how to write an abstract literature review

How to Write a Literature Review

• Critical analysis
• Sample Literature Reviews
• Scaffold examples for organising Literature Reviews
• Writing an Abstract
• Creating Appendices
• APA Reference Guide
• Library Resources
• Guide References

What is an abstract?

What is an Abstract?

An abstract is a short summary of an article, essay or research findings. A well-written abstract will provide the reader with a brief overview of the entire article, including the article's purpose, methodology and conclusion. An abstract should give the reader enough detail to determine if the information in the article meets their research needs...and it should make them want to read more!

While an abstract is usually anywhere between 150 - 300 words, it is important to always establish with your teacher the desired length of the abstract you are submitting.

This excellent guide from the University of Melbourne is a great snapshot of how to write an abstract.

Here are a few links to some useful abstract examples:

University of New South Wales

University of Wollongong

Michigan State University

• << Previous: Scaffold examples for organising Literature Reviews
• Next: Creating Appendices >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 9:14 AM
• URL: https://saintpatricks-nsw.libguides.com/lit_review

How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review

• Step #1: Choosing a Topic
• Step #2: Finding Information
• Step #3: Evaluating Content
• Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• #5 Writing the Review
• Citing Your Sources

WRITING THE REVIEW 

You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.

The actual review generally has 5 components:

Abstract  -  An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:

• A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
• Your thesis statement
• A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
• Summarize your findings
• Conclusion(s) based upon your findings

Introduction :   Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
• Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)  - 

Body :  The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-

• Chronological -  by publication or by trend
• Thematic -  organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
• Methodical -  the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing

You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.

Conclusion :  In the conclusion, you should:

Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography :   Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.

• Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
• Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
• << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Definition and Purpose of Abstracts

An abstract is a short summary of your (published or unpublished) research paper, usually about a paragraph (c. 6-7 sentences, 150-250 words) long. A well-written abstract serves multiple purposes:

• an abstract lets readers get the gist or essence of your paper or article quickly, in order to decide whether to read the full paper;
• an abstract prepares readers to follow the detailed information, analyses, and arguments in your full paper;
• and, later, an abstract helps readers remember key points from your paper.

It’s also worth remembering that search engines and bibliographic databases use abstracts, as well as the title, to identify key terms for indexing your published paper. So what you include in your abstract and in your title are crucial for helping other researchers find your paper or article.

If you are writing an abstract for a course paper, your professor may give you specific guidelines for what to include and how to organize your abstract. Similarly, academic journals often have specific requirements for abstracts. So in addition to following the advice on this page, you should be sure to look for and follow any guidelines from the course or journal you’re writing for.

The Contents of an Abstract

Abstracts contain most of the following kinds of information in brief form. The body of your paper will, of course, develop and explain these ideas much more fully. As you will see in the samples below, the proportion of your abstract that you devote to each kind of information—and the sequence of that information—will vary, depending on the nature and genre of the paper that you are summarizing in your abstract. And in some cases, some of this information is implied, rather than stated explicitly. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , which is widely used in the social sciences, gives specific guidelines for what to include in the abstract for different kinds of papers—for empirical studies, literature reviews or meta-analyses, theoretical papers, methodological papers, and case studies.

Here are the typical kinds of information found in most abstracts:

• the context or background information for your research; the general topic under study; the specific topic of your research
• the central questions or statement of the problem your research addresses
• what’s already known about this question, what previous research has done or shown
• the main reason(s) , the exigency, the rationale , the goals for your research—Why is it important to address these questions? Are you, for example, examining a new topic? Why is that topic worth examining? Are you filling a gap in previous research? Applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data? Resolving a dispute within the literature in your field? . . .
• your research and/or analytical methods
• your main findings , results , or arguments
• the significance or implications of your findings or arguments.

Your abstract should be intelligible on its own, without a reader’s having to read your entire paper. And in an abstract, you usually do not cite references—most of your abstract will describe what you have studied in your research and what you have found and what you argue in your paper. In the body of your paper, you will cite the specific literature that informs your research.

When to Write Your Abstract

Although you might be tempted to write your abstract first because it will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s a good idea to wait to write your abstract until after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

What follows are some sample abstracts in published papers or articles, all written by faculty at UW-Madison who come from a variety of disciplines. We have annotated these samples to help you see the work that these authors are doing within their abstracts.

Choosing Verb Tenses within Your Abstract

The social science sample (Sample 1) below uses the present tense to describe general facts and interpretations that have been and are currently true, including the prevailing explanation for the social phenomenon under study. That abstract also uses the present tense to describe the methods, the findings, the arguments, and the implications of the findings from their new research study. The authors use the past tense to describe previous research.

The humanities sample (Sample 2) below uses the past tense to describe completed events in the past (the texts created in the pulp fiction industry in the 1970s and 80s) and uses the present tense to describe what is happening in those texts, to explain the significance or meaning of those texts, and to describe the arguments presented in the article.

The science samples (Samples 3 and 4) below use the past tense to describe what previous research studies have done and the research the authors have conducted, the methods they have followed, and what they have found. In their rationale or justification for their research (what remains to be done), they use the present tense. They also use the present tense to introduce their study (in Sample 3, “Here we report . . .”) and to explain the significance of their study (In Sample 3, This reprogramming . . . “provides a scalable cell source for. . .”).

Sample Abstract 1

From the social sciences.

Reporting new findings about the reasons for increasing economic homogamy among spouses

Gonalons-Pons, Pilar, and Christine R. Schwartz. “Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?” Demography , vol. 54, no. 3, 2017, pp. 985-1005.

Sample Abstract 2

From the humanities.

Analyzing underground pulp fiction publications in Tanzania, this article makes an argument about the cultural significance of those publications

Emily Callaci. “Street Textuality: Socialism, Masculinity, and Urban Belonging in Tanzania’s Pulp Fiction Publishing Industry, 1975-1985.” Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 183-210.

Sample Abstract/Summary 3

From the sciences.

Reporting a new method for reprogramming adult mouse fibroblasts into induced cardiac progenitor cells

Lalit, Pratik A., Max R. Salick, Daryl O. Nelson, Jayne M. Squirrell, Christina M. Shafer, Neel G. Patel, Imaan Saeed, Eric G. Schmuck, Yogananda S. Markandeya, Rachel Wong, Martin R. Lea, Kevin W. Eliceiri, Timothy A. Hacker, Wendy C. Crone, Michael Kyba, Daniel J. Garry, Ron Stewart, James A. Thomson, Karen M. Downs, Gary E. Lyons, and Timothy J. Kamp. “Lineage Reprogramming of Fibroblasts into Proliferative Induced Cardiac Progenitor Cells by Defined Factors.” Cell Stem Cell , vol. 18, 2016, pp. 354-367.

Sample Abstract 4, a Structured Abstract

Reporting results about the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis, from a rigorously controlled study

Note: This journal requires authors to organize their abstract into four specific sections, with strict word limits. Because the headings for this structured abstract are self-explanatory, we have chosen not to add annotations to this sample abstract.

Wald, Ellen R., David Nash, and Jens Eickhoff. “Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children.” Pediatrics , vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 9-15.

“OBJECTIVE: The role of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of high-dose amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate in the treatment of children diagnosed with ABS.

METHODS : This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Children 1 to 10 years of age with a clinical presentation compatible with ABS were eligible for participation. Patients were stratified according to age (<6 or ≥6 years) and clinical severity and randomly assigned to receive either amoxicillin (90 mg/kg) with potassium clavulanate (6.4 mg/kg) or placebo. A symptom survey was performed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30. Patients were examined on day 14. Children’s conditions were rated as cured, improved, or failed according to scoring rules.

RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred thirty-five children with respiratory complaints were screened for enrollment; 139 (6.5%) had ABS. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and 56 were randomly assigned. The mean age was 6630 months. Fifty (89%) patients presented with persistent symptoms, and 6 (11%) presented with nonpersistent symptoms. In 24 (43%) children, the illness was classified as mild, whereas in the remaining 32 (57%) children it was severe. Of the 28 children who received the antibiotic, 14 (50%) were cured, 4 (14%) were improved, 4(14%) experienced treatment failure, and 6 (21%) withdrew. Of the 28children who received placebo, 4 (14%) were cured, 5 (18%) improved, and 19 (68%) experienced treatment failure. Children receiving the antibiotic were more likely to be cured (50% vs 14%) and less likely to have treatment failure (14% vs 68%) than children receiving the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS : ABS is a common complication of viral upper respiratory infections. Amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate results in significantly more cures and fewer failures than placebo, according to parental report of time to resolution.” (9)

Some Excellent Advice about Writing Abstracts for Basic Science Research Papers, by Professor Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology at the University of Zurich:

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Defying the stereotype of Black resilience

Career Q&A 30 MAY 24

I had my white colleagues walk in a Black student’s shoes for a day

Career Q&A 28 MAY 24

Changemakers — Nature’s new series celebrates champions of inclusion in science

Editorial 28 MAY 24

Researcher parents are paying a high price for conference travel — here’s how to fix it

Career Column 27 MAY 24

How researchers in remote regions handle the isolation

Career Feature 24 MAY 24

Guidelines for academics aim to lessen ethical pitfalls in generative-AI use

Nature Index 22 MAY 24

Who will make AlphaFold3 open source? Scientists race to crack AI model

News 23 MAY 24

Egypt is building a $1-billion mega-museum. Will it bring Egyptology home?

News Feature 22 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

KAUST Global Postdoctoral Fellowship

The KAUST Global Fellowship Program is designed to attract emerging research leaders working across areas under the four research priorities of KAUST.

Saudi Arabia (SA)

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST

Global Talent Recruitment of Xinxiang Medical University in 2024

Top-notch talents, leading talents in science and technology, and young and middle-aged outstanding talents.

Xinxiang, Henan, China

Xinxiang Medical University

Faculty Positions at Great Bay University, China

We are now seeking outstanding candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Physical Sciences.

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

Great Bay University, China (GBU)

Postdoctoral Associate- Medical Image Analysis

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Associate- Optogenetics, Voltage Imaging, and All-Optical Electrophysiology

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

Quick links

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.8  Writing an abstract

All full reviews must include an abstract of not more than 400 words. The abstract should be kept as brief as possible without sacrificing important content. Abstracts to Cochrane reviews are published in MEDLINE and the Science Citation Index, and are made freely available on the internet. It is therefore important that they can be read as stand-alone documents.

The abstract should summarize the key methods, results and conclusions of the review and should not contain any information that is not in the review. Links to other parts of the review (such as references, studies, tables and figures) may not be included in the abstract. A hypothetical example of an abstract is included in Box 11.8.a .

Abstracts should be targeted primarily at healthcare decision makers (clinicians, informed consumers and policy makers) rather than just to researchers. Terminology should be reasonably comprehensible to a general rather than a specialist healthcare audience. Abbreviations should be avoided, except where they are widely understood (for example, HIV). Where essential, other abbreviations should be spelt out (with the abbreviations in brackets) on first use. Names of drugs and interventions that can be understood internationally should be used wherever possible. Trade names should not be used.

The content under each heading in the abstract should be as follows:

Background: This should be one or two sentences to explain the context or elaborate on the purpose and rationale of the review. If this version of the review is an update of an earlier one, it is helpful to include a sentence such as “This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in YEAR, and previously updated in YEAR”.

Objectives:  This should be a precise statement of the primary objective of the review, ideally in a single sentence, matching the Objectives in the main text of the review. Where possible the style should be of the form “To assess the effects of   [intervention or comparison] for [health problem] for/in [types of people, disease or problem and setting if specified]”.

Search methods: This should list the sources and the dates of the last search, for each source, using the active form ‘We searched….’ or, if there is only one author, the passive form can be used, for example, ‘Database X, Y, Z were searched’. Search terms should not be listed here. If the CRG’s Specialized Register was used, this should be listed first in the form ‘Cochrane X Group Specialized Register’. The order for listing other databases should be the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, other databases. The date range of the search for each database should be given. For the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials this should be in the form ‘Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1)’. For most other databases, such as MEDLINE, it should be in the form ‘MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2006)’. Searching of bibliographies for relevant citations can be covered in a generic phrase ‘reference lists of articles’. If there were any constraints based on language or publication status, these should be listed. If individuals or organizations were contacted to locate studies this should be noted and it is preferable to use ‘We contacted pharmaceutical companies’ rather than a listing of all the pharmaceutical companies contacted. If journals were specifically handsearched for the review, this should be noted but handsearching to help build the Specialized Register of the CRG should not be listed.

Selection criteria: These should be given as ‘ [type of study] of [type of intervention or comparison] in [disease, problem or type of people]‘ . Outcomes should only be listed here if the review was restricted to specific outcomes.

Data collection and analysis: This should be restricted to how data were extracted and assessed, and not include details of what data were extracted. This section should cover whether data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were done by more than one person. If the authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information, this should be noted here. What steps, if any, were taken to identify adverse effects should be noted.

Main results: This section should begin with the total number of studies and participants included in the review, and brief details pertinent to the interpretation of the results (for example, the risk of bias in the studies overall or a comment on the comparability of the studies, if appropriate). It should address the primary objective and be restricted to the main qualitative and quantitative results (generally including not more than six key results). The outcomes included should be selected on the basis of which are most likely to help someone making a decision about whether or not to use a particular intervention. Adverse effects should be included if these are covered in the review. If necessary, the number of studies and participants contributing to the separate outcomes should be noted, along with concerns over quality of evidence specific to these outcomes. The results should be expressed narratively as well as quantitatively if the numerical results are not clear or intuitive (such as those from a standardized mean differences analysis). The summary statistics in the abstract should be the same as those selected as the defaults for the review, and should be presented in a standard way, such as ‘odds ratio 2.31 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 3.45)’. Ideally, risks of events (percentage) or averages (for continuous data) should be reported for both comparison groups. If overall results are not calculated in the review, a qualitative assessment or a description of the range and pattern of the results can be given. However, ‘vote counts’ in which the numbers of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ studies are reported should be avoided.

Authors’ conclusions: The primary purpose of the review should be to present information, rather than to offer advice or recommendations. The Authors’ conclusions should be succinct and drawn directly from the findings of the review so that they directly and obviously reflect the main results. Assumptions should generally not be made about practice circumstances, values, preferences, tradeoffs; and the giving of advice or recommendations should generally be avoided. Any important limitations of data and analyses should be noted. Important conclusions about the implications for research should be included if these are not obvious.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Writing a Literature Review

Hundreds of original investigation research articles on health science topics are published each year. It is becoming harder and harder to keep on top of all new findings in a topic area and – more importantly – to work out how they all fit together to determine our current understanding of a topic. This is where literature reviews come in.

In this chapter, we explain what a literature review is and outline the stages involved in writing one. We also provide practical tips on how to communicate the results of a review of current literature on a topic in the format of a literature review.

7.1 What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide a synthesis and evaluation  of the existing literature on a particular topic with the aim of gaining a new, deeper understanding of the topic.

Published literature reviews are typically written by scientists who are experts in that particular area of science. Usually, they will be widely published as authors of their own original work, making them highly qualified to author a literature review.

However, literature reviews are still subject to peer review before being published. Literature reviews provide an important bridge between the expert scientific community and many other communities, such as science journalists, teachers, and medical and allied health professionals. When the most up-to-date knowledge reaches such audiences, it is more likely that this information will find its way to the general public. When this happens, – the ultimate good of science can be realised.

A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method.

In the article Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Marco Pautasso explains the importance of literature reviews:

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. 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. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. 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. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way (Pautasso, 2013, para. 1).

An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1.

Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]

Watch this video created by Steely Library at Northern Kentucky Library called ‘ What is a literature review? Note: Closed captions are available by clicking on the CC button below.

Examples of published literature reviews

• Strength training alone, exercise therapy alone, and exercise therapy with passive manual mobilisation each reduce pain and disability in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
• Traveler’s diarrhea: a clinical review
• Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

7.2 Steps of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a very challenging task. Figure 7.2 summarises the steps of writing a literature review. Depending on why you are writing your literature review, you may be given a topic area, or may choose a topic that particularly interests you or is related to a research project that you wish to undertake.

Chapter 6 provides instructions on finding scientific literature that would form the basis for your literature review.

Once you have your topic and have accessed the literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Next, we look at these important cognitive skills student scientists will need to develop and employ to successfully write a literature review, and provide some guidance for navigating these stages.

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are three essential skills required by scientists  and you will need to develop these skills if you are to write a good literature review ( Figure 7.3 ). These important cognitive skills are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The first step in writing a literature review is to analyse the original investigation research papers that you have gathered related to your topic.

Analysis requires examining the papers methodically and in detail, so you can understand and interpret aspects of the study described in each research article.

An analysis grid is a simple tool you can use to help with the careful examination and breakdown of each paper. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of  an analysis grid. When filling in the grid, the aim is to draw out key aspects of each research paper. Use a different row for each paper, and a different column for each aspect of the paper ( Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show how completed analysis grid may look).

Before completing your own grid, look at these examples and note the types of information that have been included, as well as the level of detail. Completing an analysis grid with a sufficient level of detail will help you to complete the synthesis and evaluation stages effectively. This grid will allow you to more easily observe similarities and differences across the findings of the research papers and to identify possible explanations (e.g., differences in methodologies employed) for observed differences between the findings of different research papers.

Table 7.1: Example of an analysis grid

Table 7.3: Sample filled-in analysis grid for research article by Ping and colleagues

Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.

Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.

You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.

A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.

Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).

Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).

During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.

When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.

When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.

7.3 Writing your literature review

Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).

The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.

Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.

The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.

In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:

This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.

Introduction

The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review

Body of literature review

The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.

It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.

It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.

Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.

Copyright note:

• The quotation from Pautasso, M 2013, ‘Ten simple rules for writing a literature review’, PLoS Computational Biology is use under a CC-BY licence. 
• Content from the annotated article and tables are based on Schubert, MM, Astorino, TA & Azevedo, JJL 2013, ‘The effects of caffeinated ‘energy shots’ on time trial performance’, Nutrients, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2062–2075 (used under a CC-BY 3.0 licence ) and P ing, WC, Keong , CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41 (used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence ). 

Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.

How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What this handout is about

This handout provides definitions and examples of the two main types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. It also provides guidelines for constructing an abstract and general tips for you to keep in mind when drafting. Finally, it includes a few examples of abstracts broken down into their component parts.

What is an abstract?

An abstract is a self-contained, short, and powerful statement that describes a larger work. Components vary according to discipline. An abstract of a social science or scientific work may contain the scope, purpose, results, and contents of the work. An abstract of a humanities work may contain the thesis, background, and conclusion of the larger work. An abstract is not a review, nor does it evaluate the work being abstracted. While it contains key words found in the larger work, the abstract is an original document rather than an excerpted passage.

Why write an abstract?

You may write an abstract for various reasons. The two most important are selection and indexing. Abstracts allow readers who may be interested in a longer work to quickly decide whether it is worth their time to read it. Also, many online databases use abstracts to index larger works. Therefore, abstracts should contain keywords and phrases that allow for easy searching.

Say you are beginning a research project on how Brazilian newspapers helped Brazil’s ultra-liberal president Luiz Ignácio da Silva wrest power from the traditional, conservative power base. A good first place to start your research is to search Dissertation Abstracts International for all dissertations that deal with the interaction between newspapers and politics. “Newspapers and politics” returned 569 hits. A more selective search of “newspapers and Brazil” returned 22 hits. That is still a fair number of dissertations. Titles can sometimes help winnow the field, but many titles are not very descriptive. For example, one dissertation is titled “Rhetoric and Riot in Rio de Janeiro.” It is unclear from the title what this dissertation has to do with newspapers in Brazil. One option would be to download or order the entire dissertation on the chance that it might speak specifically to the topic. A better option is to read the abstract. In this case, the abstract reveals the main focus of the dissertation:

This dissertation examines the role of newspaper editors in the political turmoil and strife that characterized late First Empire Rio de Janeiro (1827-1831). Newspaper editors and their journals helped change the political culture of late First Empire Rio de Janeiro by involving the people in the discussion of state. This change in political culture is apparent in Emperor Pedro I’s gradual loss of control over the mechanisms of power. As the newspapers became more numerous and powerful, the Emperor lost his legitimacy in the eyes of the people. To explore the role of the newspapers in the political events of the late First Empire, this dissertation analyzes all available newspapers published in Rio de Janeiro from 1827 to 1831. Newspapers and their editors were leading forces in the effort to remove power from the hands of the ruling elite and place it under the control of the people. In the process, newspapers helped change how politics operated in the constitutional monarchy of Brazil.

From this abstract you now know that although the dissertation has nothing to do with modern Brazilian politics, it does cover the role of newspapers in changing traditional mechanisms of power. After reading the abstract, you can make an informed judgment about whether the dissertation would be worthwhile to read.

Besides selection, the other main purpose of the abstract is for indexing. Most article databases in the online catalog of the library enable you to search abstracts. This allows for quick retrieval by users and limits the extraneous items recalled by a “full-text” search. However, for an abstract to be useful in an online retrieval system, it must incorporate the key terms that a potential researcher would use to search. For example, if you search Dissertation Abstracts International using the keywords “France” “revolution” and “politics,” the search engine would search through all the abstracts in the database that included those three words. Without an abstract, the search engine would be forced to search titles, which, as we have seen, may not be fruitful, or else search the full text. It’s likely that a lot more than 60 dissertations have been written with those three words somewhere in the body of the entire work. By incorporating keywords into the abstract, the author emphasizes the central topics of the work and gives prospective readers enough information to make an informed judgment about the applicability of the work.

When do people write abstracts?

• when submitting articles to journals, especially online journals
• when applying for research grants
• when writing a book proposal
• when completing the Ph.D. dissertation or M.A. thesis
• when writing a proposal for a conference paper
• when writing a proposal for a book chapter

Most often, the author of the entire work (or prospective work) writes the abstract. However, there are professional abstracting services that hire writers to draft abstracts of other people’s work. In a work with multiple authors, the first author usually writes the abstract. Undergraduates are sometimes asked to draft abstracts of books/articles for classmates who have not read the larger work.

Types of abstracts

There are two types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. They have different aims, so as a consequence they have different components and styles. There is also a third type called critical, but it is rarely used. If you want to find out more about writing a critique or a review of a work, see the UNC Writing Center handout on writing a literature review . If you are unsure which type of abstract you should write, ask your instructor (if the abstract is for a class) or read other abstracts in your field or in the journal where you are submitting your article.

Descriptive abstracts

A descriptive abstract indicates the type of information found in the work. It makes no judgments about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. It does incorporate key words found in the text and may include the purpose, methods, and scope of the research. Essentially, the descriptive abstract describes the work being abstracted. Some people consider it an outline of the work, rather than a summary. Descriptive abstracts are usually very short—100 words or less.

Informative abstracts

The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the writer presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the complete article/paper/book. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract (purpose, methods, scope) but also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is rarely more than 10% of the length of the entire work. In the case of a longer work, it may be much less.

Here are examples of a descriptive and an informative abstract of this handout on abstracts . Descriptive abstract:

The two most common abstract types—descriptive and informative—are described and examples of each are provided.

Informative abstract:

Abstracts present the essential elements of a longer work in a short and powerful statement. The purpose of an abstract is to provide prospective readers the opportunity to judge the relevance of the longer work to their projects. Abstracts also include the key terms found in the longer work and the purpose and methods of the research. Authors abstract various longer works, including book proposals, dissertations, and online journal articles. There are two main types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. A descriptive abstract briefly describes the longer work, while an informative abstract presents all the main arguments and important results. This handout provides examples of various types of abstracts and instructions on how to construct one.

Which type should I use?

Your best bet in this case is to ask your instructor or refer to the instructions provided by the publisher. You can also make a guess based on the length allowed; i.e., 100-120 words = descriptive; 250+ words = informative.

How do I write an abstract?

The format of your abstract will depend on the work being abstracted. An abstract of a scientific research paper will contain elements not found in an abstract of a literature article, and vice versa. However, all abstracts share several mandatory components, and there are also some optional parts that you can decide to include or not. When preparing to draft your abstract, keep the following key process elements in mind:

• Reason for writing: What is the importance of the research? Why would a reader be interested in the larger work?
• Problem: What problem does this work attempt to solve? What is the scope of the project? What is the main argument/thesis/claim?
• Methodology: An abstract of a scientific work may include specific models or approaches used in the larger study. Other abstracts may describe the types of evidence used in the research.
• Results: Again, an abstract of a scientific work may include specific data that indicates the results of the project. Other abstracts may discuss the findings in a more general way.
• Implications: What changes should be implemented as a result of the findings of the work? How does this work add to the body of knowledge on the topic?

(This list of elements is adapted with permission from Philip Koopman, “How to Write an Abstract.” )

All abstracts include:

• A full citation of the source, preceding the abstract.
• The most important information first.
• The same type and style of language found in the original, including technical language.
• Key words and phrases that quickly identify the content and focus of the work.
• Clear, concise, and powerful language.

Abstracts may include:

• The thesis of the work, usually in the first sentence.
• Background information that places the work in the larger body of literature.
• The same chronological structure as the original work.

How not to write an abstract:

• Do not refer extensively to other works.
• Do not add information not contained in the original work.
• Do not define terms.

If you are abstracting your own writing

When abstracting your own work, it may be difficult to condense a piece of writing that you have agonized over for weeks (or months, or even years) into a 250-word statement. There are some tricks that you could use to make it easier, however.

Reverse outlining:

This technique is commonly used when you are having trouble organizing your own writing. The process involves writing down the main idea of each paragraph on a separate piece of paper– see our short video . For the purposes of writing an abstract, try grouping the main ideas of each section of the paper into a single sentence. Practice grouping ideas using webbing or color coding .

For a scientific paper, you may have sections titled Purpose, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each one of these sections will be longer than one paragraph, but each is grouped around a central idea. Use reverse outlining to discover the central idea in each section and then distill these ideas into one statement.

Cut and paste:

To create a first draft of an abstract of your own work, you can read through the entire paper and cut and paste sentences that capture key passages. This technique is useful for social science research with findings that cannot be encapsulated by neat numbers or concrete results. A well-written humanities draft will have a clear and direct thesis statement and informative topic sentences for paragraphs or sections. Isolate these sentences in a separate document and work on revising them into a unified paragraph.

If you are abstracting someone else’s writing

When abstracting something you have not written, you cannot summarize key ideas just by cutting and pasting. Instead, you must determine what a prospective reader would want to know about the work. There are a few techniques that will help you in this process:

Identify key terms:

Search through the entire document for key terms that identify the purpose, scope, and methods of the work. Pay close attention to the Introduction (or Purpose) and the Conclusion (or Discussion). These sections should contain all the main ideas and key terms in the paper. When writing the abstract, be sure to incorporate the key terms.

Highlight key phrases and sentences:

Instead of cutting and pasting the actual words, try highlighting sentences or phrases that appear to be central to the work. Then, in a separate document, rewrite the sentences and phrases in your own words.

Don’t look back:

After reading the entire work, put it aside and write a paragraph about the work without referring to it. In the first draft, you may not remember all the key terms or the results, but you will remember what the main point of the work was. Remember not to include any information you did not get from the work being abstracted.

Revise, revise, revise

No matter what type of abstract you are writing, or whether you are abstracting your own work or someone else’s, the most important step in writing an abstract is to revise early and often. When revising, delete all extraneous words and incorporate meaningful and powerful words. The idea is to be as clear and complete as possible in the shortest possible amount of space. The Word Count feature of Microsoft Word can help you keep track of how long your abstract is and help you hit your target length.

Example 1: Humanities abstract

Kenneth Tait Andrews, “‘Freedom is a constant struggle’: The dynamics and consequences of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement, 1960-1984” Ph.D. State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1997 DAI-A 59/02, p. 620, Aug 1998

This dissertation examines the impacts of social movements through a multi-layered study of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement from its peak in the early 1960s through the early 1980s. By examining this historically important case, I clarify the process by which movements transform social structures and the constraints movements face when they try to do so. The time period studied includes the expansion of voting rights and gains in black political power, the desegregation of public schools and the emergence of white-flight academies, and the rise and fall of federal anti-poverty programs. I use two major research strategies: (1) a quantitative analysis of county-level data and (2) three case studies. Data have been collected from archives, interviews, newspapers, and published reports. This dissertation challenges the argument that movements are inconsequential. Some view federal agencies, courts, political parties, or economic elites as the agents driving institutional change, but typically these groups acted in response to the leverage brought to bear by the civil rights movement. The Mississippi movement attempted to forge independent structures for sustaining challenges to local inequities and injustices. By propelling change in an array of local institutions, movement infrastructures had an enduring legacy in Mississippi.

Now let’s break down this abstract into its component parts to see how the author has distilled his entire dissertation into a ~200 word abstract.

What the dissertation does This dissertation examines the impacts of social movements through a multi-layered study of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement from its peak in the early 1960s through the early 1980s. By examining this historically important case, I clarify the process by which movements transform social structures and the constraints movements face when they try to do so.

How the dissertation does it The time period studied in this dissertation includes the expansion of voting rights and gains in black political power, the desegregation of public schools and the emergence of white-flight academies, and the rise and fall of federal anti-poverty programs. I use two major research strategies: (1) a quantitative analysis of county-level data and (2) three case studies.

What materials are used Data have been collected from archives, interviews, newspapers, and published reports.

Conclusion This dissertation challenges the argument that movements are inconsequential. Some view federal agencies, courts, political parties, or economic elites as the agents driving institutional change, but typically these groups acted in response to movement demands and the leverage brought to bear by the civil rights movement. The Mississippi movement attempted to forge independent structures for sustaining challenges to local inequities and injustices. By propelling change in an array of local institutions, movement infrastructures had an enduring legacy in Mississippi.

Keywords social movements Civil Rights Movement Mississippi voting rights desegregation

Example 2: Science Abstract

Luis Lehner, “Gravitational radiation from black hole spacetimes” Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 1998 DAI-B 59/06, p. 2797, Dec 1998

The problem of detecting gravitational radiation is receiving considerable attention with the construction of new detectors in the United States, Europe, and Japan. The theoretical modeling of the wave forms that would be produced in particular systems will expedite the search for and analysis of detected signals. The characteristic formulation of GR is implemented to obtain an algorithm capable of evolving black holes in 3D asymptotically flat spacetimes. Using compactification techniques, future null infinity is included in the evolved region, which enables the unambiguous calculation of the radiation produced by some compact source. A module to calculate the waveforms is constructed and included in the evolution algorithm. This code is shown to be second-order convergent and to handle highly non-linear spacetimes. In particular, we have shown that the code can handle spacetimes whose radiation is equivalent to a galaxy converting its whole mass into gravitational radiation in one second. We further use the characteristic formulation to treat the region close to the singularity in black hole spacetimes. The code carefully excises a region surrounding the singularity and accurately evolves generic black hole spacetimes with apparently unlimited stability.

This science abstract covers much of the same ground as the humanities one, but it asks slightly different questions.

Why do this study The problem of detecting gravitational radiation is receiving considerable attention with the construction of new detectors in the United States, Europe, and Japan. The theoretical modeling of the wave forms that would be produced in particular systems will expedite the search and analysis of the detected signals.

What the study does The characteristic formulation of GR is implemented to obtain an algorithm capable of evolving black holes in 3D asymptotically flat spacetimes. Using compactification techniques, future null infinity is included in the evolved region, which enables the unambiguous calculation of the radiation produced by some compact source. A module to calculate the waveforms is constructed and included in the evolution algorithm.

Results This code is shown to be second-order convergent and to handle highly non-linear spacetimes. In particular, we have shown that the code can handle spacetimes whose radiation is equivalent to a galaxy converting its whole mass into gravitational radiation in one second. We further use the characteristic formulation to treat the region close to the singularity in black hole spacetimes. The code carefully excises a region surrounding the singularity and accurately evolves generic black hole spacetimes with apparently unlimited stability.

Keywords gravitational radiation (GR) spacetimes black holes

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2009. Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Koopman, Philip. 1997. “How to Write an Abstract.” Carnegie Mellon University. October 1997. http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/essays/abstract.html .

Lancaster, F.W. 2003. Indexing And Abstracting in Theory and Practice , 3rd ed. London: Facet Publishing.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

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.

Write Abstracts, Literature Reviews, and Annotated Bibliographies: Home

• Abstract Guides & Examples
• Literature Reviews
• Annotated Bibliographies & Examples
• Student Research

What is an Abstract?

An abstract is a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form ; also : something that summarizes or concentrates the essentials of a larger thing or several things. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online)  

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. When used, an abstract always appears at the beginning of a manuscript, acting as the point-of-entry for any given scientific paper or patent application. Abstraction and indexing services are available for a number of academic disciplines, aimed at compiling a body of literature for that particular subject. (Wikipedia)

An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of an article. It allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly. Readers often decide on the basis of the abstract whether to read the entire article. A good abstract should be: ACCURATE --it should reflect the purpose and content of the manuscript. COHERENT --write in clear and concise language. Use the active rather than the passive voice (e.g., investigated instead of investigation of). CONCISE --be brief but make each sentence maximally informative, especially the lead sentence. Begin the abstract with the most important points. The abstract should be dense with information. ( Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association)

Abstract Guidelines

An abstract of a report of an empirical study should describe: (1) the problem under investigation (2) the participants with specific characteristics such as age, sex, ethnic group (3) essential features of the study method (4) basic findings (5) conclusions and implications or applications. An abstract for a literature review or meta-analysis should describe: (1) the problem or relations under investigation (2) study eligibility criteria (3) types of participants (4) main results, including the most important effect sizes, and any important moderators of these effect sizes (5) conclusions, including limitations (6) implications for theory, policy, and practice. An abstract for a theory-oriented paper should describe (1) how the theory or model works and the principles on which it is based and (2) what phenomena the theory or model accounts for and linkages to empirical results. An abstract for a methodological paper should describe (1) the general class of methods being discussed (2) the essential features of the proposed method (3) the range of application of the proposed method (4) in the case of statistical procedures, some of its essential features such as robustness or power efficiency. An abstract for a case study should describe (1) the subject and relevant characteristics of the individual, group, community, or organization presented (2) the nature of or solution to a problem illustrated by the case example (3) questions raised for additional research or theory.

• What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources, and as such, do not report any new or original experimental work.Most often associated with academic-oriented literature, such as a thesis, a literature review usually precedes a research proposal and results section. Its ultimate goal is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms the basis for another goal, such as future research that may be needed in the area.A well-structured literature review is characterized by a logical flow of ideas; current and relevant references with consistent, appropriate referencing style; proper use of terminology; and an unbiased and comprehensive view of the previous research on the topic. (Wikipedia)

Literature Review: An extensive search of the information available on a topic which results in a list of references to books, periodicals, and other materials on the topic. ( Online Library Learning Center Glossary )

"... a literature review uses as its database reports of primary or original scholarship, and does not report new primary scholarship itself. The primary reports used in the literature may be verbal, but in the vast majority of cases reports are written documents. The types of scholarship may be empirical, theoretical, critical/analytic, or methodological in nature. Second a literature review seeks to describe, summarize, evaluate, clarify and/or integrate the content of primary reports."

Cooper, H. M. (1988), "The structure of knowledge synthesis", Knowledge in Society , Vol. 1, pp. 104-126

• Literature Review Guide
• Literature Review Defined

Subject Guide

• Next: Abstract Guides & Examples >>
• Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 4:00 PM
• URL: https://library.geneseo.edu/abstracts

Fraser Hall Library | SUNY Geneseo

Fraser Hall 203

Milne Building Renovation Updates

Connect With Us!

Geneseo Authors Hall preserves over 90 years of scholarly works.

KnightScholar Services facilitates creation of works by the SUNY Geneseo community.

IDS Project is a resource-sharing cooperative.

CIT HelpDesk

Writing learning center (wlc).

Fraser Hall 208

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

Published on 1 March 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022 by Eoghan Ryan.

An abstract is a short summary of a longer work (such as a dissertation or research paper ). The abstract concisely reports the aims and outcomes of your research, so that readers know exactly what your paper is about.

Although the structure may vary slightly depending on your discipline, your abstract should describe the purpose of your work, the methods you’ve used, and the conclusions you’ve drawn.

One common way to structure your abstract is to use the IMRaD structure. This stands for:

• Introduction

Abstracts are usually around 100–300 words, but there’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check the relevant requirements.

In a dissertation or thesis , include the abstract on a separate page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Abstract example, when to write an abstract, step 1: introduction, step 2: methods, step 3: results, step 4: discussion, tips for writing an abstract, frequently asked questions about abstracts.

Hover over the different parts of the abstract to see how it is constructed.

This paper examines the role of silent movies as a mode of shared experience in the UK during the early twentieth century. At this time, high immigration rates resulted in a significant percentage of non-English-speaking citizens. These immigrants faced numerous economic and social obstacles, including exclusion from public entertainment and modes of discourse (newspapers, theater, radio).

Incorporating evidence from reviews, personal correspondence, and diaries, this study demonstrates that silent films were an affordable and inclusive source of entertainment. It argues for the accessible economic and representational nature of early cinema. These concerns are particularly evident in the low price of admission and in the democratic nature of the actors’ exaggerated gestures, which allowed the plots and action to be easily grasped by a diverse audience despite language barriers.

Keywords: silent movies, immigration, public discourse, entertainment, early cinema, language barriers.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

You will almost always have to include an abstract when:

• Completing a thesis or dissertation
• Submitting a research paper to an academic journal
• Writing a book proposal
• Applying for research grants

It’s easiest to write your abstract last, because it’s a summary of the work you’ve already done. Your abstract should:

• Be a self-contained text, not an excerpt from your paper
• Be fully understandable on its own
• Reflect the structure of your larger work

Start by clearly defining the purpose of your research. What practical or theoretical problem does the research respond to, or what research question did you aim to answer?

You can include some brief context on the social or academic relevance of your topic, but don’t go into detailed background information. If your abstract uses specialised terms that would be unfamiliar to the average academic reader or that have various different meanings, give a concise definition.

After identifying the problem, state the objective of your research. Use verbs like “investigate,” “test,” “analyse,” or “evaluate” to describe exactly what you set out to do.

This part of the abstract can be written in the present or past simple tense  but should never refer to the future, as the research is already complete.

• This study will investigate the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.
• This study investigates the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.

Next, indicate the research methods that you used to answer your question. This part should be a straightforward description of what you did in one or two sentences. It is usually written in the past simple tense, as it refers to completed actions.

• Structured interviews will be conducted with 25 participants.
• Structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants.

Don’t evaluate validity or obstacles here — the goal is not to give an account of the methodology’s strengths and weaknesses, but to give the reader a quick insight into the overall approach and procedures you used.

Next, summarise the main research results . This part of the abstract can be in the present or past simple tense.

• Our analysis has shown a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis shows a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis showed a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.

Depending on how long and complex your research is, you may not be able to include all results here. Try to highlight only the most important findings that will allow the reader to understand your conclusions.

Finally, you should discuss the main conclusions of your research : what is your answer to the problem or question? The reader should finish with a clear understanding of the central point that your research has proved or argued. Conclusions are usually written in the present simple tense.

• We concluded that coffee consumption increases productivity.
• We conclude that coffee consumption increases productivity.

If there are important limitations to your research (for example, related to your sample size or methods), you should mention them briefly in the abstract. This allows the reader to accurately assess the credibility and generalisability of your research.

If your aim was to solve a practical problem, your discussion might include recommendations for implementation. If relevant, you can briefly make suggestions for further research.

If your paper will be published, you might have to add a list of keywords at the end of the abstract. These keywords should reference the most important elements of the research to help potential readers find your paper during their own literature searches.

Be aware that some publication manuals, such as APA Style , have specific formatting requirements for these keywords.

It can be a real challenge to condense your whole work into just a couple of hundred words, but the abstract will be the first (and sometimes only) part that people read, so it’s important to get it right. These strategies can help you get started.

Read other abstracts

The best way to learn the conventions of writing an abstract in your discipline is to read other people’s. You probably already read lots of journal article abstracts while conducting your literature review —try using them as a framework for structure and style.

You can also find lots of dissertation abstract examples in thesis and dissertation databases .

Reverse outline

Not all abstracts will contain precisely the same elements. For longer works, you can write your abstract through a process of reverse outlining.

For each chapter or section, list keywords and draft one to two sentences that summarise the central point or argument. This will give you a framework of your abstract’s structure. Next, revise the sentences to make connections and show how the argument develops.

Write clearly and concisely

A good abstract is short but impactful, so make sure every word counts. Each sentence should clearly communicate one main point.

To keep your abstract or summary short and clear:

• Avoid passive sentences: Passive constructions are often unnecessarily long. You can easily make them shorter and clearer by using the active voice.
• Avoid long sentences: Substitute longer expressions for concise expressions or single words (e.g., “In order to” for “To”).
• Avoid obscure jargon: The abstract should be understandable to readers who are not familiar with your topic.
• Avoid repetition and filler words: Replace nouns with pronouns when possible and eliminate unnecessary words.
• Avoid detailed descriptions: An abstract is not expected to provide detailed definitions, background information, or discussions of other scholars’ work. Instead, include this information in the body of your thesis or paper.

If you’re struggling to edit down to the required length, you can get help from expert editors with Scribbr’s professional proofreading services .

Check your formatting

If you are writing a thesis or dissertation or submitting to a journal, there are often specific formatting requirements for the abstract—make sure to check the guidelines and format your work correctly. For APA research papers you can follow the APA abstract format .

Checklist: Abstract

The word count is within the required length, or a maximum of one page.

The abstract appears after the title page and acknowledgements and before the table of contents .

I have clearly stated my research problem and objectives.

I have briefly described my methodology .

I have summarized the most important results .

I have stated my main conclusions .

I have mentioned any important limitations and recommendations.

The abstract can be understood by someone without prior knowledge of the topic.

You've written a great abstract! Use the other checklists to continue improving your thesis or dissertation.

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 summarises the contents of your paper.

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 150–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

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 or paper.

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.

The abstract appears on its own page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/abstract/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction, thesis & dissertation acknowledgements | tips & examples, dissertation title page.

On the scientometric value of full-text, beyond abstracts and titles: evidence from the business and economic literature

• Published: 24 May 2024

Cite this article

• Kevin Riehl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4620-8379 1  

20 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Are abstracts or titles a good proxy for what an article contains? The majority of scientometric studies have used easily accessible representations of publications such as reference and author lists, citations, keywords, titles, and abstracts, rather than full-texts. However, better accessibility to full-text databases is on the rise. First studies employing full-texts are promising, yet the extent to which scientometric exploration of papers beyond title and abstract is beneficial to gain further insights is still under discussion. In this paper, we analyse the similarity between a paper’s title, abstract and full-text and examine whether scientometric analyses should better rely on full-texts. Our dataset includes 66,392 articles published in 27 leading journals in the business administration and economics literature. We examine the use of these representations in textual analysis, topic modelling and research evaluation. The results suggest that, unlike titles, abstracts and full-texts exhibit significant similarities and can be used interchangeably. While, abstracts contain less extraneous information and approximately 30% less noise compared to full-texts in topic modelling, full-text-based models to explain future number of citations yield a 5% higher explanatory power. Additionally, we recommend considering the influence of diverse writing styles as a textual and rhetorical property, as our analysis demonstrates its significant explanatory power for future publication success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Avoiding obscure topics and generalising findings produces higher impact research.

Succinct effect or informative effect: the relationship between title length and the number of citations

Going complex or going easy? The impact of research questions on citations

Data availability.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available on GitHub, and from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

This phenomenon was observed in corporate contexts as well (Suominen et al. 2017 ).

Abstracts are usually between 100 and 250 words long, conditional on the journal’s guidelines.

RePEc is a collaborative project of volunteers that aims to build a decentralised bibliographic database of papers in the field of economics and business studies.

SCIMAGO is a search engine for rankings and additional information about scientific institutions and journals.

JOURQUAL3 is a ranking published by Germany’s most renowned society for economic research (VHB).

Web of Knowledge is one of the biggest online databases providing comprehensive citation data for many different academic disciplines, and currently part of ISI, which is owned by Thomson Reuters.

EconBiz is an academic search portal for journals in business studies and economics.

Inflection is the modification of a word to adjust it to the grammatical rules of a language (e.g., ‘playing’, ‘plays’, and ‘played’ all share the meaning of ‘play’). Since LDA considers the frequency of distinct words it is necessary to reduce inflections back to their root meaning – which is commonly known as stemming.

N-grams are N words taken together. Since LDA does not consider the order but only the frequency of words, important terms (such as ‘competitive advantage’, N  = 2) should be counted as one.

The Python package tomotopy provides types and functions for various topic models including LDA, DMR, HDP, MG-LDA, PA, and HPA ( https://bab2min.github.io/tomotopy/v0.5.1/en/ ) .

Adam D (2002) The counting house. Nature 415(6873):726–729. https://doi.org/10.1038/415726a

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad H, Yaqub M, Lee SH (2023) Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends. Environ Dev Sustain 26:2965–2987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-02921-x

Akpan IJ (2021) Scientometric evaluation and visual analytics of the scientific literature production on entrepreneurship, small business ventures, and innovation. J Small Bus Entrep 33(6):717–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2020.1786229

Anagnostou NK, Weir GR (2006) From corpus-based collocation frequencies to readability measure. In: ICT in the Analysis, Teaching and Learning of Languages, Preprints of the ICTATLL Workshop 2006 , 33–46. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/2381/

Antons D, Kleer R, Salge TO (2016) Mapping the topic landscape of JPIM, 1984–2013: in search of hidden structures and development trajectories. J Prod Innov Manag 33(6):726–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12300

Antons D, Joshi AM, Salge TO (2019) Content, contribution, and knowledge consumption: uncovering hidden topic structure and rhetorical signals in scientific texts. J Manag 45(7):3035–3076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318774619

Armstrong JS (1980) Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces 10(2):80–86. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.10.2.80

Arun R, Suresh V, Madhavan CV, Murthy MN (2010) On finding the natural number of topics with latent dirichlet allocation: Some observations. In: Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13657-3_43

Astley WG (1985) Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Adm Sci Q. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392694

Aziz S, Dowling M, Hammami H, Piepenbrink A (2022) Machine learning in finance: a topic modeling approach. Eur Financ Manag 28(3):744–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12326

Baheti SS, Lenka U (2023) A scientometric evaluation of international journal of business innovation and research:(2006–2019). Int J Bus Innov Res 30(3):283–322. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2023.129362

Baier P, Berninger M, Kiesel F (2020) Environmental, social and governance reporting in annual reports: a textual analysis. Financ Mark Inst Instrum 29(3):93–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/fmii.12132

Bailey J, Ford C (1996) Management as science versus management as practice in postgraduate business education. Bus Strateg Rev 7(4):7–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.1996.tb00136.x

Baldi S (1998) Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: a network-analytic model. Am Sociol Rev. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657504

Ball R (2009) Scholarly communication in transition: the use of question marks in the titles of scientific articles in medicine, life sciences and physics 1966–2005. Scientometrics 79(3):667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1984-5

Balz T (2022) Scientometric full-text analysis of papers published in remote sensing between 2009 and 2021. Remote Sens 14(17):4285. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14174285

Barker K (2007) The UK research assessment exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Res Eval 16(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X190674

Baumgartner H, Pieters R (2003) The structural influence of marketing journals: a citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. J Mark 67(2):123–139. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.123.1861

Bavelas JB (1978) The social psychology of citations. Can Psychol Rev/psychologie Canadienne 19(2):158. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081472

Bayer A (1982) A bibliometric analysis of marriage and family literature. J Marriage Fam 44(3):527–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/351577

Bergh DD, Perry J, Hanke R (2006) Some predictors of SMJ article impact. Strateg Manag J 27(1):81–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.504

Berninger M, Kiesel F, Schiereck D, Gaar E (2021) Citations and the readers’ information-extracting costs of finance articles. J Bank Financ 131:106188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106188

Bhardwaj RK (2016) Scientometric analysis and dimensions on international business literature. Scientometrics 106:299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1777-1

Blei DM, Lafferty JD (2007) A correlated topic model of science. Ann Appl Stat 1(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-AOAS114

Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022. https://doi.org/10.5555/944919.944937

Blei D, Carin L, Dunson D (2010) Probabilistic topic models. IEEE Signal Process Mag 27(6):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2010.938079

Blei DM, Lafferty JD (2006) Dynamic topic models. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, ACM, 23, pp 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143859

Boyack KW, Klavans R, Börner K (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64(3):351–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0255-6

Briggs LC (2014) Text complexity and readability measures: an examination of historical trends. Middle Tenessee State University . https://www.academia.edu/30184041

Cao J, Xia T, Li J, Zhang Y, Tang S (2009) A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing 72(7–9):1775–1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2008.06.011

Card D, DellaVigna S (2013) Nine facts about top journals in economics. J Econ Lit 51(1):144–161. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.144

Cole JR, Cole S (1972) The Ortega hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. Science 178(4059):368–375. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4059.368

Cole JR, Cole S (1977) Social stratification in science. Am J Sociol 83(2):491–492. https://doi.org/10.1086/226571

Colquitt JA, Zapata-Phelan CP (2007) Trends in theory building and theory testing: a five-decade study of the academy of management journal. Acad Manag J 50(6):1281–1303. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28165855

Corsi M, D’Ippoliti C, Lucidi F (2010) Pluralism at risk? Heterodox economic approaches and the evaluation of economic research in Italy. Am J Econ Sociol 69(5):1495–1529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2010.00754.x

Crawford L, Pollack J, England D (2006) Uncovering the trends in project management: journal emphases over the last 10 years. Int J Project Manag 24(2):175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.005

Dai R, Donohue L, Drechsler Q, Jiang W (2023) Dissemination, publication, and impact of finance research: when novelty meets conventionality. Rev Financ 27(1):79–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac018

Dale E, Chall JS (1948) A formula for predicting readability: instructions. Educ Res Bull 27(2):37–54

Google Scholar  

Damaševičius R, Zailskaitė-Jakštė L (2023) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on researcher collaboration in business and economics areas on national level: a scientometric analysis. J Doc 79(1):183–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2022-0030

Van Dalen HP, Henkens K, Schippers J (2009) Dealing with older workers in Europe: acomparative survey of employers' attitudes and actions. J Eur Soc Policy 19(1):47–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928708098523

Deveaud R, SanJuan E, Bellot P (2014) Accurate and effective latent concept modeling for ad hoc information retrieval. Doc Numér 17(1):61–84. https://doi.org/10.3166/DN.17.1.61-84

Domschke W, Drexl A, Klein R, Scholl A (2015) Einführung in operations research, 9th edn. Springer Gabler, Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48216-2

Book   Google Scholar  

Duriau VJ, Reger RK, Pfarrer MD (2007) A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organ Res Methods 10(1):5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289252

Fahrmeir L, Künstler R, Pigeot I, Tutz G (2007) Der Weg zur Datenanalyse. Aufl, Hei-delberg

Fleck L (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv/Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Benno Schwabe & Co, Basel. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html

Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32(3):221. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532

Fox CW, Burns CS (2015) The relationship between manuscript title structure and success: editorial decisions and citation performance for an ecological journal. Ecol Evol 5(10):1970–1980. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1480

Garfield E (1972) Mapping the structure of science. Citation indexing: its theory and applications in science. Technol Humanit 2(1):98–147

Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods 16(1):15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

Glänzel W, Moed HF, Schmoch U, Thelwall M (eds) (2019) Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Springer, Cham, p 850. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3

Glenisson P, Glänzel W, Persson O (2005a) Combining full-text analysis and bibliometric indicators. A pilot study. Scientometrics 63(1):163–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0208-0

Glenisson P, Glänzel W, Janssens F, De Moor B (2005b) Combining full text and bibliometric information in mapping scientific disciplines. Inf Process Manag 41(6):1548–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.021

Google Scholar Database (2020) https://scholar.google.com/

Gordon RA, Howell JE (1959) Higher education for business. J Bus Educ 35(3):115–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1959.10116245

Griffiths TL, Steyvers M (2004) Finding scientific topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101(suppl. 1):5228–5235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307752101

Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, New York

Gurcan F, Ayaz A, Menekse Dalveren GG, Derawi M (2023) Business intelligence strategies, best practices, and latest trends: analysis of scientometric data from 2003 to 2023 using machine learning. Sustainability 15(13):9854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139854

Hannigan T, Haans RFJ, Vakili K, Tchalian H, Glaser V, Wang M, Jennings PD (2019) Topic modeling in management research: rendering new theory from textual data. Acad Manag Ann 13(2):586–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099

Harvard H-IV dictionary (2009) http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~inquirer/homecat.htm

Hassan SU, Imran M, Iqbal S, Aljohani NR, Nawaz R (2018) Deep context of citations using machine-learning models in scholarly full-text articles. Scientometrics 117:1645–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2944-y

Huang MH, Chang YW (2008) Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: from a research evaluation perspective. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(11):1819–1828. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20885

Iqbal S, Hassan SU, Aljohani NR, Alelyani S, Nawaz R, Bornmann L (2021) A decade of in-textcitation analysis based on natural language processing and machine learning techniques: an overview of empirical studies. Scientometrics 126(8):6551–6599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04055-1

Jamali HR, Nabavi M (2015) Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics 105:1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2

Jamali HR, Nikzad M (2011) Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics 88(2):653–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z

Jin Y, Song X, Tang J, Dong X, Ji H (2021) Business model of garment enterprises: a scientometric review. Text Res J 91(13–14):1609–1626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517520985908

Johnson MS (2003) Designating opponents in empirical research reports: the rhetoric of ‘interestingness’ in consumer research. Mark Theory 3(4):477–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593103040783

Judge TA, Cable DM, Colbert AE, Rynes SL (2007) What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal? Acad Manag J 50(3):491–506. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525577

Kessler M (1963) An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers (Corresp.). IEEE Trans Inf Theory 9(1):49–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1963.1057800

Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Technical report, Naval Technical Training CommandMillington TN Research Branch. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA006655

Klarin A, Suseno Y (2021) A state-of-the-art review of the sharing economy: scientometric mapping of the scholarship. J Bus Res 126:250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.063

Knorr-Cetina K (1981) The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Pergamon Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-09537-3

Krippendorff K (1980) Validity in content analysis. Chapter 3, 69–112 in Computerstrategien für die Kommunikationsanalyse, Frankfurt/New York, Campus. ISBN: 3–593–32603–5. https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/1940

Krippendorff K (1989) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. ISBN: 9781506395661. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Kuhn HW (1955) The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Res Logist Q 2(1–2):83–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800020109

LaQuatra M, Cagliero L, Baralis E (2021) Leveraging full-text article exploration for citation analysis. Scientometrics 126(10):8275–8293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04117-4

Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bbxc

Leydesdorff L, Milojevič S (2015) Scientometrics. In: James D. Wright (editors-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition), Section 8.5: Science and Technology Studies, Subsection 85030. Micheal Lynch (ed.), Oxford: Elsevier, 21, 322–327.

Li C, Jin Y, Homapour E (2023) A scientometric review of hotspots and emerging trends in sustainable business model. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18446

Liesch PW, Håkanson L, McGaughey SL, Middleton S, Cretchley J (2011) The evolution of the international business field: a scientometric investigation of articles published in its premier journal. Scientometrics 88(1):17–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0372-3

Liu J, Li X, Wang S (2020) What have we learnt from 10 years of fintech research? A scientometric analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120022

Locke K, Golden-Biddle K (1997) Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Acad Manag J 40(5):1023–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/256926

Locke KD (2001) Grounded theory in management research. Sage. ISBN: 9–780–76196–427–8. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024428

Loughran T, McDonald B (2014) Measuringreadability in financial disclosures. J Finan 69(4):1643–1671. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12162

Lowry PB, Romans D, Curtis AM (2004) Global journal prestige and supporting disciplines: a scientometric study of information systems journals. J Assoc Inf Syst (JAIS) 5(2):29–80. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00045

Lowry PB, Humpherys SL, Malwitz J, Nix J (2007) A scientometric study of the perceived quality of business and technical communication journals. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 50(4):352–378. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2007.908733

MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR (1989) Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J Am Soc Inf Sci 40(5):342–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198909)40:5%3c342::AID-ASI7%3e3.0.CO;2-U

Malin MV (1968) Science citation index-a new concept in indexing. Libr Trends 16(3):374

Marshakova IV (1973) A system of document links constructed on the basis of citations (according to the" Science Citation Index"). Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatisiya: Sci Tech Inf Process 2:49–57

Maulana FI, Purnomo A, Pratama FC, Widartha VP, Arifuddin R (2022) Scientometric analysis of digital entrepreneurship through bibliometric visualizing in the last 10 years. In: 7th North American international conference on industrial engineering and operations management 2022 Jun 11. https://doi.org/10.46254/NA07.20220234

McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J Read 12(8):639–646

Merton RK (1942) Die normative Struktur der Wissenschaft. Aufsätze zur Wissen-schaftssoziologie (1942/1949). In: Ders., Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftssoziologie. Mit einer Einleitung von Nico Stehr. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985, pp 86–99.

Mingers J, Xu F (2010) The drivers of citations in management science journals. Eur J Oper Res 205(2):422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.12.008

Mingers J, Yang L (2017) Evaluating journal quality: a review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management. Eur J Oper Res 257(1):323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.07.058

Monastersky R (2005) The number that’s devouring science. In: Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(8), pp 14. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-number-thats-devouring-science/

Morales-Parragué M, Araya-Castillo L, Molina-Luque F, Moraga-Flores H (2022) Scientometric analysis of research on corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 14(4):2291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042291

Morris TA, McCain KW (1998) The structure of medical informatics journal literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc 5(5):448–466. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1998.0050448

Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Corera-Álvarez E, Munoz-Fernández F (2004) A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics 61(1):129–145. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000037368.31217.34

Mustak M, Salminen J, Plé L, Wirtz J (2021) Artificial intelligence in marketing: topic modeling, scientometric analysis, and research agenda. J Bus Res 124:389–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.044

Nadi-Ravandi S, Batooli Z (2022) Gamification in education: a scientometric, content and co-occurrenceanalysis of systematic review and meta-analysis articles. Educ Inf Technol 27(7):10207–10238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11048-x

Nerkar A, Lahiri N (2014) The duality of knowledge networks: the impact of production and usage networks on academic citations. In: Understanding the relationship between networks and technology, creativity and innovation, Technology, innovation, entrepreneurship and competitive strategy, 13, pp 165-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-067X(2013)0000013009

Nerur S, Rasheed AA, Pandey A (2016) Citation footprints on the sands of time: an analysis of idea migrations in strategic management. Strateg Manag J 37(6):1065–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2377

Newman D, Asuncion A, Smyth P, Welling M (2009) Distributed algorithms for topic models. J Mach Learn Res 10:1801–1828

Patra BC, Lenka U (2023) Scientometric, fuzzy NGT and DEMATEL analysis for determining sustainable business practices for entrepreneurial firms. Benchmarking Int J 31(1):162–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2022-0091

Pauly D, Stergiou KI (2005) Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI’s citation index and Google’s Scholar service. Ethics Sci Environ Politics 5(1):33–35

Pennebaker JW, Boyd RL, Jordan K, Blackburn K (2007) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. https://www.liwc.net

Peters HPF, van Raan AF (1994) A bibliometric profile of top-scientists a case study in chemical engineering. Scientometrics 29(1):115–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018386

Pfeffer J, Fong CT (2002) The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Acad Manag Learn Educ 1(1):78–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.7373679

Phelan SE, Ferreira M, Salvador R (2002) The first twenty years of the strategic management journal. Strateg Manag J 23(12):1161–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.268

Pierson FC (1959) The education of American businessmen. J Bus Educ 35(3):114–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1959.10116244

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Bachrach DG, Podsakoff NP (2005) The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strateg Manag J 26(5):473–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.454

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, Bachrach DG (2008) Scholarly influence in the field of management: a bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. J Manag 34(4):641–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533

Porter MF (1980) An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14(3):130–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb046814/

Price DJDS (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 149(3683):510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510

Ravikumar S, Agrahari A, Singh SN (2015) Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: a co word analysis of the journal scientometrics (2005–2010). Scientometrics 102:929–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1402-8

Rojas-Lamorena ÁJ, Del Barrio-García S, Alcántara-Pilar JM (2022) A review of three decades of academic research on brand equity: a bibliometric approach using co-word analysis and bibliographic coupling. J Bus Res 139:1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.025

Rowlett RJ Jr (1985) Abstracts and other information filters. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 25(3):159–163. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci00047a005

Safder I, Hassan SU (2019) Bibliometric-enhanced information retrieval: a novel deep feature engineering approach for algorithm searching from full-text publications. Scientometrics 119(3):257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03025-y

Sagi I, Yechiam E (2008) Amusing titles in scientific journals and article citation. J Inf Sci 34(5):680–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515070862

Saini N, Singhania M, Yadav MP, Hasan M, Abedin MZ (2022) Non-financial disclosures and sustainable development: a scientometric analysis. J Clean Prod 381(1):135173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135173

Smith P (1990) Killing the spirit: higher education in America. Viking Penguin Publishing, New York. ISBN: 0–14–012183–8. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED334937

Snizek WE, Oehler K, Mullins NC (1991) Textual and nontextual characteristics of scientific papers: neglected science indicators. Scientometrics 20(1):25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018141

Song M, Kim SY (2013) Detecting the knowledge structure of bioinformatics by mining full-text collections. Scientometrics 96:183–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0900-9

Stewart JA (1983) Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles. Soc Forces 62(1):166–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/62.1.166

Stone B, Dennis S, Kwantes PJ (2010) Comparing methods for document similarity analysis. Top Cogn Sci 3(1):92–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01108.x

Stremersch S, Verniers I, Verhoef PC (2007) The quest for citations: drivers of article impact. J Mark 71(3):171–193. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.171

Sullivan D, Nerur SP, Balijepally V (2011) Source or storer? IB’s performance in a knowledge network. J Int Bus Stud 42(3):446–457. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.56

Suominen A, Toivanen H, Seppänen M (2017) Firms’ knowledge profiles: mapping patent data with unsupervised learning. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 115:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.028

Tahai A, Meyer MJ (1999) A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strateg Manag J 20(3):279–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199903)20:3%3c279::AID-SMJ33%3e3.0.CO;2-2

Tan L, Ding J (2015) The frontier and evolution of the strategic management theory: a scientometric analysis of strategic management journal, 2001–2012. Nankai Bus Rev Int 6(1):20–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-09-2014-0036

Tausczik YR, Pennebaker JW (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Soc Psychol 29(1):24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676

Thelwall M, Wilson P (2014) Regression for citation data: an evaluation of different methods. J Informet 8(4):963–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.011

Wang X, Bendle NT, Mai F, Cotte J (2015) The journal of consumer research at 40: a historical analysis. J Consum Res 42(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv009

Web of Science (2020). https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/

Wei F, Zhang G (2020) Exploring the intellectual structure and evolution of 24 top business journals: a scientometric analysis. Electron Libr 38(3):493–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2019-0279

Weingart P (2005) Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics 62(1):117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7

Whissell C (1999) Linguistic complexity of abstracts and titles in highly cited journals. Percept Mot Skills 88(1):76–86. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.76

White HD, McCain KW (1998) Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J Am Soc Inf Sci 49(4):327–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(19980401)49:4%3c327::AID-ASI4%3e3.0.CO;2-4

Wuehrer GA, Smejkal AE (2013) The knowledge domain of the academy of international business studies (AIB) conferences: a longitudinal scientometric perspective for the years 2006–2011. Scientometrics 95:541–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0909-0

Young L, Wilkinson I, Smith A (2015) A scientometric analysis of publications in the journal of business-to-business marketing 1993–2014. J Bus Bus Mark 22(1–2):111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2015.1021591

Zhang H, Giles CL, Foley HC, Yen J (2007) Probabilistic community discovery using hierarchical latent gaussian mixture model. In AAAI'07: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence 2007, pp 663–668. https://doi.org/10.5555/1619645.1619752

Zhou L, Zhang L, Zhao Y, Zheng R, Song K (2021) A scientometric review of blockchain research. Inf Syst e-Bus Manag 19(1):757–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-020-00461-9

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Florian Kiesel, Christian Resch, Kevin Boyack, and Alexander Kock for their helpful suggestions and encouraging support through the early stages of this paper.

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chair of Corporate Finance, Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany

Kevin Riehl

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Riehl .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Tables 12 , 13 and 14 .

A simplified explanation of how LDA works is depicted here. As input, LDA receives a text corpus, and as a result delivers two matrices—(1) topic-word distribution and (2) document-topic distribution (Antons et al. 2019 ). At first, the words of all texts are added to a list and duplicates are removed, resulting in a list of all unique words of the corpus called dictionary. Then, the number of times words of the dictionary appear in each document are determined, and stored into a matrix. Based on this, a probabilistic, Dirichlet distributed model is estimated and topics are determined. The resulting topic-word distribution matrix outlines the probability a certain word in the dictionary is part of a certain topic. This can be used to determine a list of the most frequent words for each topic. The resulting document-topic distribution matrix represents the probability a certain topic is assigned to a document. This distribution can be used to determine a list of possible documents that are part of a topic, or the other way around.

See Fig.  3 .

Process of Latent Dirichlet allocation (simplified)

See Table  15 .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Riehl, K. On the scientometric value of full-text, beyond abstracts and titles: evidence from the business and economic literature. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00439-8

Download citation

Received : 26 February 2024

Accepted : 22 April 2024

Published : 24 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00439-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scientometrics
• Topic modelling
• Latent Dirichlet allocation
• Textual analysis
• Natural language processing

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research