcher concerned with finding everything that has been done on a particular topic will need to go beyond what's available at his or her home library and include materials that are available elsewhere. Master's and doctoral candidates should take care to notice if their library's discovery tool automatically limits to available materials and broaden the scope to include ALL materials, not just those available.

With the foregoing in mind, a researcher might start a search by using the library's discovery tool and then follow up by reviewing which databases have been included in the search and, more importantly, which databases have not been included. Most libraries will facilitate locating its individual databases through a subject arrangement of some kind. Once those databases that are not discoverable have been identified, the researcher would do well to search them individually to find out if other materials can be identified outside of the discovery tool. One additional tool that a doctoral researcher should of necessity include in a search is ISI's  Web of Knowledge . The two major systems searchable within ISI's  Web  are the  Social Sciences Citation Index  and the  Science Citation Index . The purpose of these two systems is to enable a researcher to determine what research has been cited over the years by any number of researchers and how many times it has been cited.

Formulating an Effective Search Strategy -- Key to performing an effective literature review is selecting search terms that will effectively identify materials that are relevant to the research topic. An initial strategy for selecting search terminology might be to list all possible relevant terms and their synonyms in order to have a working vocabulary for use in the research databases. While an individual subject database will likely use a "controlled vocabulary" to index articles and other materials that are included in the database, the same vocabulary might not be as effective in a database that focuses on a different subject area. For example, terminology that is used frequently in psychological literature might not be as effective in searching a human resources management database. Brainstorming the topic before launching into a search will help a researcher arrive at a good working vocabulary to use when probing the databases for relevant literature.

As materials are identified with the initial search, the researcher will want to keep track of other terminology that could be of use in performing additional searches. Sometimes the most effective search terminology can be found by reading the abstracts of relevant materials located through a library's research databases. For example, an initial search on the concept of "mainstreaming" might lead the researcher to articles that discuss mainstreaming but which also look into the concept of "inclusion" in education. While the terms mainstreaming and inclusion are sometimes used synonymously, they really embody two different approaches to working with students having special needs. Abstracts of articles located in the initial search on mainstreaming will uncover related concepts such as inclusion and help a researcher develop a better, more effective vocabulary for fleshing out the literature review.

In addition to searching using key concepts aligned with the research topic, a researcher likely also will want to search for additional materials produced by key authors who are identified in the initial searches. As a researcher reviews items retrieved in the initial stages of the survey, he or she will begin to notice certain authors coming up over and over in relation to the topic. To make sure that no stone is left unturned, it would be advisable to search the available, relevant library databases for other materials by those key authors, just to make sure something of importance has not been missed. A review of the reference lists for each of the items identified in the search will also help to identify key literature that should be reviewed.

Locating the Materials and Composing the Review -- In many cases the items identified through the library's databases will also be available online through the same or related databases. This, however, is not always the case. When materials are not available online, the researcher should check the library's physical collections (print, media, etc.) to determine if the items are available in the library, itself. For those materials not physically available in the home library, the researcher will use interlibrary loan to procure copies from other libraries or services. While abstracts are extremely useful in identifying the right types of materials, they are no substitute for the actual items, themselves. The thorough researcher will make sure that all the key literature has been retrieved and read thoroughly before proceeding too far with the original research.

The end result of the literature review is a discussion of the central themes in the research and an overview of the significant studies located by the researcher. This discussion serves as the lead section of a paper or article that reports the findings of an original research study and sets the stage for presentation of the original study by providing a review of research that has been conducted prior to the current study. As the researcher conducts his or her own study, other relevant materials might enter into the professional literature. It is the researcher's responsibility to update the literature review with newly released information prior to completing his or her own study.

Updating the Initial Search -- Most research projects will take place over a period of time and are not completed in the short term. Especially in the case of master's and doctoral projects, the research process might take a year or several years to complete. During this time, it will be important for the researcher to periodically review the research that has been going on at the same time as his or her own research. Revisiting the search strategies employed in the initial pass of the ltierature will turn up any new studies that might have come to light since the initial search. Fortunately, most research databases and discovery systems provide researchers with the means for automatically notifying them when new materials matching the search strategy have entered the system. This requires that a researcher sign up for a personal "account" with the database in order to save his or her searches and set up "alerts" when new materials come online. Setting up an account does not involve charges to the researcher; this is all a part of the cost borne by the home library in providing access to the databases.

• << Previous: Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Next: Summary of the Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 10:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

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
• 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

Integrating blockchain, iot, and xbrl in accounting information systems: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 2.1. definition of the research question, 2.2. search for literature, 2.3. applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2.4. quality assessment, 3.1. journal analysis, 3.2. blockchain studies, 3.2.1. overview analysis, 3.2.2. blockchain as an accounting system, blockchain as a triple-entry accounting system, blockchain as a single accounting system, 3.2.3. blockchain and the quality of accounting information, 3.3. internet of things technology studies, 3.3.1. overview analysis, 3.3.2. using the internet of things (iot) in the accounting field, 3.4. extensible business reporting language (xbrl) studies, 3.4.1. overview analysis, 3.4.2. the benefits of extensible business reporting language (xbrl) in accounting, 3.5. the integration of blockchain, the internet of things, and xbrl, 4. discussion, 5. the limitations of the study, 6. future research directions, 7. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Adamopoulos, Panagiotis, Vilma Todri, and Anindya Ghose. 2021. Demand effects of the internet-of-things sales channel: Evidence from automating the purchase process. Information Systems Research 32: 238–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alay, Hazal Koray. 2022. Evaluating Research Trends on The Emerging Blockchain Technology in The Fields of Business And Management: A Systematic Review. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy 7: 409–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alkafaji, Bashaer Khudhair Abbas, Mahmoud Lari Dashtbayaz, and Mahdi Salehi. 2023. The Impact of Blockchain on the Quality of Accounting Information: An Iraqi Case Study. Risks 11: 58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alkayed, Hani, Saad Zighan, Majed Qabajeh, and Mohammad I Almaharmeh. 2023. The role of XBRL adoption on enhancing transparency of information disclosure: A case study of Jordanian financial companies. Cogent Business and Management 10: 2265082. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alles, Michael, and Maciej Piechock. 2012. Will XBRL improve corporate governance? A framework for enhancing governance decision making using interactive data. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13: 91–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arshad, Ameena, Faisal Shahzad, Ijaz Ur Rehman, and Bruno S Sergi. 2023. A systematic literature review of blockchain technology and environmental sustainability: Status quo and future research. International Review of Economics & Finance 88: 1602–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atzori, Marcella. 2018. Blockchain-Based Architectures for the Internet of Things: A Survey. SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beerbaum, Dirk. 2018. Blockchain A Business Case for XBRL: A Beast or a Lame Duck? SSRN Electronic Journal . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bellucci, Marco, Damiano Cesa Bianchi, and Giacomo Manetti. 2022. Blockchain in accounting practice and research: Systematic literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research 30: 121–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benedetti, Hugo, Ehsan Nikbakht, Sayan Sarkar, and Andrew Craig Spieler. 2020. Blockchain and corporate fraud. Journal of Financial Crime 28: 702–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blankespoor, Elizabeth, Brian P. Miller, and Hal D. White. 2014. Initial evidence on the market impact of the XBRL mandate. Review of Accounting Studies 19: 1468–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boixo, Ignacio, Javier Mora, and Jesús Ruiz. 2019. Proof of Concept for an XBRL Report Indexer with Integrity and Non-Repudiation Secured by Blockchain Using a Smart Contract: XBRLchain Demo. 44th World Continuous Auditing and Reporting Symposium. 1–12. Available online: http://www.openfiling.info/wp-content/upLoads/data/ReportIndexerSecuredbyBlockchain.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2024).
• Bonsón, Enrique, and Michaela Bednárová. 2019. Blockchain and its implications for accounting and auditing. Meditari Accountancy Research 27: 725–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonsón, Enrique, Virginia Cortijo, and Tomás Escobar. 2009. Towards the global adoption of XBRL using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 10: 46–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borgi, Hela, and Vincent Tawiah. 2022. Determinants of eXtensible business reporting language adoption: An institutional perspective. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 30: 352–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byström, Hans. 2019. Blockchains, real-time accounting, and the future of credit risk modeling. Ledger 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, Cynthia Weiyi. 2021. Triple-entry accounting with blockchain: How far have we come? Accounting & Finance 61: 71–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carlin, Tyrone. 2019. Blockchain and the Journey Beyond Double Entry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 305–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Centobelli, Piera, Roberto Cerchione, Pasquale Del Vecchio, Eugenio Oropallo, and Giustina Secundo. 2022. Blockchain technology design in accounting: Game changer to tackle fraud or technological fairy tale? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 35: 1566–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Shanzhi, Hui Xu, Dake Liu, Bo Hu, and Hucheng Wang. 2014. A vision of IoT: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with China Perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1: 349–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Songsheng, Jun Guo, Qingqing Liu, and Xiaoxiao Tong. 2021. The impact of XBRL on real earnings management: Unexpected consequences of the XBRL implementation in China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 56: 479–504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhury, Emon Kalyan, Iffat Ishrat Khan, and Bablu Kumar Dhar. 2023. Strategy for implementing blockchain technology in accounting: Perspectives of stakeholders in a developing nation. Business Strategy and Development 6: 477–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christidis, Konstantinos, and Michael Devetsikiotis. 2016. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 4: 2292–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christoffersen, Jeppe. 2013. A review of antecedents of international strategic alliance performance: Synthesized evidence and new directions for core constructs. International Journal of Management Reviews 15: 66–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cormier, Denis, Dominique Dufour, Philippe Luu, Pierre Teller, and Robert Teller. 2019. The Relevance of XBRL Voluntary Disclosure for Stock Market Valuation: The Role of Corporate Governance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36: 113–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2016. Imagineering audit 4.0. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 13: 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2017. Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems 31: 5–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debreceny, Roger, and Glen L. Gray. 2001. The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2: 47–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debreceny, Roger, Stephanie Farewell, Maciej Piechocki, Carsten Felden, and André Gräning. 2010. Does it add up? Early evidence on the data quality of XBRL filings to the SEC. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29: 296–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demirkan, Sebahattin, Irem Demirkan, and Andrew McKee. 2020. Blockchain technology in the future of business cyber security and accounting. Journal of Management Analytics 7: 189–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desplebin, Olivier, Gulliver Lux, and Nicolas Petit. 2021. To Be or Not to Be: Blockchain and the Future of Accounting and Auditing*. Accounting Perspectives 20: 743–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Desyatnyuk, Oksana, Volodymyr Muravskyi, Oleg Shevchuk, and Mykhailo Oleksiiv. 2022. Dual Use of Internet of Things Technology in Accounting Automation and Cybersecurity. Paper presented at 2022 12th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, ACIT 2022, Ruzomberok, Slovakia, September 26–28; pp. 360–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, Yi, Oliver Zhen Li, Yupeng Lin, and Chenkai Ni. 2016. Does Information-Processing Cost Affect Firm-Specific Information Acquisition? Evidence from XBRL Adoption. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 51: 435–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, Jing, Yun Shi, Wanfu Li, and Ying Chen. 2023. Can blockchain technology be effectively integrated into the real economy? Evidence from corporate investment efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Research 16: 100292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dumay, John, and Linlin Cai. 2015. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16: 121–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edquist, Harald, Peter Goodridge, and Jonathan Haskel. 2021. The Internet of Things and economic growth in a panel of countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 30: 262–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, and Narcisa Roxana Mosteanu. 2019. Accounting and blockchain technology: From double-entry to triple-entry. The Business and Management Review 10: 108–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faccia, Alessio, and Pythagoras Petratos. 2021. Blockchain, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and accounting information systems (AIS): Research on e-procurement and system integration. Applied Sciences 11: 6792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, Mohamed Yousif Khamis Al Naqbi, and Saeed Ahmad Lootah. 2019. Integrated cloud financial accounting cycle. How artificial intelligence, blockchain, and XBRL will change the accounting, fiscal and auditing practices. Paper presented at ICCBDC ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Oxford, UK, August 28–30; pp. 31–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccia, Alessio, Narcisa Roxana Moşteanu, and Luigi Pio Leonardo. 2020. Blockchain Hash, the Missing Axis of the Accounts to Settle the Triple Entry Bookkeeping System. Paper presented at 2020 12th International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 16–18; pp. 18–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, Bin, Xinming Liu, Chen Ma, and Yusang Zhuo. 2023. Blockchain technology adoption and accounting information quality. Accounting and Finance 63: 4125–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fanning, Kurt, and David P. Centers. 2016. Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial Services. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 27: 53–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fullana, Olga, and Javier Ruiz. 2021. Accounting information systems in the blockchain era. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management 11: 63–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garman, Amy D. 2022. Does Blockchain Technology Constrain Real Earnings Management? Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, and Ashley Stampone. 2019. A transaction on the blockchain: An AIS perspective, intro case to explain transactions on the ERP and the role of the internal and external auditor. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 47–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, Salem L. Boumediene, and Magdy S. Farag. 2023. The creation of one truth: Single-ledger entries for multiple stakeholders using blockchain technology to address the reconciliation problem. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 20: 59–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greenhalgh, Trisha, Glenn Robert, Fraser Macfarlane, Paul Bate, and Olivia Kyriakidou. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 82: 581–629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grigg, Ian. 2024. Triple entry accounting. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17: 76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haddud, Abubaker, Arthur DeSouza, Anshuman Khare, and Huei Lee. 2017. Examining potential benefits and challenges associated with the Internet of Things integration in supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28: 1055–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, James A. 2007. Accounting Information Systems , 5th ed. Issues in Accounting Education. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, vol. 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodge, Frank D., Jane Jollineau Kennedy, and Laureen A. Maines. 2004. Does search-facilitating technology improve the transparency of financial reporting? Accounting Review 79: 687–703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoitash, Rani, and Udi Hoitash. 2018. Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. Accounting Review 93: 259–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iansiti, Marco, and Karim R. Lakhani. 2017. The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review 95: 118–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibañez, Juan Ignacio, Chris N. Bayer, Paolo Tasca, and Jiahua Xu. 2023. REA, Triple-Entry Accounting and Blockchain: Converging Paths to Shared Ledger Systems. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Inghirami, Iacopo Ennio. 2020. Accounting Information Systems: The Scope of Blockchain Accounting. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation 38: 107–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jarašūnienė, Aldona, Kristina Čižiūnienė, and Audrius Čereška. 2023. Research on Impact of IoT on Warehouse Management. Sensors 23: 2213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karajovic, Maria, Henry M. Kim, and Marek Laskowski. 2019. Thinking Outside the Block: Projected Phases of Blockchain Integration in the Accounting Industry. Australian Accounting Review 29: 319–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karmańska, Anna. 2021. Internet of Things in the Accounting Field. Benefits and Challenges. Operations Research and Decisions 31: 23–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Jeong-Bon, Joung W. Kim, and Jee-Hae Lim. 2019. Does XBRL Adoption Constrain Earnings Management? Early Evidence from Mandated U.S. Filers. Contemporary Accounting Research 36: 2610–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kitchenham, Barbara. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering . Technical Report, Ver. 2.3. EBSE. Staffordshire: Keele University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kokina, Julia, Ruben Mancha, and Dessislava Pachamanova. 2017. Blockchain: Emergent industry adoption and implications for accounting. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14: 91–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, Van Thanh, Claus Pahl, Nabil El Ioini, and Gianfranco D’Atri. 2019. Enabling Financial Reports Transparency and Trustworthiness using Blockchain Technology. International Journal on Advances in Securiity 12: 236–47. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Pahl/publication/338622025_Enabling_Financial_Reports_Transparency_and_Trustworthiness_using_Blockchain_Technology/links/5e2008b6a6fdcc10156c35f5/Enabling-Financial-Reports-Transparency-and-Trustworthiness-using- (accessed on 28 March 2024).
• Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C. Gøtzsche, John PA Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Philip J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6: e1000100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, Chunhui, Xin Robert Luo, and Fu Lee Wang. 2017. An empirical investigation on the impact of XBRL adoption on information asymmetry: Evidence from Europe. Decision Support Systems 93: 42–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lombardi, Rosa, and Giustina Secundo. 2020. The digital transformation of corporate reporting–a systematic literature review and avenues for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research 29: 1179–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Yang. 2018. Blockchain and the related issues: A review of current research topics. Journal of Management Analytics 5: 231–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mainelli, Michael, and Mike Smith. 2015. Sharing Ledgers for Sharing Economies: An Exploration of Mutual Distributed Ledgers (Aka Blockchain Technology). Journal of Financial Perspectives 3: 38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maiti, Moinak, Ivan Kotliarov, and Vitalii Lipatnikov. 2021. A future triple entry accounting framework using blockchain technology. Blockchain: Research and Applications 2: 100037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mashayekhy, Yasaman, Amir Babaei, Xue-Ming Yuan, and Anrong Xue. 2022. Impact of Internet of Things (IoT) on Inventory Management: A Literature Survey. Logistics 6: 33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Massaro, Maurizio, John Dumay, and James Guthrie. 2016. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 29: 767–801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayapada, Arung Gihna, Muhammad Afdhal, and Rahmi Syafitri. 2020. Earnings Management in the Pre and Post eXtensible Business Reporting Language Period in Indonesia. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research 23: 29–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, Qingfei, Yangguang Lu, Zhiyong Liu, Chao Su, and Bo Wang. 2019. Machine Learning based Digital Twin Framework for Production Optimization in Petrochemical Industry. International Journal of Information Management 49: 502–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mistry, Ishan, Sudeep Tanwar, Sudhanshu Tyagi, and Neeraj Kumar. 2020. Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for industrial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 135: 106382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and T. PRISMA Group*. 2009. Reprint-Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moll, Jodie, and Ogan Yigitbasioglu. 2019. The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. British Accounting Review 51: 100833. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muthulakshmi, S., and R. Chitra. 2022. IoT technologies, applications and challenges, blockchain and its role in IoT: A survey. International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions 12: 321–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available online: https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2024).
• Nord, Jeretta Horn, Alex Koohang, and Joanna Paliszkiewicz. 2019. The Internet of Things: Review and theoretical framework. Expert Systems with Applications 133: 97–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Leary, Daniel E. 2017. Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 24: 138–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palas, Rimona, and Amos Baranes. 2019. Making investment decisions using XBRL filing data. Accounting Research Journal 32: 587–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palmaccio, Matteo, Grazia Dicuonzo, and Zhanna S. Belyaeva. 2021. The internet of things and corporate business models: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research 131: 610–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paul, Justin, and Alex Rialp Criado. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review 29: 101717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Payne, Rick. 2019. The Internet of Things and Accounting: Lessons from China . London: ICAEW thought Leadership Business and Management Faculty. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, Gareth W., and Efstathios Panayi. 2016. Understanding Modern Banking Ledgers through Blockchain Technologies: Future of Transaction Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money . New Economic Windows. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilkington, Marc. 2016. Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. In Research Handbook on Digital Transformations . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinsker, Robert, and Shaomin Li. 2008. Costs and benefits of XBRL adoption: Early evidence. Communications of the ACM 51: 47–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pizzi, Simone, Andrea Caputo, Andrea Venturelli, and Fabio Caputo. 2022. Embedding and managing blockchain in sustainability reporting: A practical framework. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 13: 545–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romney, Marshall, Paul Steinbart, Joseph Mula, Ray McNamara, and Trevor Tonkin. 2012. Accounting Information Systems Australasian Edition . Frenchs Forest: Pearson Higher Education AU. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roszkowska, Paulina. 2021. Fintech in financial reporting and audit for fraud prevention and safeguarding equity investments. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 17: 164–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rozario, Andrea M., and Chanta Thomas. 2019. Reengineering the audit with blockchain and smart contracts. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 21–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruan, Lei, Heng Liu, and Sang-Bing Jason Tsai. 2021. XBRL Adoption and Capital Market Information Efficiency. Journal of Global Information Management 29: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salah, Khaled, M. Habib Ur Rehman, Nishara Nizamuddin, and Ala Al-Fuqaha. 2019. Blockchain for AI: Review and open research challenges. IEEE Access 7: 10127–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saraiva, Helena IB, and Paulo AA Vieira. 2023. Accounting systems with smart contracts: Building accounting records in blockchain step by step. In Accounting and Financial Reporting Challenges for Government, Non-Profits, and the Private Sector . Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 58–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmitz, Jana, and Giulia Leoni. 2019. Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda. Australian Accounting Review 29: 331–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serag, Asmaa. 2022. A proposed framework for integrating XBRL and blockchain to improve financial reporting transparency and integrity: XBRL Chain. Scientific Journal of Financial and Commercial Studies and Research 3: 497–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shapovalova, Alla, Olena Kuzmenko, Oleh Polishchuk, Tetyana Larikova, and Zoriana Myronchuk. 2023. Modernisation of the National Accounting and Auditing System Using Digital Transformation Tools. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 4: 33–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sherif, Karma, and Hania Mohsin. 2021. The effect of emergent technologies on accountant`s ethical blindness. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 21: 61–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Snyder, Hannah. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Li. 2022. Construction of Accounting Internal Control Management Platform Based on IoT Cloud Computing. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing 2022: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swan, Melanie. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis . Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, Boon Seng, and Kin Yew Low. 2019. Blockchain as the Database Engine in the Accounting System. Australian Accounting Review 29: 312–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tawiah, Vincent, and Hela Borg. 2022. Impact of XBRL adoption on financial reporting quality: A global evidence. Accounting Research Journal 35: 815–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thies, Simon, Marko Kureljusic, Erik Karger, and Thilo Krämer. 2023. Blockchain-Based Triple-Entry Accounting: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Information Systems 37: 101–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thorpe, Richard, Robin Holt, Allan Macpherson, and Luke Pittaway. 2005. Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 7: 257–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uckelmann, Dieter, and Mark Harrison. 2010. Integrated billing mechanisms in the Internet of Things to support information sharing and enable new business opportunities. International Journal of RF Technologies: Research and Applications 2: 73–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valentinetti, Diego, and Francisco Flores Muñoz. 2021. Internet of things: Emerging impacts on digital reporting. Journal of Business Research 131: 549–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Niekerk, Anja, and Riaan Rudman. 2019. Risks, controls and governance associated with internet of things technologies on accounting information. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research 21: 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varriale, Vincenzo, Antonello Cammarano, Francesca Michelino, and Mauro Caputo. 2023. Integrating blockchain, RFID and IoT within a cheese supply chain: A cost analysis. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 34: 100486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wahab, Z. Abd. 2019. Integrating XBRL and Block Chain to Improve Corporate Transparency Integrity and Availability in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 9: 1194–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Xiongyuan, Luofan Bu, and Xuan Peng. 2021. Internet of things adoption, earnings management, and resource allocation efficiency. China Journal of Accounting Studies 9: 333–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Yunsen, and Alexander Kogan. 2018. Designing confidentiality-preserving Blockchain-based transaction processing systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 30: 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Zhenkun, and Simon S. Gao. 2012. Are XBRL-based Financial Reports Better than Non-XBRL Reports? A Quality Assessment. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 6: 511–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, Richard T., and Jane Webster. 2020. Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. Journal of Decision Systems 29: 129–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26: xiii–xxiii. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Jiapeng, Feng Xiong, and Cheng Li. 2019. Application of internet of things and blockchain technologies to improve accounting information quality. IEEE Access 7: 100090–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Zhiliang. 2017. A Comparative Study on the Architecture Internet of Things and its’ Implementation method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 81: 012192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yermack, David. 2017. Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance 21: 7–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoon, Hyungwook, Hangjung Zo, and Andrew P. Ciganek. 2011. Does XBRL adoption reduce information asymmetry? Journal of Business Research 64: 157–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Ting, Zhiwei Lin, and Qingliang Tang. 2018. Blockchain: The Introduction and Its Application in Financial Accounting. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 29: 37–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zghaibeh, Manaf. 2023. A Blockchain-Based, Smart Contract and IoT-Enabled Recycling System. The Journal of The British Blockchain Association 7: 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Fan, Ethan Cecchetti, Kyle Croman, Ari Juels, and Elaine Shi. 2016. Town crier: An authenticated data feed for smart contracts. Paper presented at ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Yanan, Yuyan Guan, and Jeong-Bon Kim. 2019. XBRL adoption and expected crash risk. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 38: 31–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Yu, and Jiangtao Wen. 2017. The IoT electric business model: Using blockchain technology for the internet of things. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 10: 983–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Yuan, and Cuiping Guan. 2023. Research on the Impact of Blockchain Technology on Real Earnings Management of Listed Companies. Open Journal of Accounting 12: 85–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Nofel, M.; Marzouk, M.; Elbardan, H.; Saleh, R.; Mogahed, A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2024 , 17 , 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel M, Marzouk M, Elbardan H, Saleh R, Mogahed A. Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management . 2024; 17(8):372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Nofel, Mohamed, Mahmoud Marzouk, Hany Elbardan, Reda Saleh, and Aly Mogahed. 2024. "Integrating Blockchain, IoT, and XBRL in Accounting Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17, no. 8: 372. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080372

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 1249 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Articles detail /

NPO (Health System Policy & Evaluation) - (2406299)

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  Please note that the deadline for receipt of applications indicated above reflects your personal device's system settings.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME

The objectives of the programme include: 1) conducting evidence syntheses on policy interventions to maximize efficiency, access and quality of essential health services and identifying suitable policy options for health system reforms; 2) strengthening national capacities to develop health policies, strategies and plans within the context of UHC and SDG which reflect the country's unique epidemiological and demographic profile, the level of economic and social development, status of health system, population's demands and expectations and partnership environment;3) improving the service delivery to ensure PHC-oriented health system delivers integrated, equitable, high-impact and people-centered health services with financial protection and resilience to address people's needs; and 4) conducting regular evaluation and analysis of national and subnational health systems and trends using comparable methods

DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES

Under the overall guidance of WHO Representative and direct supervision of Public Health Administrator the incumbent will have the following responsibilities:

1. Provide assistance to Ministry of Health on the development, implementation, and evaluation of national health policies, strategies and plans and assist in technical consultations and policy dialogues.

2. Facilitate the organization of regular participatory mechanisms for assessing the health situation, evaluating of health system areas, and formulating strategic recommendations related to the health system components.

3. Coordinate conducting of evidence syntheses on policy interventions to maximize efficiency, access and quality of essential health services and identifying suitable policy options for health system reforms.

4. Provide technical assistance related to the Integrated Health System matters mainly focusing on health services development, integrated health care delivery networks, quality of care and inter-programmatic initiatives on NCDs, family, gender and life course approaches.

5. Assist in developing tools, guidelines and innovative approaches related to evidence-informed policies on primary health care -shared care cluster system to strengthen the national health care system by expanding access to primary health care for tackling inequities and addressing broader determinants of health.

6. Support in developing and designing of performance measurement and evaluation framework, including resources needed for analyzing and interpreting data and implementing corrective actions for quality assurance, and management and improvement of the shared care cluster system for primary care.

7. Provide technical assistance in developing and implementing of human resources for health policies, strategies and plans to ensure equitable access to health services including primary health care and organize capacity building of the health care workers to meet the healthcare challenges.

8. Provide technical support to conduct health technology assessments, and develop health financing strategies.

9. Provide technical advice and support to national health authorities in innovative service delivery models which can address changing health needs including NCDs and needs of ageing populations.

10. Support in development and implementation of strategies for improving patient safety and quality of health services at the national level within the context of universal health coverage.

11. Collaborate in the preparation of the Biennial Work Plan (BWP) and the execution of national technical cooperation, including the analysis of political, technical and socioeconomic realities.

12. Draft necessary technical reports and documents as per requirements of the Organization, and to assist in preparation, organization and following-up of WHO-organized meetings.

13. Undertake any other related duties as assigned by the supervisors.

REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

Essential : Bachelor's degree in public health or medicine from a recognized university. Desirable : Professional training in evaluation, policy analysis, health system analysis, epidemiology, information management systems, and/or health programme management.

Essential : At least 5 years of relevant working experience at the national or sub-national level in monitoring and evaluation of programmes, policy analysis, planning/programming, research and health system analysis. Desirable : Experience in establishing harmonious relationships with partners, within and outside of government. Familiarity with UN system in general and WHO in particular. Proven track record in managing primary care projects, developing evidence and operational research projects.

Good knowledge and experience in health policy and strategies, Health system evaluation and analysis, advance research methodologies, statistics, Health surveys and mapping. Skills in programme planning/development, health workforce training, monitoring/evaluation of interventions and in development of locally-adapted tools and instruments. Familiarity with functioning of government and its institutions. Good communication skills with proven aptitude for effective verbal and written communication. Ability to interact with health professionals at various levels. Ability to think strategically and work under tight deadlines on a results-oriented basis. Ability to develop innovative approaches and solutions. Ability to motivate and manage colleagues to engage in broader aspects of work as part of a team beyond individual areas of work. Ability to demonstrate effective interpersonal skills by working harmoniously as a member of a team, adapting to diverse educational, socio-political and cultural backgrounds and maintaining a high standard of personal conduct.

WHO Competencies

• Respecting and promoting individual and cultural differences
• Communication
• Building and promoting partnerships across the organization and beyond
• Ensuring the effective use of resources
• Creating an empowering and motivating environment

Use of Language Skills

Essential : Expert knowledge of English. Expert knowledge of Sinhalese/Tamil.

REMUNERATION

Remuneration comprises an annual base salary starting at LKR 9,074,832 (subject to mandatory deductions for pension contributions and health insurance, as applicable) and 30 days of annual leave.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• This vacancy notice may be used to fill other similar positions at the same grade level.
• Only candidates under serious consideration will be contacted.
• A written test and/or an asynchronous video assessment may be used as a form of screening.
• In the event that your candidature is retained for an interview, you will be required to provide, in advance, a scanned copy of the degree(s)/diploma(s)/certificate(s) required for this position. WHO only considers higher educational qualifications obtained from an institution accredited/recognized in the World Higher Education Database (WHED), a list updated by the International Association of Universities (IAU)/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The list can be accessed through the link:  http://www.whed.net/ . Some professional certificates may not appear in the WHED and will require individual review.
• According to article 101, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff is the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity. Due regard will be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.
• Any appointment/extension of appointment is subject to WHO Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual.
• The WHO is committed to creating a diverse and inclusive environment of mutual respect. The WHO recruits and employs staff regardless of disability status, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, race, marital status, religious, cultural, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, or any other personal characteristics.
• The WHO is committed to achieving gender parity and geographical diversity in its staff. Women, persons with disabilities, and nationals of unrepresented and underrepresented Member States ( https://www.who.int/careers/diversity-equity-and-inclusion ) are strongly encouraged to apply.
• Persons with disabilities can request reasonable accommodations to enable participation in the recruitment process. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be sent through an email to  [email protected]
• An impeccable record for integrity and professional ethical standards is essential. WHO prides itself on a workforce that adheres to the highest ethical and professional standards and that is committed to put the  WHO Values Charter  into practice.
• WHO has zero tolerance towards sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), sexual harassment and other types of abusive conduct (i.e., discrimination, abuse of authority and harassment). All members of the WHO workforce have a role to play in promoting a safe and respectful workplace and should report to WHO any actual or suspected cases of SEA, sexual harassment and other types of abusive conduct. To ensure that individuals with a substantiated history of SEA, sexual harassment or other types of abusive conduct are not hired by the Organization, WHO will conduct a background verification of final candidates.
• WHO has a smoke-free environment and does not recruit smokers or users of any form of tobacco.
• For information on WHO's operations please visit:  http://www.who.int.
• WHO also offers wide range of benefits to staff, including parental leave and attractive flexible work arrangements to help promote a healthy work-life balance and to allow all staff members to express and develop their talents fully.
• The statutory retirement age for staff appointments is 65 years. For external applicants, only those who are expected to complete the term of appointment will normally be considered.
• Please note that WHO's contracts are conditional on members of the workforce confirming that they are vaccinated as required by WHO before undertaking a WHO assignment, except where a medical condition does not allow such vaccination, as certified by the WHO Staff Health and Wellbeing Services (SHW). The successful candidate will be asked to provide relevant evidence related to this condition. A copy of the updated vaccination card must be shared with WHO medical service in the medical clearance process. Please note that certain countries require proof of specific vaccinations for entry or exit. For example, official proof /certification of yellow fever vaccination is required to enter many countries. Country-specific vaccine recommendations can be found on the WHO international travel and Staff Health and Wellbeing website. For vaccination-related queries please directly contact SHW directly at  [email protected] .
• This is a National Professional Officer position. Therefore, only applications from nationals of the country where the duty station is located will be accepted. Applicants who are not nationals of this country will not be considered.
• In case the website does not display properly, please retry by: (i) checking that you have the latest version of the browser installed (Chrome, Edge or Firefox); (ii) clearing your browser history and opening the site in a new browser (not a new tab within the same browser); or (iii) retry accessing the website using Mozilla Firefox browser or using another device. Click this link for detailed guidance on completing job applications:  Instructions for candidates

Link to apply:

• WHO Careers Website:  Careers at WHO
• Vacancies (staff member access):  https://careers.who.int/careersection/in/jobsearch.ftl  
• Vacancies (external candidate access):  https://careers.who.int/careersection/ex/jobsearch.ftl