lit review in a research paper

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Brazil’s plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers

Career News 21 MAY 24

How religious scientists balance work and faith

Career Feature 20 MAY 24

How to set up your new lab space

Career Column 20 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

Postdoctoral Fellow

New Orleans, Louisiana

Tulane University School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate - Immunology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Associate

Vice president, nature communications portfolio.

This is an exciting opportunity to play a key leadership role in the market-leading journal Nature Portfolio and help drive its overall contribution.

New York City, New York (US), Berlin, or Heidelberg

Springer Nature Ltd

Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Senior Postdoctoral Research Fellow required to lead exciting projects in Cancer Cell Cycle Biology and Cancer Epigenetics.

Melbourne University, Melbourne (AU)

University of Melbourne & Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

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.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

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

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 21, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Literature Reviews

• 1. Define your research question
• Getting started
• Types of reviews

Define topic

Brainstorming, limit scope, how ai can help, helpful resources.

• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Mission animated icons created by Freepik - Flaticon

For example, the following research question is too broad.

Does social media affect mental health in college students?

A more focused research question could be:

Does social media play a role in the number of eating disorder diagnoses in college-aged women?

Need some guidance? Contact your subject librarian for a research consultation or reach out to [email protected] .

Start the brainstorming process:

• Begin by identifying a broad topic of research interest (the more you're personally interested in it, the better!). Write it down to clarify your focus.
• Narrow down your scope  by considering specific areas within this topic that you want to explore.
• Identify key themes and elements  related to these specific areas. These will be the building blocks of your investigation.
• Finally,  integrate these key areas and elements  into a well-crafted research question.

One way to brainstorm is to use a flowchart.

The scope of a topic  encompasses the boundaries and constraints you set for your research. The more precise your research question, the smoother the research process becomes.

Feeling stuck? Here are some ways you can narrow down your topic:

• geographic location
• time period
• discipline/field of study
• age group, etc.

You:  I need to conduct a literature review about social media, mental health, and college students. What are some example research questions within this topic?

ChatGPT: 

• How does the frequency and nature of social media use impact the mental health of college students?
• What role do specific social media platforms play in influencing the mental well-being of college students?
• How do online social interactions on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter relate to the mental health outcomes of college students?
• Are there differences in the association between social media use and mental health outcomes based on demographic factors such as gender, age, or academic major among college students?
• What strategies do college students employ to cope with negative mental health effects associated with social media use?
• How does the perception of social support through online platforms affect the mental health of college students?
• To what extent does the comparison of oneself to others on social media contribute to mental health challenges among college students?
• What interventions or educational programs are effective in promoting positive mental health behaviors in the context of social media use for college students?
• How do social media literacy and awareness programs impact the mental health attitudes and behaviors of college students?
• What is the relationship between the use of social media for academic and social purposes and the mental health outcomes of college students?

Generative AI tools : ChatGPT , Google Gemini (formerly Bard) , Claude , Microsoft Copilot

For more information on how to incorporate AI tools into your research, check out the section on AI Tools .

• Developing Your Research Question
• Developing a Researchable Question
• Brainstorming tips from UNC Writing Center
• << Previous: Types of reviews
• Next: 2. Plan your search >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

The Linkage Between Digital Transformation and Organizational Culture: Novel Machine Learning Literature Review Based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation

• Open access
• Published: 21 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Tobias Reisberger   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-0190-7368 1 ,
• Philip Reisberger   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-4678-4151 1 ,
• Lukáš Copuš   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9502-830X 1 ,
• Peter Madzík   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1655-6500 1 &
• Lukáš Falát   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2597-7059 2  

Organizational culture is a crucial component of innovation in company success, particularly in the setting of the information economy. The purpose of this research is to conduct a bibliometric analysis in order to identify dominant research topics, their potential shifts, and recent developments in the fields of organizational culture and digital transformation. It demonstrates a machine learning–supported method for identifying and segmenting the current state of this research field. The literature was identified from the Scopus database through a search query. The analyzed amount of papers (3065) was published in 1619 sources (journals, proceedings, books, etc.) with various research impacts. Identifying the dominant research topics resulted in eight topics: Social Media Connectivity; Digital Innovation Ecosystems; Socio-economic Sustainability; Digital Workforce Transformation; Digital Competence and Cultural Transformation; Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation; Data and Resource Management; and Digital Transformation Maturity. The results showed a shift in the research field on organizational culture related to digital transformation towards the subject area of business, management, and accounting, with increasing research interest and impact for the Digital Workforce Transformation as well as for the Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation topics.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In recent years, the world has gone through many events that have changed how we live, relax, work, or communicate. These changes are still resonating in the business environment, for example, in the transition to partial or complete work from home and bring several challenges that organizations have to deal with (Yang et al., 2023 ). One of the crucial areas is the socialization of employees and the formation and maintenance of organizational values expressed by the organizational culture (Noto et al., 2023 ).

Organizational culture has been well-researched since the early 1980s (O’Reilly et al., 1991 ; Schein, 1985 ). The focus originated in American-based qualitative studies and shifted over time towards a more international perspective (Cameron & Quinn, 1999 ; Denison & Mishra, 1995 ; Hofstede, 1998 ), as well as adopting a more quantitative viewpoint with many published papers (O’Reilly et al., 2014 ). Several different areas of organizational culture have already been analyzed, including performance, motivation, leadership, and innovation, among many others (Affes & Affes, 2022 ; Aasi & Rusu, 2017 ; Abu Bakar et al., 2021 ). One of the up-to-date research areas is the topic of digitalization.

The advent of automation and digitalization and the resulting digital transformation in recent history have significantly impacted many markets and organizations and influenced the behaviors and expectations of customers. Digital transformation is driven by several external factors, including the rapid growth and adoption of new technologies that foster e-commerce, big data, a changing competitive landscape, and altered consumption behavior, driven by better-informed, connected, and more empowered customers (Verhoef et al., 2021 ). It provides many challenges and opportunities, including relevant impacts on organizational culture (Alloghani et al., 2022 ). In recent years, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant influence on organizational culture (Daum & Maraist, 2021 ; Spicer, 2020 ).

Even before the pandemic, the fast development of digital technologies, including automation, smart technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and robots, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things (IoT) is radically altering the nature of work and of organizations (Nimawat & Gidwani, 2021 ). The combination of technological advancements was coined as the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 by Klaus Schwab in late 2015 (Schwab, 2015 ). The speed and scope of current technological changes are prompting concerns about the extent to which new technologies will fundamentally alter organizational cultures, workplaces, or completely replace workers (Acemoglu & Autor, 2011 ; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014 ; Frey & Osborne, 2017 ).

These Industry 4.0 developments and an agile workforce are all components of a global digital transformation that changed the workplace dynamics and led to significant changes in organizations and employee behavior. Due to the unexpected interruption brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, working from anywhere has become the new standard for millions of people worldwide (Özkazanç-Pan & Pullen, 2020 ).

The combination of these two driving forces will have a lasting effect on the formation and effectiveness of organizational culture in the future (Kniffin et al., 2021 ; Trenerry et al., 2021 ). However, the number and range of publications in recent years on organizational culture, digital transformation, Industry 4.0, and COVID-19 make it necessary to provide a structured overview of the published literature.

Firstly, this paper shall give an overview of the research being conducted on organizational culture and digital transformation and identify the main research areas, authors and journals. The methods utilized are outlined, along with the applied bibliometric tools. Secondly, this paper aims to provide an overview of the status quo of research by identifying the different research clusters with its critical analysis.

Literature Review

Research on organizational culture and digital transformation.

Over time, the concept of organizational culture has been the center of attention for many researchers. It has been the main focus of study of several scientific works, especially in management and business (Mohelska & Sokolova, 2018 ; Streimikiene et al., 2021 ; Vallejo, 2011 ).

The concept of organizational culture has been studied from different angles, with researchers exploring the role that organizational culture can play and which factors impact organizational culture (Guzal-Dec, 2016 ; Polyanska et al., 2019 ; Zeng & Luo, 2013 ).

A high number of researchers agree with Schein’s ( 1985 ) model, which asserts that there are three levels at which an organizational culture may be conceptualized: fundamental presumptions and beliefs, norms and values, and cultural artifacts (Chatman & O’Reilly, 2016 ). From the perspective of the organization and its working environment, organizational culture emerges from behavior in which basic assumptions and beliefs are shared and seen as given by organizational members (Schein, 1985 ).

Academics primarily focused on organizational culture’s definition, connotation, structural components and type categorization in the 1980s; most of this research was qualitative (Cui et al., 2018 ). Even though there was no universal agreement on the meanings of organizational culture at the time, Schein’s framework (Schein, 1992 ) was somewhat representational in the academic world. Research on organizational culture then evolved from mainly qualitative research to quantitative studies in the 1990s (Cameron & Quinn, 1999 ; Denison & Mishra, 1995 ; Hofstede, 1998 , 2001 ; O’Reilly et al., 2014 ). According to Cui et al. ( 2018 ), contemporary views of organizational culture are seen as a key factor for success, promoting organizational effectiveness and performance (Gregory et al., 2009 ), organizational innovation (Hogan & Coote, 2014 ), and organizational identity (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006 ). Organizational culture is now considered a key component of innovation in company success, particularly in the setting of the information economy (Büschgens et al., 2013 ). Cartwright identifies nine relevant factors that drive the cultural transformation in organizations that enable successful business practices (Cartwright, 1999 ).

Organizational culture has two basic academic foundations: sociology (organizations have culture) and anthropology (organizations are cultures). The sociological position has become dominant in recent years (Cameron & Quinn, 1999 ). Based on this, there are two opposing viewpoints regarding the possibility of managing organizational culture — the functionalist and symbolist view (Schueber, 2009 ). The functionalist perspective regards culture as an organizational variable (Alvesson, 1993 ), and it can be determined by management (Meek, 1988 ; Silverzweig & Allen, 1976 ). According to the functionalist perspective, culture is seen as something that the organization possesses and can be controlled (Barley et al., 1988 ; Smircich, 1983 ). The symbolist viewpoint regards culture as a representation of what an organization is rather than anything it has . This implies major challenges in controlling or managing organizational culture (Morgan, 1986 ; Smircich, 1983 ). Functionalists would argue that the culture should be changed to fit the strategy, whereas symbolists would propose that the strategy should be adjusted to the organization’s culture (Ogbonna, 1992 ; Senior, 1997 ). In this paper, the functionalist view is supported by implications of the results.

Digitalization is defined as “the transformation of business models as a result of fundamental changes to core internal processes, customer interfaces, products and services, as well as the use of information and communications technologies” (Isensee et al., 2020 ). However, digitalization and digital transformation are quite different. A company may embark on several digitalization initiatives, from automating procedures to retraining staff members to utilize computers. On the other hand, businesses cannot conduct digital transformation as projects. Instead, this more general phrase refers to a client-centered strategic business transformation that calls for adopting digital technology and organizational changes across all departments (Verhoef et al., 2021 ).

An executive’s view that does not distinguish between digitalization and digital transformation could lead to an insufficient strategic focus (Li & Shao, 2023 ). Digital transformation efforts will often involve several digitalization projects, which require management sponsorship and the willingness to change existing structures and practices. Various papers have studied the challenges that may arise from organizational culture when adopting new technologies and structures, e.g., agile practices (Anwar et al., 2016 ; Ghimire et al., 2020 ; Raharjo & Purwandari, 2020 ), technology adoption (Melitski et al., 2010 ), or even Green Supply Chain Management (El Baz & Iddik, 2021 ). As the business becomes primarily customer-driven, digital transformation necessitates improving how well the organization manages change (Anghel, 2019 ).

Industry 4.0 began in the twenty-first century with the development of cyber-physical systems (CPS), the Internet of Things (IoT), the Internet of Services, smart factories, and cloud computing. It continues today (Hermann et al., 2016 ; Kagermann et al., 2013 ; Liao et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2018 ). It is characterized as a combination of CPS and IoT in the manufacturing industry, which can have repercussions for value creation, company growth, work organization, and downstream businesses (Kagermann et al., 2013 ; Kiel et al., 2017 ). The advent of Industry 4.0 involves significant changes for organizations and societies and has various effects on nations, businesses, industries, and society (Schwab, 2015 ). Industry 4.0 implementation is a complicated process involving horizontal, vertical and seamless integration and will rely on the synergies between the business and stakeholders from many functional domains (Müller, 2019a , 2019b ; Wang et al., 2016 ). In particular, many organizations fail to capture their Industry 4.0 vision and strategy throughout the change process (Schumacher et al., 2016a ). Other important factors that hinder the application of a successful digital transformation towards a functional Industry 4.0 concept are fear of uncertainty and wrong expectation of requirements (Balasingham, 2016 ). Willingness to adopt this technology is another reason to fail (Adebanjo et al., 2021 ). Organizations aiming to incorporate and adopt digital transformation into their operational procedures must recognize and assess important critical factors (Nimawat & Gidwani, 2021 ).

Organizational communication and collaboration styles have changed due to globalization, advancements in information and communication technologies (ICTs), an increase in hybrid work models and the rise of computer-mediated groups (Sharma et al., 2022 ). With the knowledge economy, digital culture, and recent technological innovations, new working styles have quietly emerged in organizations (Powell et al., 2004 ). Then, the spreading of the coronavirus and the required shift in transition to remote working acted as a catalyst for how organizations operate and employees engage. The drastic changes in the workplace naturally affected employees and spurred changes in their behavior and attitudes (Caligiuri et al., 2020 ). The corresponding research topic of COVID-19-related impacts and the implications on digital transformation in the context of organizational culture is relatively new. Many partial aspects that have gained new relevance during the corona pandemic have already received attention in the research community over the past 20 years.

Therefore, this study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis in order to identify dominant research topics, their potential shifts, and recent developments in the fields of organizational culture and digital transformation. The most significant research articles or authors and their related relationships can be found using the scientific computer-aided review process known as bibliometric analysis. It can help to forecast the possible direction of such identified fields and is widely applied in academic research (Diem & Wolter, 2013 ). This method aids in providing a thorough overview of the subject as well as visually summarizing its patterns and trends (Baker et al., 2020 ; Zhou et al., 2020 ).

Overview of Bibliometric Reviews

The topic of organizational culture has had a large number of contributors in the past decades. Several articles were published on organizational culture as bibliometric studies (Cicea et al., 2022 ). Only a few reviews were conducted on digital transformation in organizations related to organizational culture (e.g., as digitalization). Table 1 lists a few publications on these topics.

Overview of Systematic Reviews

Apart from bibliometric literature reviews, many authors have conducted systematic literature reviews on various research areas relating to organizational culture and digital transformation. As seen in the following non-conclusive overview in Table  2 and Table  3 , researchers have focused their attention on heterogeneous study fields like performance-orientation, entrepreneurship, Industry 4.0, agile practices, work-from-anywhere, SMEs, and many others. This broad overview indicates that the topic of organizational culture plays a very relevant role in recent research, especially in the context of digital transformation.

The provided overview on digital transformation research mainly focuses on functional areas and its application. The center of research is the implementation, readiness, adoption, as well as barriers, opportunities, and challenges. Additionally, research fields like examining potential directions (Belinski et al., 2020 ; Kamble et al., 2018 ; Pagliosa et al., 2019 ; Piccarozzi et al., 2018 ; Schneider, 2018 ; Sony & Naik, 2020 ); implementation, readiness and adoption (Çınar et al., 2021 ; Pacchini et al., 2019 ; Sung & Kim, 2021 ); barriers, opportunities, and challenges to the adoption and implementation of Industry 4.0 (Bajic et al., 2021 ; Raj et al., 2020 ); and sustainability (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018 ; Luthra & Mangla, 2018 ) are analyzed.

The main focus areas, among many others, which are influenced by digital transformation are agile and collaborative teamwork and management (Kerber & Buono, 2004 ; Huang et al., 2003 ; Sheppard, 2020 ; Parry & Battista, 2019 ; Singer-Velush et al. 2020 ; Hamouche, 2020 ), adaptive business culture in dynamic , supportive , environments , with focus on employee well-being , work design , open innovation , workforce effectiveness (Am et al., 2020 ; Ngoc Su et al., 2021 ; Baker et al., 2006 ; Žižek et al., 2021 ; Parry & Battista, 2019 ; Bélanger et al., 2013 ; Carnevale & Hatak, 2020 ), and recent technological developments (Ågerfalk et al., 2020 ; Bloom et al., 2015 ; Bondarouk & Ruël, 2009 ; Johnson et al., 2020 ; Spreitzer et al., 2017 ; Wiggins et al., 2020 ).

Research Gap

The research mentioned in the aforementioned literature review sought to examine several factors of organizational culture and digital transformation. However, reviews of literature based solely on a systematic or bibliometric methodology have significant drawbacks. Studies of systematic literature reviews are frequently in-depth and typically handle only a small number of documents. As a result, the findings are more constrained (Moher et al., 2015 ; Page et al., 2021 ). Contrarily, bibliometric reviews are concentrated on a wider range of the studied areas. They mostly reveal major trends as an outcome (Cobo et al., 2011 ; van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ). Using machine learning to find latent patterns in textual data is one of the most popular study methods in the field of bibliometric review (Han, 2020 ; Mariani & Baggio, 2022 ). Automated processing is used to analyze the scientific publications for our study. It employs an advanced machine learning–based methodology to extract topics from the scientific literature. This paper contributes to the existing literature by answering the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1) . How has the organizational culture — digital transformation relationship evolved over time?

The number of publications on digital transformation is growing, and organizational culture is a well-established research area with years of academic work. Consequently, a bibliometric analysis of the growth of the top journals, articles, and most cited publications may be able to provide relevant insights.

Research Question 2 (RQ2) . What are the dominant research topics on organizational culture and digital transformation?

The total number of publications on the subject of this study is rapidly increasing. Therefore, we may apply machine learning to extract particular study ideas from a large body of published scientific literature.

Research Methodology

This paper aims to establish the trends of research papers in the field of organizational culture research with a focus on digital transformation. The authors conducted the review of the literature using bibliometric analysis and a machine learning method.

Researchers often undertake bibliometric analysis with the main goal to determine the body of knowledge on a certain subject, to provide an assessment of the research already conducted, and to develop networking structures for the scientific community. Five steps ( study design , data collection , data analysis , data visualization , and interpretation of results ) represent the workflow of science mapping and were used to apply the bibliometric approach and network analysis (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ).

The review usually starts by determining the database that contains the input data. The only source for this paper are the bibliographic records from the Scopus database as data collection input. This source has been considered reliable in prior works. Scopus, developed by Elsevier B.V., is the largest database of scientific peer-review literature hosting more than 27,950 journal published articles (Elsevier, 2023 ). It was chosen for this study as it is the largest and most relevant scientific database in the world, covering most of the publications available. This includes consistent repositories of documents as well as additional information such as country of all the authors, citations per document, and further information that is relevant in terms of quality and quantity for the study.

The search query was developed after identifying the research area. This was done by splitting the topic into three fields of research. The first set was organization with the corresponding synonyms followed by culture (second set). The third was digital transformation and its phases digitization and digitalization following Verhoef et al. ( 2021 ) and its synonyms including Industry 4.0 . The database was queried using additional synonyms and alternative spellings to increase the study’s coverage.

To collect these articles, the combination of the following keywords was selected:

Digital transformation , digitalization , digitalisation , digitization , digitisation combined with Industry 4.0 search terms fourth industrial revolution , 4IR , 4-IR , industry 4.0 and the organizational culture related keyword organisation *, organization *, firm , company , corporate , enterprise , business and culture .

The search criteria were then determined. The authors used the title , abstract and keywords from the articles provided by the Scopus database (TITLE-ABS-KEY). This resulted in 3077 identified papers. The search query and result are shown in Table  4 . The search was conducted on March 30, 2023.

After collecting the data, all documents with no abstracts were removed. The authors also removed all documents with abstracts defined as: “[No abstract available]”. After this removal, the dataset consisted of 3065 documents. The applied dataset was made up of the following eight variables: authors, title, year, source, cited by, abstract, authors keywords, index keywords. A total of 139 documents were tagged as Review . In addition, to answer the research question RQ1, we joined our dataset with a dataset that defined individual subject areas for each journal. Thanks to such an expanded dataset, we were able to better structure the results.

Topic Modelling

In order to be able to answer research question RQ2, we needed to perform an analysis of the sentific field. There are several ways to conduct a literature review. Instead of the standard literature review process, we decided to carry out the literature review based on machine learning. This way of analyzing the scientific field allowed us to assess a much larger number of documents and thus make the literature review more relevant. Our review based on machine learning analyzed 3065 document abstracts in total.

Before the actual process of identifying individual research topics in the selected area, it was necessary to perform text preprocessing and then divide the analyzed documents into individual topics. Data preprocessing included several steps which are common in text analytics. After removing some special characters, we removed punctuation, further removed numbers and stopwords defined in the tm package in R. In addition, we defined other custom stopwords that were removed from the corpus of abstracts. Then we then removed the extra spaces and stemmed the words in the document. The last step was to delete custom stopwords Footnote 1 specific to our area of interest. In this case, these were words that were irrelevant to our field of research and, in our opinion, did not add value to the resulting analysis. We defined these words based on the frequency analysis of stemmed words from the corpus of analyzed abstracts. The mentioned procedures were performed in the R programming language using the tm and SnowballC packages. After removing the specific stopwords, we finally removed the extra spaces. Subsequently, a document-term matrix (dtm) was created, which contained the frequencies of all individual words in every document. Since the dtm itself also contained low-frequency words, we removed words that appeared in less than 0.5% of the abstracts in the resulting matrix. The resulting dtm contained 1108 words.

After preprocessing the text of the abstracts, we proceeded to structure the abstracts into research topics. We implemented the mentioned process, also called topic modeling, using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation method, also known as LDA (Blei et al., 2003 ). LDA is a probabilistic generative process, the result of which is a set of topics that represent the composition of the entire space into individual parts. Based on the words in individual documents, the so-called latent topical structure is created, while latent topics are a mixture of several documents. Based on the posterior estimates of the hidden variables, we can estimate the structure of the latent topics. Hidden variables in our case represent latent topical structure (Blei & Lafferty, 2009 ).

Topic modeling using LDA was implemented in the R programming language using the topicmodels library. Topic modeling itself assumes the number of topics into which the entire space needs to be divided. There are several approaches for finding the number of topics. Since the approach based on the evaluation of statistical criteria resulted in a large number of topics, we decided to prefer an expert approach. This approach consisted in manually assessing the interpretability of the most frequent words in individual alternatives. As part of the testing itself for a suitable number of topics, we gradually manually evaluated solutions with the number of topics k  = {6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12}.

To quantify the parameters of the LDA model, we used Gibbs sampling (Gelfand, 2000 ; Griffiths & Steyvers, 2004 ; Grün & Hornik, 2011 ). For parameter quantification, we used 2000 iterations, taking into account only every 200th observation for a higher degree of independence between. For each k, we repeated the process five times, always recording only the best solution. Based on the results of the expert analysis, we chose a solution with the number of topics k  = 8. Finally, we realized the visualization of topics, which was performed using the ldavis package (Sievert & Shirley, 2014 ).

Development of Related Research Papers

The direct or indirect role of organizational culture in various processes of digital transformation has been the subject of a lot of research. The studies that formed the basis for our analysis were identified from the Scopus bibliometric database through a search query, which is presented in the “ Research Methodology ” section. The data was collected on March 30, 2023, while on this date, 3065 valid documents were registered in the mentioned database. A significant increase in the number of studies has only been noticeable since 2018. Still, it must be said that studies investigating the links between organizational culture and digitalization appeared sporadically even before that. Figure  1 shows an overview of the annual development of published papers and the number of citations related to the given papers. We can notice that in the last 5 years, research has an exponential character (measured through the number of published papers per year), but at the same time, this research area is interesting for academics (measured through the absolute number of citations).

Development of published papers related to organizational culture and digital transformation

The analyzed amount of papers were published in 1619 sources (journals, proceedings, books, etc.) with various research impacts. Table 5 shows the ranking of the sources that had the greatest impact on research on organizational culture and digital transformation in terms of the total number of citations. The research impact is primarily dominated by journals that directly or indirectly deal with the business environment, which is natural considering the nature of the papers. Of the ten listed top influential papers, as many as seven are from the last 5 years, which indicates that since 2018, research interest and the research impact of the given topic have grown dramatically.

Each analyzed document in our dataset was assigned to one of the 28 subject areas used by the Scopus database for their classification. Such an assignment took place based on pairing information about the journal in which the given article is located with the categorization of the journal according to the subject areas of the Scopus database. Figure  2 shows an overview of research interest and research impact for the individual subject areas.

Overview of research impact and research interest of subject areas

Until 2019, ENGI (engineering) was the most frequent category, while a dramatic increase in papers in the BUSI (business, management, and accounting) group can be seen in the last four years. This increase has caused BUSI to be the subject area with the most outstanding research impact and research interest. No such significant changes were recorded in the other subject areas. Possible reasons for the increased interest of researchers in the field of BUSI in the topic of organizational culture and digital transformation are indirectly indicated by some current studies. For example, the study by Priyanto et al. ( 2023 ) emphasizes the importance of proactively modernizing a business to maintain a competitive edge. The need to increase the competitive edge was also pointed out in the study by Troise et al. ( 2022 ), in which the authors examined the relationships between SMEs’ agility (measured by digital technologies capability, relational capability, and innovation capability) and the effects of agility on three outcomes (financial performance, product and process innovation). These studies and many others (Alomari, 2021 ; Carvalho et al., 2020 ; Chaurasia et al., 2020 ; Tessarini Junior & Saltorato, 2021 ) emphasize the managerial aspect of digitalization, which could explain the dramatic increase in research interest and research impact that we have seen over the last 4 years.

These results are also confirmed by a more detailed analysis of the development of the annual number in the five most numerous subject areas (Fig.  3 ). In the left part, we can see the absolute number of articles in the given subject areas, while the dominance of BUSI is visible mainly in the last three years. However, comparing the share of papers in particular subject areas is very interesting (right part of Fig.  3 ). We see that the increase in the BUSI subject area is continuous, while the share of SOCI (social sciences) and COMP (computer science) is decreasing in the long term. Areas such as ENGI and DECI (decision science) maintain a relatively constant share. According to the long-term trend, it can be assumed that the share of the BUSI subject area will grow in research on topics related to organizational culture and digital transformation in the coming years.

Development of papers in top 5 subject areas — absolute numbers (left) and share (right)

Topics Identification and Their Development

By analyzing the abstracts of the individual papers, it was possible to categorize documents into thematically related clusters using LDA. Such clusters contain papers with the occurrence of the same terms and are called topics. The individual steps of extracting topics from the analyzed dataset are listed in the “ Topic Modelling ” section. To choose the number of topics, several experiments were carried out with the aim of identifying such a constellation in which the individual topics would be well interpretable and, at the same time, sufficiently distinguishable from each other. The number of topics k  = 8 was selected by expert assessment according to these criteria. The results and a brief description of the topics via the top-5 most frequent terms can be found in Fig.  4 as an intertopic distance map between two principal components (PC).

Intertopic distance map

Eight identified topics were analyzed with regard to the most frequented words, and at the same time, the most cited articles in the given topic were also used for their better characterization. This allowed these topics to be named and briefly characterized:

Social Media Connectivity (Topic-1)

This topic includes various aspects of digital and social media, as well as online platforms and the cultural impacts of digital technologies. The Social Media Connectivity topic focuses on main areas like the rise of social media (Munar, 2012 ; van Dijck, 2013 ), its platforms (Mikos, 2016 ; Morris, 2015 ), as well as structural change (Kim, 2020 ; Peukert, 2019 ). The articles of topic-1 explore a wide range of subjects in particular such as social media strategies, digital engagement with heritage, digital storytelling, cultural globalization, and the transformative effects of digital technological change. There are many different inter-organizational subcultures present within organizations that are dealing with convergence and cooperation across media platforms. According to Erdal ( 2009 ), cooperation between those cultures is frequently linked to competition. It is the topic with the most significant research interest (measured through the number of papers), and at the same time, it is the topic with the highest research impact (measured through the number of citations). There are 458 related papers in this topic with a sum of all citations of 91% (based on a 6000 citation strip).

Digital Innovation Ecosystems (Topic-2)

This topic captures the overarching theme of digital transformation across various domains. It emphasizes the integration of digital technologies, innovation processes and the development of ecosystems to drive transformative change in industries and organizations with regard to culture. Regarding the function of organizational culture throughout this transformation process, two alternative viewpoints may be seen. When individuals are empowered to use their problem-solving skills, their capacity for learning and their sense of responsibility, a culture may result in a workforce that is people-centered and engaged driving the integration of digital technologies. On the other hand, there is a culture that focuses primarily on promoting this technology for the purpose of managing or substituting processes neglecting the input and use of people (Rossini et al., 2021 ). The main subjects of this topic include healthcare (Jacob et al., 2020 ), manufacturing (Reinhardt et al., 2020 ), and a digital transformation focus of information systems and organizational practices (Ulas, 2019 ). Additionally, the challenges for the organization and management in rapidly changing environments are analyzed (Granlund & Taipaleenmäki, 2005 ). This topic has a relatively considerable research interest with 419 papers published, but its research impact is average with 51%.

Socio-economic Sustainability (Topic-3)

The Socio-economic Sustainability topic captures the intersection of digital transformation, sustainability and socio-economic considerations across a wide variety of domains such as urban development (Anttiroiko, 2016 ), corporate responsibility and sustainability (Etter et al., 2019 ; Lăzăroiu et al., 2020 ), technology management (Tasleem et al., 2019 ), and organizational practices with regard to culture, among others. In the case of sustainable performance, all forms of organizational culture — based on the types defined by Quinn and Spreitzer ( 1991 ) — have a positive effect on sustainable performance (Gebril Taha & Espino-Rodríguez, 2020 ). There is also a strong correlation between organizational culture and eco-innovation (Reyes-Santiago et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, the sharing economy and its cultural effects towards consumption and ownership are analyzed (Dabbous & Tarhini, 2021 ). The third topic has an average research interest, counting 367 papers and a slightly below-average research impact of 42% compared to the other topics.

Digital Workforce Transformation (Topic-4)

Digital Workforce Transformation highlights the themes of digital transformation with the focus of organizational resilience, leadership, and the impact of technology on work culture and employee well-being. The main focus is on the employee-work relationship, including subjects like leadership (Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ; Guzmán et al., 2020 ), employee well-being (Coldwell, 2019 ; Theurer et al., 2018 ), and resilience (McFadden et al., 2015 ). In particular, the implications on cultural organizational characteristics, operations, digital transformation, and financial planning of COVID-19 for work, workers, and organizations are analyzed (Kniffin et al., 2021 ; Obrenovic et al., 2020 ). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations have changed their mode of operation. They adopted a pure work from home model or make use of a hybrid mode of operation. Establishing a communicative work from home culture will result in increased employee satisfaction (Fay & Kline, 2011 ; Mandal et al., 2023 ). Organizations have to educate their employees concerning these new processes and technologies. Individuals dislike change, so organizations must coordinate training and awareness programs to demonstrate the advantages of new digital platforms and related technologies (Mandal et al., 2023 ). Regarding research interest, this topic is average with 381 papers, and its research impact is slightly below average with 42%.

Digital Competence and Cultural Transformation (Topic-5)

This topic refers to the concepts of competence in the digital era, cultural transformation, innovation, and sustainability. These articles explore different aspects of digital transformation (Suárez-Guerrero et al., 2016 ), the impact of digital competence on various sectors (Konttila et al., 2019 ), cultural factors in innovation and enterprise, and the intersection of technology and culture (Mohelska & Sokolova, 2018 ). The role of leadership in the transformation of organizational culture is also a focus of analysis (Sá & Serpa, 2020 ). From the point of view of research interest, this is a minor topic (355 papers) that simultaneously has a relatively small research impact (33%).

Knowledge, Culture and Innovation (Topic-6)

Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation captures the common themes of knowledge management (Gandini, 2016 ; Yeh et al., 2006 ), organizational culture (Dubey et al., 2019 ), innovation, and the transformative effects (Ungerman et al., 2018 ) of digitalization across various sectors. Digital innovation is linked to organizational culture by the digital capabilities of an organization (Zhen et al., 2021 ). The capabilities required by management in dynamic environments are examined in particular (Karimi & Walter, 2015 ). Research interest, counting 388 papers, as well as research impact, with 56%, of this topic are both average.

Data and Resource Management (Topic-7)

The Data and Resource Management topic encompasses the concepts of digitalization, Industry 4.0, data management, quality management, organizational culture and the impact of technology on various industries (Durana et al., 2019 ; Gunasekaran et al., 2019 ; Sony et al., 2020 ). These titles explore different aspects of implementing Industry 4.0, including the utilization of big data (Chiang et al., 2017 ), improving organizational performance through digital transformation (Ananyin et al., 2018 ) and the role of data-driven decision-making in different sectors. A number of relevant factors for Industry 4.0 implementation like the development of Industry 4.0-specific know-how, securing financial resources, integration of employees into the implementation process, and the establishment of an open-minded and flexible corporate culture are analyzed. (Veile et al., 2020 ). The research interest of this topic is the smallest of all with only 315 papers, and its research impact is also relatively small with 34%.

Digital Transformation Maturity (Topic-8)

This topic covers the concepts of digital transformation, Industry 4.0, maturity models, organizational culture, and the impact of technology on business strategies and performance (Gajsek et al., 2019 ; Teichert, 2019 ). These titles explore various aspects of digitalization, technology implementation, strategic management, organizational resilience, and the adoption factors of Industry 4.0 in the manufacturing industry (Kohnová et al., 2019 ). The analysis shows that factors like organizational identity, dematerialization, and collaboration play a key role in the digital transformation (Tronvoll et al., 2020 ). The size of research interest of this topic is average (382 papers), but its research impact is among the largest (of 80%).

These topics are sufficiently distinguishable from each other not only from an interpretive point of view but also within the position in the intertopic distance map (Fig.  4 ). In the coordinates of two principal components, almost all topics are relatively isolated, meaning they are sufficiently distinguishable from each other. In one case, however, a statistical similarity was identified, namely for topic-2 Digital Innovation Ecosystems and topic-8 Digital Transformation Maturity (Fig.  4 top left). This finding suggests that there is some interrelationship between the two topics. After a closer examination of the articles from both topics, it was found that topic-2 and topic-8 share a rather similar basis of content. The central point of investigation in these articles is the identification of various (success) factors and challenges that arise for organizations and their cultures during the phase of digital transformation (AlBar & Hoque, 2019 ; Cichosz et al., 2020 ; Shardeo et al., 2020 ). Topic-2 builds on this common foundation by focusing on systems and functional aspects. There, the organization’s implementation, integration, and management of tools and data (ERP, big data) is examined. Additionally, this topic focuses on the organization’s life cycle, evolution, business models, and processes like DevOps and Agile development (Gupta et al., 2019 ; Jacob et al., 2020 ; Nascimento et al., 2019 ). On the other hand, the majority of the articles in topic-8 focus on a perspective with regard to the organizational readiness of the organization towards changes related to Industry 4.0, including the impacts those changes will have on culture, the implications for strategy, and the general organization’s maturity through the examination of maturity models (Ganzarain & Errasti, 2016 ; Mittal et al., 2018 ; Santos & Martinho, 2020 ; Schumacher et al., 2016a , b ).

The eight topics identified are not static and their development may change over time. To capture such changes, we analyzed the share of papers (research interest) and the share of citations (research impact) of papers in the last 10 years. We did not analyze the absolute numbers but their relative share primarily to avoid the risk of distortion caused by the exponential increase in the number of articles and citations. The results can be found in Fig.  5 .

Development of research interest (top) and research impact (bottom) in last 10 years

Several findings can be seen in Fig.  5 . The first of them is a marked decrease in topic-1 both from the point of view of research interest and the point of view of research impact. As mentioned earlier, this topic is currently one of the most important. However, trend analysis shows that its importance is declining relatively quickly. It is gradually being replaced by topics with higher research interest (e.g., topic-4) or research impact (e.g., topic-6).

The downward trend of topic-1 Social Media Connectivity can be explained with the growing maturity of this research field. In the early start of the new millennium, the rise of social networks and communication platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, and other social media services and applications changed the way of communication and collaboration. As of 2023, this field of research is established and many papers have been published and cited already. Based on our search query, there were 458 papers identified with over 5400 citations in total from 1997 to 2023.

The second finding is the gradual emergence of new topics. These are topics that almost or did not exist 10 years ago. The most significant representative of such topics is topic-4, which almost did not exist in 2013, but is currently one of the most important topics. The upward trend of topic-4 Digital Workforce Transformation is strongly connected with the emergence of new working modes and cultural shifts within the organizational landscape due to COVID-19 pandemic related effects. The rise of topic-4 with a strong focus on the employee-work relationship and employee well-being is relatively new. This was triggered with the start of the worldwide pandemic (COVID-19). The worldwide pandemic had a significant impact on how people worked and communicated. This remote work model has many implications on a number of different fields like organizational culture, collaboration, employee motivation, and productivity, among many others. Thus, the requirement for employees and the organizations to adapt to this new work reality open up many new research fields. The growing topic-6 Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation combines knowledge management, organizational culture, and innovation in regard to the transformative effects of digitalization across various sectors. This topic recently gained special attention because the world economy is facing challenges during the pandemic caused by less international business and trade and increased costs (Amirul et al., 2023 ). Competitive advantages through knowledge management, knowledge sharing, and innovation are the key to deal with the (project) uncertainty many companies face (Borodako et al., 2023 ).

The third finding is that increasing research interest does not necessarily increase research impact. For example, we can mention topic-5 Digital Competence and Cultural Transformation , which is gradually gaining research interest, but its research impact is the smallest of all. However, it should be noted here that research impact is based on processing the number of citations, which can generally have a time delay.

A more detailed characterization of topics is also possible by comparing them to the analyzed subject areas. Figure  6 shows the decomposition of individual topics into subject areas. The basis for this decomposition was the papers themselves.

Decomposition of topics to subject areas

Several findings can be seen in Fig.  6 . Topic-1, which currently dominates research impact and research interest, but has a negative trend, is most associated with papers from the SOCI subject area. If we compare these results with the analysis of subject areas (Fig.  2 ), we can conclude that there are two parallel phenomena — a decrease in interest in both SOCI and topic-1. This topic played a key role in the past, but its outlook, as well as the outlook of organizational culture research in relation to digital transformation in the SOCI subject area, is negative. On the other hand, we can see that the BUSI subject area is most prominently represented in topic-6. By comparing the development of BUSI and the development of topic-6, we can also notice parallel phenomena — in this case, however, with a positive trend. Both topic-6 and the BUSI subject area have been growing in recent years, and it is assumed that this could be the case in the following years as well. In the past the focus of research has been on identification and introduction as well as adaptation of new technologies that drive the trend of digital transformation. With this established foundation, nowadays, the research shifts more towards the application and impacts of these technologies in organizations and its consequences on innovation-orientation, knowledge generation and sharing as well as cultural effects (Kronblad et al., 2023 ). This can be seen with the strengthening of topic-6. Other topics appear more heterogeneous from the point of view of subject areas, and the papers that fall into them are from different subject areas.

This article begins with a brief review of organizational culture research in relation to digital transformation. Later, an overview of the research area was presented based on the 3065 publications listed and identified in the Scopus database. To answer research question 1, we have identified the key journals, papers and authors and have shown the development of publications over time. Research interest and research impact of the given topic have grown dramatically since 2018. According to research areas, from 2004 until 2023, the share of papers (research impact) as well as the share of citations (research interest) is mainly contributed to the subject area of BUSI (with a share of more than 25%). The dominance of BUSI has been visible mainly in the last 3 years.

The identification of the dominant research topics (research question 2) resulted in eight topics: Social Media Connectivity , Digital Innovation Ecosystems , Socio-economic Sustainability , Digital Workforce Transformation , Digital Competence and Cultural Transformation , Knowledge, Culture and Innovation , Data and Resource Management , and Digital Transformation Maturity . The topic with the most significant research interest (measured by the number of papers) and the highest research impact (measured by the number of citations) is Social Media Connectivity (topic-1). This is because of the strong role of this topic in the past. The outlook is declining for this topic as well as the related subject area SOCI. Two rising topics were identified. In recent years Digital Workforce Transformation (topic-4) and Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation (topic-6) gained strong interest. Both are from the area of BUSI.

To fulfil the aims of the article, following the completion of the literature review, we were able to identify a number of research topics that are distinct due to the methodology that we have utilized. As a result of their development over time, some of these topics are also relatively new; for instance, as of 2013, topic-4 ( Digital Workforce Transformation ) did not exist at all. In light of the fact that the topics have developed over time, it is clear that the most important areas influencing culture have been transformed under the conditions brought about by digital transformation.

Implications

Firstly, this study demonstrated a machine learning–supported method for identifying and segmenting the current state of this research field. This method, as used in this paper, can be applied to other fields to obtain a systematic overview of research topics.

Secondly, organizational culture has been a field of research for many years and research on digital transformation is constantly growing. The interrelation of these two research areas is relatively new, and their findings will have a lasting effect on the formation and effectiveness of organizational culture in the future.

With the increased interest in Digital Workforce Transformation and Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation , we could identify a shift in the research field on organizational culture in relation to digital transformation towards the subject area of BUSI. Those two rising topics show a need to focus on the impact of technology on work culture and employee well-being, as well as on knowledge management and innovation in relation to organizational culture.

The long-term trend of the share development of the BUSI subject area indicates that this area will also grow continuously in the future. From 2019 onwards, the constant increase of papers published per year implies that additional distinct new topics will be established in this field of research. These and other future trends will help researchers to focus on relevant topics and areas for their work.

A possible explanation for this shift in research could derive from the impact technological changes have on businesses today. The work-related requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for many technological advancements due to the necessity to work instantly remote, changing many processes and all communication to digital. This growing importance of technology for every business could lead to an increased relevance and importance for management practice as well as for researchers. An additional cause for organizations to reevaluate matters related to knowledge and innovation is the pervasive integration and accessibility of AI technology in routine business operations. The alignment of current processes, particularly the innovation process within organizations, with this novel capability will be a subject of interest for managers and researchers as well.

Following the functionalist perspective on organizational culture, the management of organizations can attempt to control and change culture (Alvesson, 1993 ). The introduction of these two topics has significant implications for management practice. A strong organizational culture that is people-centered is essential for successful knowledge-driven organizational innovation. As a result, managers must pay special attention to the factors that influence work culture, address the challenges that arise during the transformation, and understand and improve their organization’s digital capabilities.

Managers can focus their efforts on a variety of areas to foster an adaptable, innovative, and supportive work culture while effectively leveraging technology for digital transformation. Enhanced emphasis is placed on the behavior and collaboration of the team and managers, while these recommendations also encompass measures pertaining to the structure and processes.

The delegation of decision-making authority and work ownership responsibility to employees by managers is a critical structural element. Utilizing data to facilitate well-informed decision-making can provide support for this. Establishing a work environment that offers adequate resources and support, including tools, training, and assistance in adjusting to digital transformations and fostering innovation, is an additional critical element (Veile et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, it is beneficial to measure and communicate progress by assessing the impact of digital transformation on work culture, employee well-being, knowledge management, and innovation on a regular basis. The manager should be willing to make the necessary cultural changes to align, adapt, and evolve organizational culture in the digital age (Cortellazzo et al., 2019 ).

During digital transformation, an open and productive organizational culture will be fostered through the promotion of a flexible and inclusive work environment that actively solicits employee feedback and input, with a focus on employee well-being (Coldwell, 2019 ). Managers who set a good example and encourage their employees’ continuous learning and skill development, as well as cross-functional collaboration, will be better able to promote an adaptive organizational culture in an increasingly digital and competitive landscape (Sá & Serpa, 2020 ). Creating a culture that values innovation and encourages employees to come up with new ideas and solutions, as well as celebrating successful innovations, can help managers create a people-oriented work culture that is essential for organizational innovation (Karimi & Walter, 2015 ). This can be seen in the increased interest in the area on Knowledge, Culture, and Innovation by organizations as well as by researchers.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has a number of limitations, which can be mainly attributed to the way the analysis was conducted. The focus of this study is on an automated bibliometric analysis of the literature. While the quantitative focus has many advantages, it also has some limitations. The main advantage includes the possibility to process and analyze a large number of papers via automation and machine learning techniques. A total of 3065 papers were analyzed. This approach — in comparison to a standard systematic literature review — does not analyze the papers manually. Therefore, some relevant documents could be missing, as well as some irrelevant ones might be included. The authors have selected a search query that yields highly relevant search results. Thus, it is assumed that the share of notable articles that are missing is very small and therefore neglectable and does not have a significant impact on the results.

The applied dataset covers most of the important publications, but all the data comes from just one database (Scopus). This is not comprehensive, and some relevant articles (or journals) could be excluded. In addition, some information may be missing because the source of analysis is not the full text of the articles. Another limitation comes from the fact that the primary focus in the topic modeling are the abstracts of the relevant papers and not the whole text. The analysis of the full text could potentially provide a more extensive understanding, but at the same time, it would take much longer.

We decided on the expert approach by determining the number of topics, as the statistical approach resulted in a large number of topics. This may be of a subjective nature, but it resulted in eight well interpretable and sufficiently distinguishable topics. The title, abstract, and keywords of each topic’s top-30 papers (based on citation count) were used to name each topic. This results in subjective topic names but helps to sum up each topic with a generalized distinct phrase.

This study suggests a number of possible future directions for additional research. It is recommended to extend the data sources to other databases than Scopus as well as the search query. This could result in capturing an increased number of relevant papers. In this research two developing, fast growing topics (topic-4 and topic-6) were identified. Further research should concentrate on examining this trend and focusing on those topics.

Future research could concentrate on finding various organizational culture types that reflect and favor those two emerging topics. Considering Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 1999 ; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983 ), the characteristics of the adhocracy culture type may align with the aspects connected to Digital Workforce Transformation and Knowledge, Culture and Innovation as this culture type values innovation and flexibility. This can be supported through the systematic research and cultural audits in organizations.

Data Availability

The data and code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

cultur, digit, studi, research, technolog, busi, industri, organ, organiz, use, transform, practic, compani, paper, result, factor, perform, effect, find, implement, author, analysi, provid, differ, organis, approach, base, adopt, identifi, impact, improv, literatur, support, relat, increas, focus, success, level, structur, present, purpos, aim, relationship, influenc, understand, method, enterpris, signific, firm, articl, includ, limit, publish, framework, context, contribut, corpor, show, requir, sector, case, review, futur, within, creat, examin, key, explor, right, current, propos, institut, collect, main, howev, reserv, natur, analyz, implic, discuss, consid, concept, mani, construct, investig, achiev, conduct, among, becom, toward, exist, respons, applic, enabl, theori, affect, issu, survey, assess, opportun, three, interview, adapt, indic, appli, perspect, area, suggest, critic, determin, specif, high, aspect, field, build, form, order, evalu, direct, establish, relev, offer, object, various, methodolog, address, problem, enhanc, addit, part, empir, initi, scienc, associ, analyt, reveal, term, theoret, test, springer, possibl, generat, complex, big, open, continu, switzerland, particip, academ, state, mediat, originalityvalu, designmethodologyapproach, across, solut,advanc, content, regard, characterist, highlight, analys, therefor, higher, interest, access, allow, emerald, advantag, face, make, better, year, insight, goal, select, trend, function, small, element, due, must, conceptu, view, systemat, action, chapter, combin, play, accord, question, describ, questionnair, sever, valid, larg, general, thus, â€, major, recent, type, technic, mean, concern, moder, topic, facilit,sampl, gap, respond, way, attent, outcom, stage, scientif, final, expect, repres, creation, report, still, variabl, especi, techniqu, ensur, compar, number, carri, practition, necessari, exampl, defin, second, copyright, document, compon, subject, common, obtain, demonstr, evid, drive, link, depend, exclus, principl, multipl, essenti, observ, quantit, format, revolut, effort, reflect, four, negat, recommend, made, idea, top, ltd, awar, five, regul, standard, rapid, previous, statist, take, strong, introduc, european, journal, foster, sinc, conclus, featur, basi, driver, equat, digitalis, special, best, comprehens, hand, help, forc, given, consist, align, uniqu, total, explain, overal, materi, refer, gain, furthermor, remain, taylor, whether, moreov, imag, conclud, origin, hypothes, consider, think, similar, russian, attribut, fundament, ieee, clear, bring, caus, around, encourag, period, live, shape, step, start, deploy, name, crisi, intent, contemporari, produc, particular, today, protect, satisfact, ident, accept, six, despit, progress, paradigm, theme, appropri, although, elsevi, argu, datadriven, attract, seek, complet, scholar, search, deal, china, maintain, act, respect, introduct, pattern, serv, less, acceler, indepth, predict, crucial, style, detail, procedur, extend, limitationsimpl, phase, emphas, togeth, greater, abl, central, via, confirm, novel, draw, correl, databas, rate, emot, primari, basic, wide, degre, give, machin, legal, domin, thing, map, basel, record, turn, interpret, south, transfer, cover, mdpi, along, leverag, pressur, move, hospit, decad, least, expand, evolv, fourth, holist, now, informa, rang, other, reliabl, solv, excel, site, uncertainti, henc, partial, littl, without, contain, balanc, prefer, real, cours, overcom, alreadi, india, prepar, sale, actor, instrument, valuabl, beyond, past, center, histori, fact, regress, prevent, preserv, assist, deliv, low, definit, mine, substanti, extens, answer, close, known, third, taken, contextu, popular, employees’, index, fit, deriv, locat, embrac, text, scenario, outlin, certain, ongo, desir, independ, transpar, avoid, proceed, realiz, illustr, visual, promis, inc, reach, usag, algorithm, identif, consult, feder, gather, whole, prioriti, russia, altern, constant, occur, shown, actual, proactiv, seem, europ, matter, resist, express, igi, appear, sociotechn, light, extent, germani, done, hybrid, upon, just, read, receiv, driven, german, cycl, suitabl, mainten, fulli, look, long, bodi, ground, attempt, broad, compris, varieti, indonesia, frame, african, rise, home, weak, proper, financ, keep, maker, dissemin, properti, senior, mitig, next, difficulti, captur, correspond, flow, begin, code, overview, stimul, squar, prove, volum, reduct, full, american, choic, malaysia, intend, llc, eight, tri, occup, diffus, vari, under, numer, extract, organization’, anoth, len, rule, indian, aid, know, joint, socioeconom, lower, summar, classifi, fast, experiment, exhibit, paramet, brought, widespread, understood, nowaday, mix, embed, africa, built, provis, sociolog, good, comparison, adjust, behind, quick, adequ, channel, instead, verifi, indirect, seven, primarili, soft, safe, company’, pose, handl, themat, routin, therebi, interconnect, reform, assumpt, either, constitut, utilis, believ, prior, john, separ, come, segment, item, assum, suffici, minim, whose, sem, plssem, outsid, seri, huge, restrict, wast, classif, updat, translat, obstacl, frequent, hold, version, interfac, discov, almost, represent, equal, wherea, hypothesi, presenc, simpl, robust, alway, categor, claim, score, like, print, interdisciplinari, ten, australia, note, italian, bibliometr, lie, america, underpin, synthesi, wiley, promin, alter, typic, stori, fuzzi, simultan, fulfil, estim, pursu, correct, return, manner, narrat, becam, besid, contrast, ration, inspir, replac, hinder, imper, detect, thought, son, faculti, convers, asia, profound, pilot, acknowledg, maxim, configur, urgent, argument, hard, sensit, gmbh, charact, larger, rich, wider, elabor, highest, shed, phenomena, deep, necess, mutual, mass, option, trigger, expans, poor, extant, domest, today’, concentr, demograph, reinforc, clarifi, anticip, eas, expos, deeper, most, editor, devot, middl, crosssect, usual, nine, ultim, manifest, scopus, calcul, vulner, andor, run, massiv, tension, ideal, old, retriev, first, singapor, ambigu, list, conscious, inher, insid, ministri, rethink, serious, compos, stay, modifi, per, encount, rare, attain, circumst, date, recognis, enter, near, spss, explicit, held, incent, unpreced, largest, stronger, insuffici, lack, nevertheless, word, longer, input, decreas, conting, accur, tendenc, preval, match, tackl, undertaken, sciencebusi, amongst, mention, easili, reader, chosen, prosper, elimin, coupl, hope, authors’, get, later, everyday, dedic, encompass, thrive, miss, acm, refin, interdepend, guarante, precis, except, random, accomplish, latest, easi, vast, prevail.

Aasi, P., & Rusu, L. (2017). Facing the digitalization challenge: Why organizational culture matters and how it influences IT governance performance. In N. Paspallis, M. Raspopoulos, C. Barry, M. Lang, H. Linger, & C. Schneider (Eds.), Information systems development: Advances in methods, tools and management (ISD2017 Proceedings). Larnaca.

Google Scholar  

Abu Bakar, M. R., Mat Razali, N. A., Wook, M., Ismail, M. N., & Tengku Sembok, T. M. (2021). The mediating role of cloud computing and moderating influence of digital organizational culture towards enhancing SMEs performance. In H. Badioze Zaman, et al. (Eds.), Advances in visual informatics. IVIC 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol 13051, pp. 447–458). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90235-3_39

Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of Labor Economics, 4 , 1043–1171. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7218(11)02410-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Adebanjo, D., Laosirihongthong, T., Samaranayake, P., & Teh, P.-L. (2021). Key enablers of Industry 4.0 development at firm level: Findings from an emerging economy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70 (2), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2020.3046764

Affes, W., & Affes, H. (2022). Business model and firm performance in Tunisian firms: A mediated moderation analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13 (4), 2822–2839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00836-4

Ågerfalk, P. J., Conboy, K., & Myers, M. D. (2020). Information systems in the age of pandemics: COVID-19 and beyond. European Journal of Information Systems, 29 (3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2020.1771968

Alankarage, S., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Edwards, D. J., & Samaraweera, A. (2021). Exploring BIM-triggered organisational and professional culture change: A systematic literature review. Construction Innovation, 23 (1), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-04-2021-0084

AlBar, A. M., & Hoque, Md. R. (2019). Factors affecting cloud ERP adoption in Saudi Arabia: An empirical study. Information Development, 35 (1), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917735677

Alloghani, M., Thron, C., & Subair, S. (2022). Past achievements and future promises of digital transformation: A literature review. In M. Alloghani, C. Thron, & S. Subair. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence for data science in theory and practice. Studies in computational intelligence (vol 1006, pp. 27–39). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92245-0_2

Alomari, K. M. (2021). Identifying critical success factors in designing effective and efficient supply chain structures: A literature review. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 9 (2), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2021.1.006

Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural perspectives on organizations . Cambridge University Press.

Am, E. N., Affandi, A., Udobong, A., Sarwani, S., & Hernawan, H. (2020). Implementation of human resource management in the adaptation period for new habits. International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership, 1 (1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.51629/ijeamal.v1i1.4

Amirul, S. R., Ahmad, S. N. B., & Nasip, S. (2023). Organisational culture and dynamic marketing capabilities in the digital age of pandemic crisis. In B. Alareeni, & A. Hamdan. (Eds.), Impact of artificial intelligence, and the fourth industrial revolution on business success. ICBT 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (vol 485). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08093-7_21

Ananyin, V., Zimin, K., Lugachev, M., Gimranov, R., & Skripkin, K. (2018). Digital organization: Transformation into the new reality. Business Informatics, 2018 (2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.17323/1998-0663.2018.2.45.54

Anghel, D. (2019). The ground rules for managers and leaders in the change management process of digitization. Quality - Access to Success, 20 (3), 37–42.

Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2016). City-as-a-platform: The rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability, 8 (9), 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090922

Anwar, A., Kamel, A. A., & Ahmed, E. (2016, May). Agile Adoption Case Study, Pains, Challenges & Benefits. AMECSE ‘16: Proceedings of the 2nd Africa and Middle East Conference on Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery,  60–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/2944165.2944175

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Assoratgoon, W., & Kantabutra, S. (2023). Toward a sustainability organizational culture model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 400 , 136666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136666

Baek, P., Chang, J., & Kim, T. (2019). Organizational culture now and going forward. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32 (6), 650–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-05-2018-0121

Bajic, B., Rikalovic, A., Suzic, N., & Piuri, V. (2021). Industry 4.0 implementation challenges and opportunities: A managerial perspective. IEEE Systems Journal, 15 (1), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsyst.2020.3023041

Baker, E., Avery, G. C., & Crawford, J. (2006). Home alone: The role of technology in telecommuting. Information Resources Management Journal, 19 (4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2006100101

Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pandey, N. (2020). Thirty years of small business economics: A bibliometric overview. Small Business Economics, 56 , 487–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00342-y

Balasingham, K. (2016). Industry 4.0: Securing the future for German manufacturing companies. Retrieved 12 April 2023, from http://essay.utwente.nl/70665/1/Balasingham_BA_MA.pdf

Barley, S. R., Meyer, G. C., & Gash, D. W. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academic, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 , 24–60.

Bélanger, F., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Swan, B. R. (2013). A multi-level socio-technical systems telecommuting framework. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32 (12), 1257–1279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2012.705894

Belinski, R., Peixe, A. M. M., Frederico, G. F., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2020). Organizational learning and Industry 4.0: Findings from a systematic literature review and research agenda. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27 (8), 2435–2457. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-04-2020-0158

Betto, F., Sardi, A., Garengo, P., & Sorano, E. (2022). The evolution of balanced scorecard in healthcare: A systematic review of its design, implementation, use, and review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (16), 10291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610291

Bibby, L., & Dehe, B. (2018). Defining and assessing Industry 4.0 maturity levels – Case of the defence sector. Production Planning & Control, 29 (12), 1030–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1503355

Blei, D. M., & Lafferty, J. D. (2009). Topic models. In A. N. Srivastava & M. Sahami (Eds.), Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications (pp. 71–93). Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3 , 993–1022.

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130 (1), 165–218. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18871

Bondarouk, T. V., & Ruël, H. J. M. (2009). Electronic human resource management: Challenges in the digital era. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (3), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802707235

Borodako, K., Berbeka, J., Rudnicki, M., & Łapczyński, M. (2023). The impact of innovation orientation and knowledge management on business services performance moderated by technological readiness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26 (7), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-09-2022-0523

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton and Company.

Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational culture and innovation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (4), 763–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12021

Caligiuri, P., Cieri, H., Minbaeva, D., Verbeke, A., & Zimmermann, A. (2020). International HRM insights for navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for future research and practice. Journal of International Business Studies, 51 (5), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00335-9

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework . Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Business Research, 116 , 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037

Cartwright, J. (1999). Cultural transformation: Nine factors for continuous business improvement . Prentice Hall.

Carvalho, A. M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., Carvalho, J. Á., & Saraiva, P. (2020). The influence of operational excellence on the culture and agility of organizations: Evidence from industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38 (7), 1520–1549. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-07-2020-0248

Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2016). Paradigm lost: Reinvigorating the study of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36 , 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.004

Chaurasia, S. S., Kaul, N., Yadav, B., & Shukla, D. (2020). Open innovation for sustainability through creating shared value-role of knowledge management system, openness and organizational structure. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24 (10), 2491–2511. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-04-2020-0319

Chen, Y., Liu, L., Li, W., Xie, Z., & Wei, C. (2023). Microfoundations of dynamic capabilities: A systematic review and a multilevel framework. Management Decision, 61 (6), 1717–1753. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2022-0615

Chiang, L., Lu, B., & Castillo, I. (2017). Big data analytics in chemical engineering. Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 8 (1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101555

Chung, N., Lee, H., Lee, S. J., & Koo, C. (2015). The influence of tourism website on tourists’ behavior to determine destination selection: A case study of creative economy in Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96 , 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.004

Cicea, C., Țurlea, C., Marinescu, C., & Pintilie, N. (2022). Organizational culture: A concept captive between determinants and its own power of influence. Sustainability, 14 (4), 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042021

Cichosz, M., Wallenburg, C. M., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2020). Digital transformation at logistics service providers: Barriers, success factors and leading practices. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 31 (2), 209–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-08-2019-0229

Çınar, Z. M., Zeeshan, Q., & Korhan, O. (2021). A framework for Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of smart manufacturing enterprises: A case study. Sustainability, 13 (12), 6659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126659

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

Coldwell, D. A. L. (2019). Negative influences of the 4th industrial revolution on the workplace: Towards a theoretical model of entropic citizen behavior in toxic organizations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (15), 2670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152670

Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (1), 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938

Cui, Y., Liu, Y., & Mou, J. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of organisational culture using CiteSpace. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21 (1).  https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.2030

Dabbous, A., & Tarhini, A. (2021). Does sharing economy promote sustainable economic development and energy efficiency? Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6 (1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.11.001

Daum, D. L., & Maraist, C. C. (2021). The importance of culture in the era of COVID-19. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14 (1–2), 160–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.40

de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., Foropon, C., & Godinho Filho, M. (2018). When titans meet – Can Industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132 , 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.017

Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6 (2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

Diem, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research performance in education sciences. Research in Higher Education, 54 (1), 86–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9264-5

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Roubaud, D., Fosso Wamba, S., Giannakis, M., & Foropon, C. (2019). Big data analytics and organizational culture as complements to swift trust and collaborative performance in the humanitarian supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 210 , 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.023

Durana, P., Kral, P., Stehel, V., Lazaroiu, G., & Sroka, W. (2019). Quality culture of manufacturing enterprises: A possible way to adaptation to Industry 4.0. Social Sciences, 8 (4), 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8040124

El Baz, J., & Iddik, S. (2021). Green supply chain management and organizational culture: A bibliometric analysis based on Scopus data (2001–2020). International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30 , 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-07-2020-2307

Elsevier. (2023). Scopus content coverage guide. Retrieved 10 June 2023, from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/ScopusContentCoverageGuideWEB.pdf

Erdal, I. J. (2009). Cross-media (re)production cultures. convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 15 (2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856508105231

Etter, M., Fieseler, C., & Whelan, G. (2019). Sharing economy, sharing responsibility? Corporate social responsibility in the digital age. Journal of Business Ethics, 159 (4), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04212-w

Fay, M. J., & Kline, S. L. (2011). Coworker relationships and informal communication in high-intensity telecommuting. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39 (2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2011.556136

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114 (1), 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019

Gajsek, B., Marolt, J., Rupnik, B., Lerher, T., & Sternad, M. (2019). Using maturity model and discrete-event simulation for Industry 4.0 implementation. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 18 (3), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.2507/ijsimm18(3)489

Gandini, A. (2016). The reputation economy. Understanding knowledge work in digital society. Palgrave Macmillan . https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56107-7

Ganzarain, J., & Errasti, N. (2016). Three stage maturity model in SME’s toward Industry 4.0. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9 (5), 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2073

Garro Abarca, V. M., Palos-Sanchez, P. R., & Rus-Arias, E. (2020). Working in virtual teams: A systematic literature review and a bibliometric analysis. IEEE Access, 8 , 168923–168940. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3023546

Gebril Taha, M., & Espino-Rodríguez, T. F. (2020). The impact of the organizational culture on hotel outsourcing and sustainable performance an empirical application in the Egyptian hotel sector. Sustainability, 12 (22), 9687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229687

Gelfand, A. E. (2000). Gibbs sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95 (452), 1300–1304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669775

Ghimire, D., Charters, S., & Gibbs, S. (2020, January). Scaling Agile Software Development Approach in Government Organization in New Zealand. ICSIM ‘20: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management , 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/3378936.3378945

Granlund, M., & Taipaleenmäki, J. (2005). Management control and controllership in new economy firms - A life cycle perspective. Management Accounting Research, 16 (1), 21–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2004.09.003

Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62 (7), 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021

Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (Supplement 1), 5228–5235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307752101

Grün, B., & Hornik, K. (2011). Topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 40 (13), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i13

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Ngai, W. T. E. (2019). Quality management in the 21st century enterprises: Research pathway towards Industry 4.0. International Journal of Production Economics, 207 (1), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.09.005

Gupta, S., Qian, X., Bhushan, B., & Luo, Z. (2019). Role of cloud ERP and big data on firm performance: A dynamic capability view theory perspective. Management Decision, 57 (8), 1857–1882. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-06-2018-0633

Guzal-Dec, D. (2016). The role of local authorities in developing pro-ecological organizational culture of the communal offices located in areas of natural value (the example of Lubelskie Voivodeship). Economics and Environment, 57 (2), 235–248.

Guzmán, V. E., Muschard, B., Gerolamo, M., Kohl, H., & Rozenfeld, H. (2020). Characteristics and skills of leadership in the context of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 43 (1), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.167

Hamouche, S. (2020). COVID-19 and employees’ mental health: Stressors, moderators and agenda for organizational actions. Emerald Open Research, 2 (15), 15. https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.13550.1

Han, X. (2020). Evolution of research topics in LIS between 1996 and 2019: An analysis based on latent Dirichlet allocation topic model. Scientometrics, 125 (3), 2561–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03721-0

Hermann, M., Pentek, T., & Otto, B. (2016, January). Design principles for Industrie 4.0 scenarios. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) , 3928–3937. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2016.488

Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical approach. Journal of Management Studies, 35 (1 January 1998), 0022–2380.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organisations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publication Inc.

Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67 (8), 1609–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.007

Huang, W. W., Wei, K.-K., Watson, R. T., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2003). Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 34 (4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-9236(02)00009-x

Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K.-M., & Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275 (1), 122944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122944

Jacob, C., Sanchez-Vazquez, A., & Ivory, C. (2020). Social, organizational, and technological factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of mobile health tools: Systematic literature review. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth, 8 (2), e15935. https://doi.org/10.2196/15935

Johnson, A., Dey, S., Nguyen, H., Groth, M., Joyce, S., Tan, L., Glozier, N., & Harvey, S. B. (2020). A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being. Australian Journal of Management, 45 (3), 402–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896220922292

Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013, April). Securing the future of German manufacturing industry: Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0. Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Retrieved March 29, 2023, from https://www.din.de/resource/blob/76902/e8cac883f42bf28536e7e8165993f1fd/recommendations-for-implementing-industry-4-0-data.pdf

Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Sharma, R. (2018). Analysis of the driving and dependence power of barriers to adopt Industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing industry. Computers in Industry, 101 , 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.06.004

Kar, S., Yadav, M., & Panda, T. K. (2023). Inclusive organizational behaviour – The dynamic rules of building new workplaces. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems . https://doi.org/10.1108/vjikms-05-2022-0155

Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the Newspaper Industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32 (1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1029380

Kerber, K. W., & Buono, A. F. (2004). Leadership challenges in global virtual teams: Lessons from the field. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69 (4), 4.

Kiel, D., Müller, J. M., Arnold, C., & Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Sustainable industrial value creation: Benefits and challenges of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21 (08), 1740015. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919617400151

Kim, R. Y. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on consumers: Preparing for digital sales. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48 (3), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2020.2990115

Kitsios, F., Kamariotou, M., & Talias, M. A. (2020). Corporate sustainability strategies and decision support methods: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 12 (2), 521. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020521

Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., & Ozcelik, H. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76 (1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716

Kohnová, L., Papula, J., & Salajová, N. (2019). Internal factors supporting business and technological transformation in the context of Industry 4.0. Business: Theory and Practice, 20 , 137–145. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.13

Konttila, J., Siira, H., Kyngäs, H., Lahtinen, M., Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kaakinen, P., Oikarinen, A., Yamakawa, M., Fukui, S., Utsumi, M., Higami, Y., Higuchi, A., & Mikkonen, K. (2019). Healthcare professionals’ competence in digitalisation: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28 (5–6), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14710

Kronblad, C., Pregmark, J. E., & Berggren, R. (2023). Difficulties to digitalize: Ambidexterity challenges in law firms. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 33 (2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-05-2022-0120

Lăzăroiu, G., Ionescu, L., Andronie, M., & Dijmărescu, I. (2020). Sustainability management and performance in the urban corporate economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12 (18), 7705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187705

Leyva-Duarte, J. E., Chávez Martínez, J. D. J., Pinedo-de-Anda, F. J., & Niebla-Zatarain, J. C. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of organizational culture in business economics of Web of Science, 1980–2018. Nova Scientia, 11 (22), 478–500. https://doi.org/10.21640/ns.v11i22.1810

Leyva-Duarte, J. E., De la Garza Carranza, M. T., Chávez Martínez, J. D. J., Pinedo-de-Anda, F. J., Niebla Zatarain, J. C., & González Farías, J. P. (2020). Organizational culture in the hospitality industry a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 11 (4), 1140–1162. https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v11i4.1089

Li, G., & Shao, Y. (2023). How do top management team characteristics affect digital orientation? Exploring the internal driving forces of firm digitalization. Technology in Society, 74 , 102293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102293

Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E. D. F. R., & Ramos, L. F. P. (2017). Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research, 55 (12), 3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576

Luthra, S., & Mangla, S. K. (2018). Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain sustainability in emerging economies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117 , 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.018

Mandal, S., Das, P., Menon, G. V., & Amritha, R. (2023). Enablers of work from home culture: an integrated empirical framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30 (4), 1231–1258. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-08-2021-0476

Mariani, M., & Baggio, R. (2022). Big data and analytics in hospitality and tourism: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34 (1), 231–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2021-0301

McFadden, P., Campbell, A., & Taylor, B. (2015). Resilience and burnout in child protection social work: Individual and organisational themes from a systematic literature review. British Journal of Social Work, 45 (5), 1546–1563. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct210

Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and weaknesses. Organization Studies, 9 (4), 453–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900401

Melitski, J., Gavin, D., & Gavin, J. (2010). Technology adoption and organizational culture in public organizations. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 13 (4), 546–568. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb-13-04-2010-b005

Mikos, L. (2016). Digital media platforms and the use of TV content: Binge watching and video-on-demand in Germany. Media and Communication, 4 (3), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.542

Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2018). A critical review of smart manufacturing & Industry 4.0 maturity models: Implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 49 , 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.10.005

Mkoba, E. S., & Marnewick, C. (2022). Organisational culture attributes influencing the adoption of agile practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 7 (1), 11690. https://doi.org/10.55267/iadt.07.11690

Mohelska, H., & Sokolova, M. (2018). Management approaches for Industry 4.0 - The organizational culture perspective. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24 (6), 2225–2240. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2018.6397

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Montini, P., de Araújo Pinho, C. M., de Oliveira, R. M., Costa, I., & Napolitano, D. M. (2020). Evaluation of the relationship between lean philosophy and organizational culture: A bibliometric review [Avaliação da relação da Filosofia Lean e a Cultura Organizacional: uma revisão bibliométrica]. Research, Society and Development, 9 (11), e059119386. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i11.938

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of an organization. Sage Publications.

Morris, J. W. (2015). Curation by code: Infomediaries and the data mining of taste. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18 (4–5), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549415577387

Müller, J. M. (2019a). Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ perspective. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52 (13), 2189–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.530

Müller, J. M. (2019b). Antecedents to digital platform usage in Industry 4.0 by established manufacturers. Sustainability, 11 (4), 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041121

Munar, A. M. (2012). Social media strategies and destination management. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12 (2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2012.679047

Nascimento, D. L. M., Alencastro, V., Quelhas, O. L. G., Caiado, R. G. G., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Rocha-Lona, L., & Tortorella, G. (2019). Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30 (3), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-03-2018-0071

Ngoc, Su., & D., Luc Tra, D., Thi Huynh, H. M., Nguyen, H. H. T., & O’Mahony, B. (2021). Enhancing resilience in the Covid-19 crisis: Lessons from human resource management practices in Vietnam. Current Issues in Tourism, 24 (22), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1863930

Nidhi, & Arti,. (2020). Impact of organisational culture on work-life balance a bibliometric analysis and growth in research. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7 (8), 5308–5319.

Nimawat, D., & Gidwani, B. D. (2021). Identification of cause and effect relationships among barriers of Industry 4.0 using decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28 (8), 2407–2431. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-08-2020-0429

Noto, G., Marisca, C., & Barresi, G. (2023). Adapting management control to virtual teams: Evidence from a natural experiment. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/qram-04-2022-0066

Obrenovic, B., Du, J., Godinic, D., Tsoy, D., Khan, M. A. S., & Jakhongirov, I. (2020). Sustaining enterprise operations and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: “Enterprise effectiveness and sustainability model.” Sustainability, 12 (15), 5981. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155981

Ogbonna, E. (1992). Managing organisational culture: Fantasy or reality? Human Resource Management Journal, 3 (2), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1992.tb00309.x

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.2307/256404

O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. (2014). The promise and problems of organizational culture. Group & Organization Management, 39 (6), 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114550713

Özkazanç-Pan, B., & Pullen, A. (2020). Gendered labour and work, even in pandemic times. Gender, Work & Organization, 27 (5), 675–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12516

Pacchini, A. P. T., Lucato, W. C., Facchini, F., & Mummolo, G. (2019). The degree of readiness for the implementation of Industry 4.0. Computers in Industry, 113 , 103125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103125

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & McGuinness, L. A. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372 (71), n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Pagliosa, M., Tortorella, G., & Ferreira, J. C. E. (2019). Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32 (5), 543–569. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-12-2018-0446

Parry, E., & Battista, V. (2019). The impact of emerging technologies on work: a review of the evidence and implications for the human resource function. Emerald Open Research, 1 , 5. https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.12907.1

Peukert, C. (2019). The next wave of digital technological change and the cultural industries. Journal of Cultural Economics, 43 (2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-9336-2

Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., & Gatti, C. (2018). Industry 4.0 in management studies: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 10 (10), 1–24, 3821. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103821

Polyanska, A., Zapukhliak, I., & Diuk, O. (2019). Culture of organization in conditions of changes as an ability of efficient transformations: The case of gas transportation companies in Ukraine. Oeconomia Copernicana, 10 (3), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2019.027

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35 (1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/968464.968467

Priyanto, P., Murwaningsari, E., & Augustine, Y. (2023). Exploring the relationship between robotic process automation, digital business strategy and competitive advantage in banking industry. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 13 (3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.33168/JSMS.2023.0320

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29 (3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5 , 115–142.

Raharjo, T., & Purwandari, B. (2020). Agile project management challenges and mapping solutions. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management , 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/3378936.3378949

Raj, A., Dwivedi, G., Sharma, A., de Sousa, Lopes, Jabbour, A. B., & Rajak, S. (2020). Barriers to the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: An inter-country comparative perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 224 (1), 107546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794663

Reinhardt, I. C., Oliveira, D. J. C., & Ring, D. D. T. (2020). Current perspectives on the development of Industry 4.0 in the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 18 , 100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2020.100131

Reis, N. R., Ferreira, M. P., Santos, J. C., & Serra, F. R. (2013). A bibliometric study of the cultural models in international business research [Um estudo bibliométrico dos modelos culturais na pesquisa em negócios internacionais]. BASE - Revista De Administração E Contabilidade Da Unisinos, 10 (4), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.4013/base.2013.104.04

Reyes-Santiago, M., & d. R., Sánchez-Medina, P. S., & Díaz-Pichardo, R. (2017). Eco-innovation and organizational culture in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65 , 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.001

Rossini, M., Cifone, F. D., Kassem, B., Costa, F., & Portioli-Staudacher, A. (2021). Being lean: How to shape digital transformation in the manufacturing sector. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32 (9), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-12-2020-0467

Sá, M. J., & Serpa, S. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to foster the sustainable development of teaching in higher education. Sustainability, 12 (20), 1–16, 8525. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208525

Sahoo, P., Saraf, P. K., & Uchil, R. (2022). Identification of critical success factors for leveraging Industry 4.0 technology and research agenda: A systematic literature review using PRISMA protocol. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration . https://doi.org/10.1108/apjba-03-2022-0105

Santos, R. C., & Martinho, J. L. (2020). An Industry 4.0 maturity model proposal. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31 (5), 1023–1043. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-09-2018-0284

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schneider, W. (2018). Psychosocial ramifications of digitalization [Psychosoziale Folgen der Digitalisierung]. Psychotherapeut, 63 (4), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00278-017-0186-8

Schueber, M. (2009). Understanding organisational culture in a development NGO in Nepal by applying academic theory to witnessed organisational behaviour. Omertaa: Journal for Applied Anthropology. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://www.omertaa.org/archive/omertaa0050.pdf

Schumacher, A., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. (2016a). Strategic Guidance Towards Industry 4.0 - A Three-Stage Process Model. In D. Dimitrov & T. Oosthuizen (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing - Resource Efficiency for Global Competitiveness (pp. 495–501).

Schumacher, A., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. (2016b). A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 52 (1), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040

Schwab, K. (2015). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it means and how to respond. Retrieved 11 June 2023, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-12-12/fourth-industrial-revolution

Senior, B. (1997). Organisational Change. Pitman Publishing.

Shardeo, V., Patil, A., & Madaan, J. (2020). Critical success factors for blockchain technology adoption in freight transportation using fuzzy ANP - modified TISM approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 19 (6), 1549–1580. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622020500376

Sharma, G. M., Pandiya, B., Anand, I.M., Oberai, H., & Chauhan, S. (2022). Virtual team leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis. Res Militaris , 12 (6). Retrieved March 14, 2023, from https://resmilitaris.net/index.php/resmilitaris/article/view/3184

Sheppard, B. (2020). A guide to thriving in the post-COVID-19 workplace. Retrieved 9 June 2023, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/workers-thrive-covid-19-skills

Sievert, C., & Shirley, K. (2014). LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. In J. Chuang, S. Green, M. Hearst, J. Heer, & P. Koehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces (pp. 63–70). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-3110

Silverzweig, S., & Allen, R. F. (1976). Changing the corporate culture. Sloan Management Review, 17 , 33–49.

Sindakis, S., Kitsios, F., Aggarwal, S., & Kamariotou, M. (2022). Entrepreneurial strategies and family firm culture in the Arab world: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 29 (7), 994–1016. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-03-2022-0143

Singer-Velush, N., Sherman, K., & Anderson, E. (2020). Microsoft analyzed data on its newly remote workforce. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved June 3, 2023, from https://hbr.org/2020/07/microsoft-analyzeddata-on-its-newly-remote-workforce

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 339–358.

Sony, M., Antony, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2020). Essential ingredients for the implementation of Quality 4.0. The TQM Journal, 32 (4), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-12-2019-0275

Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2020). Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model. Technology in Society, 61 , 101248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101248

Spicer, A. (2020). Organizational culture and COVID-19. Journal of Management Studies, 57 (8), 1737–1740. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12625

Spreitzer, G. M., Cameron, L., & Garrett, L. (2017). Alternative work arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4 (1), 473–499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113332

Streimikiene, D., Mikalauskiene, A., Digriene, L., & Kyriakopoulos, G. (2021). Assessment of the role of a leader in shaping sustainable organizational culture. Amfiteatru Economic, 23 (57), 486–503. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2021/57/483

Suárez-Guerrero, C., Lloret-Catalá, C., & Mengual-Andrés, S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the digital transformation of the classroom through the use of tablets: A study in Spain. Comunicar, 24 (49), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.3916/c49-2016-08

Sung, W., & Kim, C. (2021). A study on the effect of change management on organizational innovation: Focusing on the mediating effect of  members’ innovative behavior. Sustainability, 13 (4), 2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042079

Tasleem, M., Khan, N., & Nisar, A. (2019). Impact of technology management on corporate sustainability performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 36 (9), 1574–1599. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-01-2018-0017

Teichert, R. (2019). Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67 (6), 1673–1687. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201967061673

Teravainen, V., Suominen, A., & Kahkonen, K. (2017). Positioning organizational culture studies between the construction industry and other industries. In M. Buser, G. Lindahl, & C. Räisänen (Eds.), 9th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization (pp. 428–441).

Tessarini Junior, G., & Saltorato, P. (2021). Workforce agility: A systematic literature review and a research agenda proposal. Innovar, 31 (81), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n81.95582

Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter? PLoS ONE, 13 (10), e0204089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204089

Trenerry, B., Chng, S., Wang, Y., Suhaila, Z. S., Lim, S. S., Lu, H. Y., & Oh, P. H. (2021). Preparing workplaces for digital transformation: An integrative review and framework of multi-level factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.620766

Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A., & O’Regan, N. (2022). How can SMEs successfully navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital transformation era. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174 , 121227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121227

Tronvoll, B., Sklyar, A., Sörhammar, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2020). Transformational shifts through digital servitization. Industrial Marketing Management . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.005

Ulas, D. (2019). Digital transformation process and SMEs. Procedia Computer Science, 158 (1), 662–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.101

Ungerman, O., Dedkova, J., & Gurinova, K. (2018). The impact of marketing innovation on the competitiveness of enterprises in the context of Industry 4.0. Journal of Competitiveness, 10 (2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2018.02.09

Vallejo, M. C. (2011). A model to study the organizational culture of the family firm. Small Business Economics, 36 , 47–64.

van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. A critical history of social media. Oxford Academic . https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84 (2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

van Nunen, K., Li, J., Reniers, G., & Ponnet, K. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Safety Science, 108 , 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.08.011

Veile, J. W., Kiel, D., Müller, J. M., & Voigt, K.-I. (2020). Lessons learned from Industry 4.0 implementation in the German manufacturing industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31 (5), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-08-2018-0270

Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122 , 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

Wang, S., Wan, J., Li, D., & Zhang, C. (2016). Implementing smart factory of Industrie 4.0: An outlook. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 12 (1), 3159805. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3159805

Wiggins, M. W., Auton, J., Bayl-Smith, P., & Carrigan, A. (2020). Optimising the future of technology in organisations: A human factors perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 45 (3), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896220918915

Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L., & Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: State of the art and future trends. International Journal of Production Research, 56 (8), 2941–2962. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806

Yang, E., Kim, Y., & Hong, S. (2023). Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25 (1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcre-04-2021-0015

Yeh, Y., Lai, S., & Ho, C. (2006). Knowledge management enablers: A case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106 (6), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610671489

Yun, J. J., Zhao, X., Jung, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2020). The culture for open innovation dynamics. Sustainability, 12 (12), 5076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125076

Zeng, K., & Luo, X. (2013). Impact of ownership type and firm size on organizational culture and on the organizational culture effectiveness linkage. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14 (Supplement 1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.754373

Zhen, Z., Yousaf, Z., Radulescu, M., & Yasir, M. (2021). Nexus of digital organizational culture, capabilities, organizational readiness, and innovation: Investigation of SMEs operating in the digital economy. Sustainability, 13 (2), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020720

Zhou, W., Luo, D., Fang, H., Gou, X., & Jin, C. (2020). Bibliometric overview and retrospective analysis of fund performance research between 1966 and 2019. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33 (1), 1510–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2020.1755879

Žižek, S. Š, Mulej, M., & Potočnik, A. (2021). The sustainable socially responsible society: Well-Being Society 6.0. Sustainability, 13 (16), 9186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169186

Download references

Open access funding provided by The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic in cooperation with Centre for Scientific and Technical Information of the Slovak Republic This paper was funded by Faculty of Management, Comenius University Bratislava, Slovakia, and supported by the project VEGA 1/0614/23 Preparedness of companies for the challenges associated with Industry 4.0 in terms of business processes and business process management.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Management, Comenius University Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia

Tobias Reisberger, Philip Reisberger, Lukáš Copuš & Peter Madzík

Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Žilina, Žilina, Slovakia

Lukáš Falát

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Reisberger .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Reisberger, T., Reisberger, P., Copuš, L. et al. The Linkage Between Digital Transformation and Organizational Culture: Novel Machine Learning Literature Review Based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02027-3

Download citation

Received : 14 August 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 21 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02027-3

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

• Organizational culture
• Digital transformation
• Industry 4.0
• Machine learning
• Latent Dirichlet allocation
• Literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 13 May 2024

Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among older adults in the nordic countries: a scoping review

• Fereshteh Baygi 1   na1 ,
• Sussi Friis Buhl 1   na1 ,
• Trine Thilsing 1 ,
• Jens Søndergaard 1 &
• Jesper Bo Nielsen 1  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  421 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

351 Accesses

Metrics details

Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) are age-related syndromes that may compromise physical and mental health among older adults. The Nordic countries differ from other regions on prevalence of disease, life-style behavior, and life expectancy, which may impact prevalence of sarcopenia and SO. Therefore, the aim of this study is to review the available evidence and gaps within this field in the Nordic countries.

PubMed, Embase, and Web of science (WOS) were searched up to February 2023. In addition, grey literature and reference lists of included studies were searched. Two independent researcher assessed papers and extracted data.

Thirty-three studies out of 6,363 searched studies were included in this scoping review. Overall prevalence of sarcopenia varied from 0.9 to 58.5%. A wide prevalence range was still present for community-dwelling older adults when definition criteria and setting were considered. The prevalence of SO ranged from 4 to 11%, according to the only study on this field. Based on the included studies, potential risk factors for sarcopenia include malnutrition, low physical activity, specific diseases (e.g., diabetes), inflammation, polypharmacy, and aging, whereas increased levels of physical activity and improved dietary intake may reduce the risk of sarcopenia. The few available interventions for sarcopenia were mainly focused on resistance training with/without nutritional supplements (e.g., protein, vitamin D).

The findings of our study revealed inadequate research on SO but an increasing trend in the number of studies on sarcopenia. However, most of the included studies had descriptive cross-sectional design, small sample size, and applied different diagnostic criteria. Therefore, larger well-designed cohort studies that adhere to uniform recent guidelines are required to capture a full picture of these two age-related medical conditions in Nordic countries, and plan for prevention/treatment accordingly.

Peer Review reports

The number of older adults with age-related disorders is expected to increase worldwide [ 1 , 2 ]. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) are both age-related syndromes that may compromise the physical and mental health of older adults and increase their need for health care services in old age [ 3 , 4 ], and this may challenge the sustainability of health care systems economically and by shortage of health care personnel [ 5 ].

Sarcopenia is characterized by low muscle mass in combination with low muscle strength [ 4 ]. SO is characterized by the co-existence of obesity (excessive adipose tissue) and sarcopenia [ 3 ]. Sarcopenia and SO are both associated with physical disability, risk of falls, morbidity, reduced quality of life and early mortality [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. In SO the consequences of sarcopenia and obesity are combined and maximized [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Etiology of sarcopenia and SO is multifactorial and closely linked to multimorbidity [ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Nevertheless, lifestyle and behavioral components particularly diet and physical activity, are important interrelated factors that potentially can be modified. Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior may accelerate age-related loss of muscle mass, reduce energy expenditure, and increase risk of obesity [ 3 , 11 ]. In addition, weight cycling (the fluctuations in weight following dieting and regain) and an unbalanced diet (particularly inadequate protein intake) may accelerate loss of muscle mass and increase severity of sarcopenia and SO in older adults [ 3 , 12 ]. International guideline for the treatment of sarcopenia emphasizes the importance of resistance training potentially in combination with nutritional supplementation to improve muscle mass and physical function [ 13 ]. Similar therapeutic approach is suggested for treatment of SO [ 14 ]. However, more research is needed to confirm optimal treatment of SO [ 14 ].

According to a recently published meta-analysis the global prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 10 to 27% in populations of older adults ≥ 60 years [ 15 ]. Further the global prevalence of SO among older adults was 11% [ 8 ]. So, sarcopenia and SO are prevalent conditions, with multiple negative health outcomes and should be given special attention [ 16 ]. Despite the large burden on patients and health care systems, the awareness of the importance of skeletal muscle maintenance in obesity is low among clinicians and scientists [ 3 , 16 ].

A recent meta-analysis on publication trends revealed that despite an increase in global research on sarcopenia, the Nordic countries were only limitedly represented [ 6 ]. Nordic countries may differ from other regions on aspects associated with the prevalence and trajectory of sarcopenia and SO and challenge the representativeness of research findings from other parts of the world. These include a different prevalence pattern of noncommunicable diseases [ 17 ], different life-style behavior and life-style associated risk factors [ 15 , 18 ], and higher life expectancy [ 18 ].

The Nordic countries including Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and three autonomous areas (Åland Islands, Greenland and Faroe Islands) share common elements of social and economic policies such as a comprehensive publicly financed health care system [ 18 , 19 ]. Additionally, these countries have a strong tradition of collaboration including a common vision of a socially sustainable region by promoting equal health and inclusive participation in society for older adults [ 20 ]. Therefore, more insight into the etiology, prevalence, and risk factors for sarcopenia and SO among older adults is a prerequisite for the development and implementation of effective strategies to prevent and treat these complex geriatric conditions in this geographic region. So, the aim of this study is to conduct a scoping review to systematically identify and map the available evidence while also addressing knowledge gaps and exploring the following research questions: (1) What are the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in older adults living in the Nordic countries? (2) Which risk factors or contributing conditions are involved in the development of sarcopenia and SO in the Nordic Countries? (3) Which interventions to prevent or counteract negative health outcomes of sarcopenia and SO have been tested or implemented among older adults living in the Nordic countries?

Identification of relevant studies

The development and reporting of this review were done by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 21 ].

The literature search was developed to target three main areas: Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity, and aging (See Appendix 1 for full search strategy). All studies published before the end of February 2023 were included in this scoping review. The optimal sensitivity of search was obtained by simultaneous search of the following databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of science (WOS). Additionally, a detailed search for grey literature was performed in relevant databases (e.g., Research Portal Denmark, Libris, Oria, Research.fi). Besides, reference lists of the included studies were reviewed to identify eligible studies. Duplicates and non-peer reviewed evidence (e.g., PhD thesis) were excluded but if the latter contained published articles of relevance, these were included. If more than one publication on similar outcomes (e.g., prevalence) were based on a single study, just one publication was included. Data were extracted from large studies with combined data from several countries only when findings were presented separately for the Nordic countries.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follow : Broad selection criteria were used to be comprehensive: (1) studies with any outcome (e.g., prevalence, risk factors, etc.) to address our research questions on sarcopenia and SO, (2) studies on subjects with age ≥ 60 years in any type of settings (e.g., community, nursing homes, general practice, hospital, outpatients, homecare, etc.), (3) studies using any definition of sarcopenia and SO without restriction for criteria and cutoff values, (4) all type of study designs (e.g., randomized control trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional, etc.), (5) studies should be conducted in the Nordic countries The exclusion criteria are as follow : (1) studies without relevant outcome to sarcopenia or SO, (2) studies without sufficient information to determine eligibility.

Study selection and data extraction

Two independent researchers screened literature and conducted data extraction. Any discrepancies between them were resolved through discussion.

First, duplicates were removed by using EndNote 20.6 software, then titles and abstracts were screened to narrow down the list of potentially eligible studies. Finally, the full text review was done to examine in detail the studies that were not excluded in first step. For more clarification, the reasons for the exclusion were recorded (Fig.  1 ).

PRISMA diagram for searching resources

The following information was extracted: (1) study characteristics (e.g., first author’s name, country, year of publication), (2) characteristics of the target population (e.g., age, sex), (3) study design, setting, intervention duration and follow-up time (if applicable), measurements, tools, criteria, and results.

Study selection

A combined total of 6,358 studies were identified through the initial electronic database and grey literature searches. An additional five articles were identified through other sources (citation searching). After removing duplication, 3,464 articles remained. A total of 3107 articles were excluded based on screening titles and abstracts. Out of the remaining 357 studies, 324 were excluded after the full-text review. Finally, 33 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this current scoping review [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ] (Fig.  1 ).

Study characteristics

Table  1 summarized characteristics of the included studies.

The number of documents showed an increasing trend between 2020 and 2021. A peak in the number of publications was observed in 2021 (24.2% of all documents). All the studies were conducted across four (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) out of the five Nordic countries and three autonomous areas. The highest contribution in this field was made by Sweden ( n  = 12).

Most studies were conducted in community-dwelling settings [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 54 ]. Seven studies included patients with acute diseases (hospital-setting) [ 26 , 27 , 33 , 37 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], while four studies included patients with chronic conditions (out-patient setting) [ 25 , 32 , 41 , 44 ], and one study including nursing-home residents [ 34 ]. In terms of study design, most of the studies were observation studies with a cross-sectional or longitudinal design ( 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ), while three studies [ 32 , 35 , 46 ] applied interventions. It appears, however, that one study [ 32 ] out of the above three interventions is sub-project conducted within the framework of larger intervention program. Sample size ranged from 49 in a cross-sectional case control study [ 52 ] to 3334 in a cohort study [ 30 ].

Five studies were among males only [ 22 , 24 , 36 , 45 , 53 ] and three studies included females only [ 38 , 47 , 54 ]. The rest of the studies had a mixed sample. Top subject area was sarcopenia (31 out of the 33 included studies), and on this subject, publications were categorized into the following research areas (with some studies addressing more areas): prevalence [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], risk factors [ 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 ], and effectiveness of interventions on sarcopenia or indicator of sarcopenia [ 32 , 35 , 46 ].

In most studies sarcopenia was defined according to the criteria set by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People in the updated version from 2019 (EWGSOP2) ( n  = 15) or the original version from 2010 (EWGSOP) ( n  = 14). However, in some studies multiple criteria such as EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, and National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project definition (FNIH) were applied [ 27 , 39 , 43 ], and in other studies alternative criteria were used [ 26 , 33 , 35 , 45 , 57 ].

Different assessment methods of muscle mass including Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [ 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) [ 28 , 31 , 34 , 44 , 48 , 49 ], Bioimpedance Spectroscopy (BIS) [ 35 , 42 , 43 ], Computed Tomography (CT) [ 33 ], and Computed Tomography Angiogram (CTA) [ 26 ] were used in the included studies.

SO were defined by the co-existence of sarcopenia with obesity. Studies on SO used the EWGSOP2 criteria [ 39 ], or the EWGSOP2 criteria for hand grip strength only (probable sarcopenia) [ 23 ] in combination with obesity estimated from BMI cut points [ 23 , 39 ], waist circumference [ 23 , 39 ], and fat mass percentage [ 39 ]. Lastly, one study used measures of body composition measures that reflect adiposity as estimates of SO [ 48 ].

Four studies reported the prevalence of “probable sarcopenia” [ 23 , 30 , 36 , 45 ], while two studies reported the prevalence of sarcopenia and comorbidities (e.g., osteopenia, pre-frailty, malnutrition) [ 33 , 40 ].

Narrative synthesis

Due to the heterogeneity of the studies in definition of sarcopenia, settings, and sample size, the overall reported prevalence was variable and ranged from 0.9% [ 54 ] to 58.5% [ 26 ]. However, according to the most commonly used criteria (EWGSOP2) the highest (46%) and lowest (1%) prevalence of sarcopenia was reported in Sweden among inpatients in geriatric care [ 27 ], and community-dwelling older adults [ 30 ], respectively.

Prevalence of sarcopenia according to population and definition criteria is illustrated in Table  2 . Higher prevalence rates of sarcopenia were found in females compared to males among community-dwelling older adults [ 49 ] and in older adults acutely admitted to hospital [ 51 ]. Further, acutely admitted female patients also presented with more severe sarcopenia compared to male patients [ 51 ].

Frequency of sarcopenia was higher (9.1–40.0%) in patients with diabetes (with and without complications of charcot osteoarthropathy), compared to age-matched healthy adults [ 52 ].

The prevalence of “probable sarcopenia” ranged between 20.4% (reduced muscle strength only) and 38.1% (fulfilling one of the following criteria: reduced muscle strength, reduced muscle mass, or low physical function) in Finnish community-dwelling adults [ 23 , 36 ], while longitudinal studies on Swedish community-dwelling old (70 years) and very old adults (≥ 85 years) the prevalence of “probable sarcopenia” (reduced muscle strength only) ranged from 1.8 to 73%, respectively [ 30 , 45 ]. Lastly, in a Swedish study among nursing home residents the prevalence of probable sarcopenia was 44% (evaluated by an impaired chair stand test) [ 34 ].

Prevalence of Osteosarcopenia (sarcopenia and osteoporosis) was 1.5% [ 36 ], and the prevalence of co-occurrence of all three following conditions: pre-frail, malnutrition, and sarcopenia was 7% [ 34 ].

We only identified two studies with prevalence of SO [ 39 ] and probable SO [ 23 ]. The prevalence of SO in a Swedish population was 4% and 11% in females and males, respectively, while the prevalence of probable SO among Finnish community-dwelling ranged between 5.8% and 12.6%, depending on the criteria to define the obesity (e.g., BMI, waist circumference, etc.) [ 23 ].

Several studies investigated aspects of etiology and risk factors for sarcopenia [ 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 ] and one study focused on SO [ 49 ]. Higher physical activity was associated with a decreased likelihood of sarcopenia [ 30 ]. In addition, adhering to world health organization (WHO) guidlines for physical activity and the Nordic nutritional recommendations for protein intake was positively associated with greater physical function and lower fat mass in older female community-dwellers [ 38 ]. In older adults who are physically active, eating a healthy diet (based on the frequency of intake of favorable food like fish, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains versus unfavorable foods like red/processed meats, desserts/sweets/sugar-sweetened beverages, and fried potatoes) was associated with lower risk of sarcopenia [ 28 ]. Further, among older adults who already meet the physical activity guidelines, additional engagement in muscle-strengthening activities was associated with a lower sarcopenia risk score and improved muscle mass and chair rise time [ 31 ].

Associations between sarcopenia, risk of sarcopenia and malnutrition or nutritional status was identified in geriatric patients [ 27 , 51 ], older patients with hip fracture [ 50 ], nursing home residents [ 34 ] and in community-dwelling older adults [ 49 ]. Moreover, the importance of nutritional intake was investigated in the following studies [ 24 , 36 , 47 ]. A study among community-dwelling men revealed an inverse association between total energy intake, protein intake (total, plant, and fish protein), intake of dietary fibers, fat (total and unsaturated), and vitamin D with sarcopenia status [ 36 ]. In a cohort of 71-year-old men a dietary pattern characterized by high consumption of fruit, vegetables, poultry, rice and pasta was associated with lower prevalence of sarcopenia after 16 years [ 24 ]. A longitudinal Finnish study on sarcopenia indices among postmenopausal older women, showed that lower adherence to the Mediterranean (focuses on high consumption of olive oil) or Baltic Sea (focuses on the dietary fat quality and low-fat milk intake) diets resulted in higher loss of lean mass over a 3-year period [ 47 ]. Further, a higher adherence to the Baltic Sea diet was associated with greater lean mass and better physical function, and higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with greater muscle quality [ 47 ].

In a study of patients with hip fracture age, polypharmacy, and low albumin levels was associated with sarcopenia [ 50 ]. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency was an independent risk factor for sarcopenia [ 44 ]. This study also revealed that sarcopenia was associated with reduced quality of life, physical function, and increased risk of hospitalization [ 44 ]. In a longitudinal study of community-dwelling adults (+ 75 years) at risk of sarcopenia, high physical function, muscle strength, muscle mass and low BMI predicted better physical function and reduced need for care after four years [ 42 ]. Furthermore, in community-dwelling adults with sarcopenia, muscle mass, muscle strength and physical function are independent predictors of all-cause mortality. As a result, they have been proposed by researchers as targets for the prevention of sarcopenia-related over-mortality [ 43 ]. Lastly, community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia had lower bone mineral density compared to those without sarcopenia and they were more likely to develop osteoporosis (Osteosarcopenia) [ 40 ].

Regarding SO risk factors, a longitudinal study among community-dwelling older adults in Finland found that SO (operationalized by measures of adiposity) were associated with poorer physical function after ten years [ 48 ].

Our literature search identified three randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of interventions to prevent or counteract sarcopenia in older adults of Norway, Finland, and Sweden, respectively [ 32 , 35 , 46 ]. The Norwegian study [ 32 ] was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). The study included those who were at risk of developing sarcopenia, including patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or individuals who showed diagnostic indications of sarcopenia. Participants received either vitamin D 3 or placebo supplementation for 28 weeks. Additionally, resistance training sessions were provided to all participants from weeks 14 to 27. Vitamin D supplementation did not significantly affect response to resistance training in older adults at risk of sarcopenia with or without COPD [ 32 ].

Furthermore, a RCT among pre-sarcopenic Swedish older adults investigated the effectiveness of three weekly sessions of instructor-led progressive resistance training in combination with a non-mandatory daily nutritional supplement (175 kcal, 19 g protein) compared to control group. The 10 weeks intervention resulted in significant between group improvements of physical function and a significant improvement in body composition in the intervention group [ 46 ].

Another intervention study revealed that a 12-month intervention with two daily nutritional supplements (each containing 20 g whey protein) did not attenuate the deterioration of physical function and muscle mass in sarcopenic older community-dwelling adults compared to isocaloric placebo supplements or no supplementation. All participants were given instructions on home-based exercises, importance of dietary protein and vitamin D supplementation [ 35 ].

Based on our broad literature search 33 studies were identified that concerned sarcopenia and SO and met the inclusion criteria. However, research on SO was very limited with only three studies identified. Narrative synthesis of the included studies revealed that the most reported classification tool for sarcopenia in Nordic countries was the EWGSOP2. Moreover, some studies estimated sarcopenia using EWGSOP. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia in Nordic countries according to EWGSOP2 ranged between 1% and 46% [ 25 , 28 ]. The prevalence of SO, however, was reported only in one study in Sweden (4–11%) [ 39 ]. Even though the previous systematic reviews and meta-analysis have reported the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO in different regions and settings (e.g., community-dwelling, nursing home, etc.) [ 8 , 15 , 55 , 56 ], this current scoping review is to the best of our knowledge the first study that provides an overview of research on sarcopenia and SO in the Nordic countries.

Based on our findings from 24 studies, there were large variability in prevalence of sarcopenia in studies conducted in the Nordic countries. We think that the wide variation in estimated prevalence of sarcopenia in our scoping review might be due to a different definition/diagnostic criterion (e.g., EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, FNIH), methodology to measure muscle mass (DXA, BIA, CT), and heterogeneity in characteristics of the study population (e.g., setting, age, medical conditions, co-occurrence of multiple risk factors). A previous study on prevalence of sarcopenia in Swedish older people showed significant differences between prevalence of sarcopenia based on EWGSOP2 and EWGSOP1 [ 29 ]. Therefore, researchers stressed that prevalence is more dependent on cut-offs than on the operational definition [ 29 , 57 ]. Further, we know that various international sarcopenia working groups have issued expert consensus and such diagnostic criteria are being updated [ 4 , 58 ]. Since the revision of criteria focuses primarily on the adjustment of cut-off values, the main reason for differences in prevalence even when using an updated version of one diagnosis criteria is modification in cut-off values. For instance, if the cut-off value for gait speed was increased by 0.2 m/s, the prevalence of sarcopenia may increase by 8.5% [ 57 ]. Meaning that even a small change in cut-off value can have a big impact on how sarcopenia is diagnosed. Besides when we take definition criteria into account (Table  2 ), the prevalence of sarcopenia is still variable in the population of community-dwelling adults for instance. We believe it is basically because studies have applied different assessment tools and tests to identify older adults with low muscle mass and muscle strength, although using the same definition criteria (Table  1 ). Previous studies have illustrated that choice of methodology to assess muscle strength (e.g., hand grip strength, chair rise) [ 59 ] and muscle mass (e.g., DXA, BIA, anthropometry) [ 60 , 61 , 62 ] in older adults may impact findings and this variability may explain some of the variability in our findings. So, adherence to the latest uniform diagnostic criteria for future studies is recommended to simplify the comparison of findings within the same country, across countries, and regions. Moreover, we suggest that medical community particularly GPs to come to an agreement on assessment methods for muscle mass and muscle strength and the use of one set of definition criteria for sarcopenia.

In previous meta-analyses [ 15 ], sub-group analyses based on region and classification tool, revealed that the prevalence of sarcopenia was higher in European studies using EWGSOP (12%) compared to rest of the studies using Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS), FNIH, and EWGSOP (3%) [ 15 ]. In our scoping review, we also found a high prevalence of sarcopenia in Nordic countries. Longevity and life expectancy is higher in the Nordic countries compared to estimates for rest of the world [ 18 ], which means that in this region many people reach old age, and consequently they are more likely to be diagnosed with sarcopenia as an age-related disorder. Therefore, the authors of this current scoping review emphasis the importance of preventive strategies targeted major risk factors and effective interventions to limit the consequences of sarcopenia in the Nordic populations. Besides, we think that the health care system in the Nordic countries should be better equipped with the necessary healthcare resources for both a timely diagnosis and dealing with this major age-related issue in the years to come. However, due to the limitations regarding the timely diagnosis, we highly recommend a comprehensive approach including establishment of support services, implement educational programs, offer training for health care professionals, and engage the community.

Many countries have conducted research on SO [ 7 , 39 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Based on our findings, however, among the Nordic countries only Sweden and Finland have investigated the prevalence of probable SO and SO [ 23 , 29 ]. Besides, we only found one study investigating the association between body adiposity and physical function over time [ 54 ]. We did not find any literature on risk factors or interventions among older adults with SO in this region. Therefore, we call on medical and research community in Nordic countries to attach importance to screening of SO in elderly people to capture a full picture of this public health risk to aging society and allocate healthcare resources accordingly.

In terms of risk factors for sarcopenia, our study revealed that malnutrition, low levels of physical activity, specific diseases (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), inflammation, polypharmacy (multiple medicines), BMI, and ageing are potential risk factor for sarcopenia in populations of the Nordic region. However, evidence on risk factors derived mainly from cross-sectional associations [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 40 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 51 ], and only to a limited extend from longitudinal studies [ 24 , 38 , 43 , 47 ]. Therefore, the associations between risk factors and sarcopenia should be interpreted with caution due to the possibility of reverse causality and confounding affecting the results. Moreover, our findings on risk factors mainly came from community-dwelling older adults, and only to a limited extend hospital and nursing home settings. We think that risk factors may vary depending on population characteristics (e.g., age, sex, health condition) and setting (e.g., hospital, nursing home, community). Therefore, we encourage researchers of the Nordic countries to perform well-designed prospective cohort studies in different settings to enhance the possibility to establish causal inference as well as understanding degree and direction of changes over time.

A recently published meta-analyses revealed a higher risk of having polypharmacy in Europe among individuals with sarcopenia compared to people without this condition [ 66 ]. A nationwide register-based study in Swedish population also showed that the prevalence of polypharmacy has increased in Sweden over the last decade [ 67 ]. Sarcopenia itself is associated with morbidity (identified by specific disease or inflammatory markers) and different health-related outcomes (e.g., disability) [ 7 ]; therefore, future research should investigate whether polypharmacy is a major factor to sarcopenia development [ 66 ]. Although we lack information on polypharmacy in Nordic countries other than Sweden, we encourage researchers in this region to examine the above research gap in their future studies.

According to previous studies physiological changes in ageing include systemic low-grade inflammation which results in insulin resistance, affect protein metabolism and leads to increased muscle wasting [ 68 ]. Acute and chronic disease may increase the inflammatory response and accelerate age-related loss of muscle mass and increase risk of sarcopenia [ 68 , 69 ]. Hence, we think that special attention should be made by health care professionals particularly GPs to older adults with acute or chronic conditions to limit the risk of sarcopenia.

Literature from the Nordic countries also indicated that higher levels of physical activity and different dietary patterns (e.g., higher protein intake, fruit, vegetables, fibers) were associated with reduced risk of sarcopenia or improvement in indicators of sarcopenia. There was a large heterogeneity in the studied aspect which makes direct comparison of studies difficult. Nevertheless, according to findings from a recent systematic review of meta-analyses on sarcopenia the identified risk factors are in alignment with previously identified risk factors globally [ 70 ]. Other potential lifestyle-related risk factors suggested from the above meta-analysis included smoking and extreme sleep duration. However, we did not identify studies investigating these health behaviors in the Nordic populations. Therefore, high-quality cohort studies are needed to deeply understand such associations with the risk of sarcopenia.

In this current review, we only found three intervention studies in Nordic countries. However, two of them were sub-projects of big intervention programs, meaning that such studies were not designed explicitly for the prevention/treatment of sarcopenia. Therefore, explicit intervention studies on sarcopenia in this region is recommended.

We believe that on a global level, research on sarcopenia will carry on with nutrition, exercise, and understanding of molecular mechanisms. Furthermore, examining the link between sarcopenia and other medical conditions/diseases would be the next step [ 6 ]. In the Nordic countries, however, already performed studies have a basic and descriptive design, so that, well-designed research and advanced analyses are lacking. Hence, we recommend conducting large well-designed and adequately powered studies to (a) explore the scale of this age-related health issue on country and regional level, (b) investigate the patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior to understand if this should be a target in older adults with SO and sarcopenia, (c) determine whether elderly populations are suffering from nutritional deficiency or are at risk of malnutrition. The latest can support further studies to assess the impact of combined physical activity and dietary intake, which are still lacking globally [ 6 ].

A previous systematic review on therapeutic strategies for SO revealed that exercise-based interventions (e.g., resistance training) reduced total adiposity and consequently improved body composition. However, evidence of other therapeutic strategies (e.g., nutritional supplementation) was limited due to scarcity of data and lack of unique definition for SO [ 69 ]. Therefore, authors suggested that more research should be done to clarify optimal treatment options for various age-groups and not only for older adults [ 14 ].

In our scoping review, the included studies, did not provide a status of either SO or the prevention/treatment methods in this region. We believe that SO is practically neglected in clinical practice and research as well, and this is mainly because it is difficult to separate it from general obesity. The consequence of lacking knowledge in this research area is that when older adults with SO are recommended weight loss- a frequently used strategy for management of general obesity- this may accelerate the loss of muscle mass and increase the severity of the sarcopenia [ 3 ]. Consequently, we think that this issue may have adverse effects both on patients (e.g., decreasing quality of their life) and on the health care system (e.g., increasing the health care demands) of this region. Therefore, we encourage researchers to perform cohort studies to understand the epidemiology and etiological basis of SO, which are poorly understood even on a global scale [ 8 ]. We think that the consensus definition on SO from the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) which was published in 2022 [ 3 ], can positively affect the ability to define studies on prevalence and prevention of SO. Besides, we recommend conducting further research to find the optimal treatment for SO and reduce its adverse consequences both at individual and society levels. Additionally, we think that the concepts of sarcopenia and SO might be somehow unfamiliar to health care personnel. Therefore, it is highly recommended that more information be provided to bring their attention to the significance of prevention, timely diagnosis, and treatment of these two aging disorders.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This is the first study providing an overview of available evidence on sarcopenia and SO among older adults in the Nordic countries. These countries have important similarities in welfare sectors and on a population level and we believe that our findings will be a significant benefit for researchers and health care providers to understand the knowledge gaps and plan for future studies in this geographical region. However, the current scoping review has limitations. This review was limited to studies among individuals more than 60 years old which may limit the overview of available research in this field, as well as understanding risk factors, confounders for prevention, and the potential for early detection of these two diseases in younger age population. The included cross-sectional studies in our review cannot provide information on causality of the associations.

Sarcopenia and SO are generally prevalent syndromes among older adults in Nordic countries, even though the prevalence of them varies according to the criteria for definition, population, and setting. Research among older adults with SO was very limited in this region. Besides, studies on risk factors were primarily cross-sectional and only few intervention studies were identified. Therefore, we encourage researchers performing well-designed studies (e.g., prospective cohorts) to understand the epidemiology and etiological basis of these two age-related disorders. For the next step, implementation of interventions targeting risk factors (e.g., combined physical activity and dietary intake) and evaluating of their impact on prevention or treatment of sarcopenia and SO is recommended. Furthermore, for the comprehensive advancement of muscle health in older adults, we recommend implementing interventions directed at health care personnel and encouraging more collaboration among clinicians, professional societies, researchers, and policy makers to ensure comprehensive and effective approach to health care initiatives.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

sarcopenic obesity

Web of science

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People in the updated version from 2019

National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project definition

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

Bioimpedance Spectroscopy

Computed Tomography

Computed Tomography Angiogram

World Health Organization

General Practitioner

Randomized Controlled Trial

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

European Association for the Study of Obesity

United, Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs., Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).

United, Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs., Population Division (2019). World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/430).

Donini LM, Busetto L, Bischoff SC, Cederholm T, Ballesteros-Pomar MD, Batsis JA, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Dicker D, Frara S, Frühbeck G, Genton L, Gepner Y, Giustina A, Gonzalez MC, Han HS, Heymsfield SB, Higashiguchi T, Laviano A, Lenzi A, Nyulasi I, Parrinello E, Poggiogalle E, Prado CM, Salvador J, Rolland Y, Santini F, Serlie MJ, Shi H, Sieber CC, Siervo M, Vettor R, Villareal DT, Volkert D, Yu J, Zamboni M, Barazzoni R. Definition and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity: ESPEN and EASO Consensus Statement. Obes Facts. 2022;15(3):321–35. doi: 10.1159/000521241. Epub 2022 Feb 23. PMID: 35196654; PMCID: PMC9210010.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, Cooper C, Landi F, Rolland Y, Sayer AA, Schneider SM, Sieber CC, Topinkova E, Vandewoude M, Visser M, Zamboni M, Writing Group for the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2), and the Extended Group for EWGSOP2. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):16–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy169 . Erratum in: Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):601. PMID: 30312372; PMCID: PMC6322506.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cylus J, Figueras J, Normand C. Will population ageing spell the end of the welfare state? A review of evidence and policy options [Internet]. Sagan A, Richardson E, North J, White C, editors. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2019. PMID: 31820887.

Yuan D, Jin H, Liu Q, Zhang J, Ma B, Xiao W, Li Y. Publication trends for Sarcopenia in the World: a 20-Year bibliometric analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:802651. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.802651 . PMID: 35223902; PMCID: PMC8873525.

Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, Meinow B, Fratiglioni L. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003 . Epub 2011 Mar 23. PMID: 21402176.

Gao Q, Mei F, Shang Y, Hu K, Chen F, Zhao L, Ma B. Global prevalence of sarcopenic obesity in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(7):4633–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.06.009 . Epub 2021 Jun 21. PMID: 34229269.

Molino S, Dossena M, Buonocore D, Verri M. Sarcopenic obesity: an appraisal of the current status of knowledge and management in elderly people. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(7):780-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-015-0631-8 . PMID: 27499312.

Khadra D, Itani L, Tannir H, Kreidieh D, El Masri D, El Ghoch M. Association between sarcopenic obesity and higher risk of type 2 diabetes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Diabetes. 2019;10(5):311–23. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v10.i5.311 . PMID: 31139318; PMCID: PMC6522758.

Aggio DA, Sartini C, Papacosta O, Lennon LT, Ash S, Whincup PH, Wannamethee SG, Jefferis BJ. Cross-sectional associations of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time with Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in older men. Prev Med. 2016;91:264–72. Epub 2016 Aug 26. PMID: 27575317; PMCID: PMC5061552.

Rossi AP, Rubele S, Calugi S, Caliari C, Pedelini F, Soave F, Chignola E, Vittoria Bazzani P, Mazzali G, Dalle Grave R, Zamboni M. Weight cycling as a risk factor for low muscle mass and strength in a population of males and females with obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2019;27(7):1068–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22493 . PMID: 31231958.

Dent E, Morley JE, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Arai H, Kritchevsky SB, Guralnik J, Bauer JM, Pahor M, Clark BC, Cesari M, Ruiz J, Sieber CC, Aubertin-Leheudre M, Waters DL, Visvanathan R, Landi F, Villareal DT, Fielding R, Won CW, Theou O, Martin FC, Dong B, Woo J, Flicker L, Ferrucci L, Merchant RA, Cao L, Cederholm T, Ribeiro SML, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Anker SD, Lundy J, Gutiérrez Robledo LM, Bautmans I, Aprahamian I, Schols JMGA, Izquierdo M, Vellas B. International clinical practice guidelines for sarcopenia (ICFSR): screening, diagnosis and management. J Nutr Health Aging. 2018;22(10):1148–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-018-1139-9 . PMID: 30498820.

Poggiogalle E, Parrinello E, Barazzoni R, Busetto L, Donini LM. Therapeutic strategies for sarcopenic obesity: a systematic review. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2021;24(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000000714 . PMID: 33323715.

Petermann-Rocha F, Balntzi V, Gray SR, Lara J, Ho FK, Pell JP, Celis-Morales C. Global prevalence of Sarcopenia and severe Sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(1):86–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12783 . Epub 2021 Nov 23. PMID: 34816624; PMCID: PMC8818604.

Prado CM, Wells JC, Smith SR, Stephan BC, Siervo M. Sarcopenic obesity: a critical appraisal of the current evidence. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(5):583–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2012.06.010 . Epub 2012 Jul 17. PMID: 22809635.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Balaj M, Huijts T, McNamara CL, Stornes P, Bambra C, Eikemo TA. Non-communicable diseases and the social determinants of health in the nordic countries: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(2):90–102. Epub 2017 Jan 27. PMID: 28128015.

Nordic Burden of Disease Collaborators. Life expectancy and disease burden in the Nordic countries: results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(12): e658-e669. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30224-5. Epub 2019 Nov 20. PMID: 31759894; PMCID: PMC7098475.

Stockmarr A, Hejgaard T, Matthiessen J. Obesity prevention in the Nordic Countries. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(2):156 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-016-0206-y . PMID: 27033877.

Cuadrado A, Stjernberg M, Huynh D. Active and healthy ageing: heterogenous perspectives and nordic indicators. Nordens välfärdscenter/Nordic Welfare Centre; 2022.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 . Epub 2010 Feb 18. Erratum in: Int J Surg. 2010;8(8):658. PMID: 20171303.

Sallfeldt ES, Mallmin H, Karlsson MK, Mellström D, Hailer NP, Ribom EL. Sarcopenia prevalence and incidence in older men - a MrOs Sweden study. Geriatr Nurs. 2023 Mar-Apr;50:102–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.01.003 . Epub 2023 Feb 10. PMID: 36774676.

Sääksjärvi K, Härkänen T, Stenholm S, Schaap L, Lundqvist A, Koskinen S, Borodulin K, Visser M. Probable Sarcopenia, obesity, and risk of all-cause mortality: a pooled analysis of 4,612 participants. Gerontology. 2023;69(6):706–15. Epub 2023 Jan 30. PMID: 36716714.

Karlsson M, Becker W, Cederholm TE, Byberg L. A posteriori dietary patterns in 71-year-old Swedish men and the prevalence of Sarcopenia 16 years later. Br J Nutr Camb Univ Press. 2022;128(5):909–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114521003901 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dolin TG, Mikkelsen MK, Jakobsen HL, Vinther A, Zerahn B, Nielsen DL, Johansen JS, Lund CM, Suetta C. The prevalence of Sarcopenia and cachexia in older patients with localized colorectal cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2023;14(1):101402. Epub 2022 Nov 21. PMID: 36424269.

Paajanen P, Lindström I, Oksala N, Väärämäki S, Saari P, Mäkinen K, Kärkkäinen JM. Radiographically quantified Sarcopenia and traditional cardiovascular risk assessment in predicting long-term mortality after endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2022;76(4):908–e9152. Epub 2022 Mar 31. PMID: 35367563.

Sobestiansky S, Åberg AC, Cederholm T. Sarcopenia and malnutrition in relation to mortality in hospitalised patients in geriatric care - predictive validity of updated diagnoses. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2021;45:442–8. Epub 2021 Jul 16. PMID: 34620352.

Papaioannou KG, Nilsson A, Nilsson LM, Kadi F. Healthy eating is Associated with Sarcopenia Risk in physically active older adults. Nutrients. 2021;13(8):2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082813 . PMID: 34444973; PMCID: PMC8401667.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wallengren O, Bosaeus I, Frändin K, Lissner L, Falk Erhag H, Wetterberg H, Rydberg Sterner T, Rydén L, Rothenberg E, Skoog I. Comparison of the 2010 and 2019 diagnostic criteria for Sarcopenia by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older people (EWGSOP) in two cohorts of Swedish older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02533-y . PMID: 34702174; PMCID: PMC8547086.

Scott D, Johansson J, Gandham A, Ebeling PR, Nordstrom P, Nordstrom A. Associations of accelerometer-determined physical activity and sedentary behavior with Sarcopenia and incident falls over 12 months in community-dwelling Swedish older adults. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(5):577–84. Epub 2020 Feb 5. PMID: 34088651; PMCID: PMC8500807.

Veen J, Montiel-Rojas D, Nilsson A, Kadi F. Engagement in muscle-strengthening activities lowers Sarcopenia Risk in older adults already adhering to the Aerobic Physical Activity guidelines. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030989 . PMID: 33499423; PMCID: PMC7908493.

Mølmen KS, Hammarström D, Pedersen K, Lian Lie AC, Steile RB, Nygaard H, Khan Y, Hamarsland H, Koll L, Hanestadhaugen M, Eriksen AL, Grindaker E, Whist JE, Buck D, Ahmad R, Strand TA, Rønnestad BR, Ellefsen S. Vitamin D3 supplementation does not enhance the effects of resistance training in older adults. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(3):599–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12688 . Epub 2021 Mar 31. PMID: 33788419; PMCID: PMC8200443.

Simonsen C, Kristensen TS, Sundberg A, Wielsøe S, Christensen J, Hansen CP, Burgdorf SK, Suetta C, de Heer P, Svendsen LB, Achiam MP, Christensen JF. Assessment of Sarcopenia in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumors: prevalence and agreement between computed tomography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(5):2809–16. Epub 2021 Mar 26. PMID: 33933747.

Faxén-Irving G, Luiking Y, Grönstedt H, Franzén E, Seiger Å, Vikström S, Wimo A, Boström AM, Cederholm T. Do malnutrition, sarcopenia and frailty overlap in nursing-home residents? J Frailty Aging. 2021;10(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2020.45 . PMID: 33331617.

Björkman MP, Suominen MH, Kautiainen H, Jyväkorpi SK, Finne-Soveri HU, Strandberg TE, Pitkälä KH, Tilvis RS. Effect of protein supplementation on physical performance in older people with sarcopenia-a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(2):226–e2321. Epub 2019 Nov 14. PMID: 31734121.

Jyväkorpi SK, Urtamo A, Kivimäki M, Strandberg TE. Macronutrient composition and sarcopenia in the oldest-old men: the Helsinki businessmen study (HBS). Clin Nutr. 2020;39(12):3839–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.04.024 . Epub 2020 Apr 24. PMID: 32376097.

Probert N, Lööw A, Akner G, Wretenberg P, Andersson ÅG. A comparison of patients with hip fracture, ten years apart: morbidity, malnutrition and sarcopenia. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(8):870–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-020-1408-2 . PMID: 33009538.

Sjöblom S, Sirola J, Rikkonen T, Erkkilä AT, Kröger H, Qazi SL, Isanejad M. Interaction of recommended levels of physical activity and protein intake is associated with greater physical function and lower fat mass in older women: Kuopio osteoporosis risk Factor- (OSTPRE) and fracture-Prevention Study. Br J Nutr. 2020;123(7):826–39. Epub 2020 Jan 8. PMID: 31910914; PMCID: PMC7054249.

von Berens Å, Obling SR, Nydahl M, Koochek A, Lissner L, Skoog I, Frändin K, Skoglund E, Rothenberg E, Cederholm T. Sarcopenic obesity and associations with mortality in older women and men - a prospective observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):199. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01578-9 . PMID: 32517653; PMCID: PMC7285448.

Nielsen BR, Andersen HE, Haddock B, Hovind P, Schwarz P, Suetta C. Prevalence of muscle dysfunction concomitant with osteoporosis in a home-dwelling Danish population aged 65–93 years -the Copenhagen Sarcopenia Study. Exp Gerontol. 2020;138:110974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2020.110974 . Epub 2020 May 25. PMID: 32464171.

Van Ancum JM, Alcazar J, Meskers CGM, Nielsen BR, Suetta C, Maier AB. Impact of using the updated EWGSOP2 definition in diagnosing Sarcopenia: a clinical perspective. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020 Sep-Oct;90:104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104125 . Epub 2020 May 23. PMID: 32534364.

Björkman M, Jyväkorpi SK, Strandberg TE, Pitkälä KH, Tilvis RS. Sarcopenia indicators as predictors of functional decline and need for care among older people. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019;23(10):916–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1280-0 . PMID: 31781719.

Björkman MP, Pitkala KH, Jyväkorpi S, Strandberg TE, Tilvis RS. Bioimpedance analysis and physical functioning as mortality indicators among older sarcopenic people. Exp Gerontol. 2019;122:42–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2019.04.012 . Epub 2019 Apr 24. PMID: 31026498.

Olesen SS, Büyükuslu A, Køhler M, Rasmussen HH, Drewes AM. Sarcopenia associates with increased hospitalization rates and reduced survival in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2019;19(2):245–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2019.01.006 . Epub 2019 Jan 14. PMID: 30665702.

Sobestiansky S, Michaelsson K, Cederholm T. Sarcopenia prevalence and associations with mortality and hospitalisation by various sarcopenia definitions in 85–89 year old community-dwelling men: a report from the ULSAM study. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):318. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1338-1 . PMID: 31747923; PMCID: PMC6864927.

Vikberg S, Sörlén N, Brandén L, Johansson J, Nordström A, Hult A, Nordström P. Effects of resistance training on functional strength and muscle mass in 70-Year-old individuals with pre-sarcopenia: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(1):28–34. Epub 2018 Nov 7. PMID: 30414822.

Isanejad M, Sirola J, Mursu J, Rikkonen T, Kröger H, Tuppurainen M, Erkkilä AT. Association of the baltic sea and mediterranean diets with indices of sarcopenia in elderly women, OSPTRE-FPS study. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57(4):1435–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-017-1422-2 . Epub 2017 Mar 16. PMID: 28303397.

Mikkola TM, von Bonsdorff MB, Salonen MK, Simonen M, Pohjolainen P, Osmond C, Perälä MM, Rantanen T, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG. Body composition as a predictor of physical performance in older age: a ten-year follow-up of the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Jul-Aug;77:163–8. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.05.009. Epub 2018 May 14. PMID: 29783137; PMCID: PMC5994345.

Ottestad I, Ulven SM, Øyri LKL, Sandvei KS, Gjevestad GO, Bye A, Sheikh NA, Biong AS, Andersen LF, Holven KB. Reduced plasma concentration of branched-chain amino acids in sarcopenic older subjects: a cross-sectional study. Br J Nutr. 2018;120(4):445–53. Epub 2018 Jun 18. PMID: 29909813.

Steihaug OM, Gjesdal CG, Bogen B, Kristoffersen MH, Lien G, Ranhoff AH. Sarcopenia in patients with hip fracture: a multicenter cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9):e0184780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184780 . PMID: 28902873; PMCID: PMC5597226.

Jacobsen EL, Brovold T, Bergland A, Bye A. Prevalence of factors associated with malnutrition among acute geriatric patients in Norway: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e011512. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011512 . PMID: 27601491; PMCID: PMC5020767.

Jansen RB, Christensen TM, Bülow J, Rørdam L, Holstein PE, Svendsen OL. Sarcopenia and body composition in diabetic Charcot osteoarthropathy. J Diabetes Complications. 2015 Sep-Oct;29(7):937–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.05.020 . Epub 2015 Jun 5. PMID: 26139557.

Frost M, Nielsen TL, Brixen K, Andersen M. Peak muscle mass in young men and Sarcopenia in the ageing male. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(2):749–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2960-6 . Epub 2014 Nov 22. PMID: 25416073.

Patil R, Uusi-Rasi K, Pasanen M, Kannus P, Karinkanta S, Sievänen H. Sarcopenia and osteopenia among 70-80-year-old home-dwelling finnish women: prevalence and association with functional performance. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(3):787–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2046-2 . Epub 2012 Jun 12. PMID: 22688541.

Papadopoulou SK, Tsintavis P, Potsaki P, Papandreou D. Differences in the prevalence of sarcopenia in community-dwelling, nursing home and hospitalized individuals. a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1267-x . PMID: 31886813.

Mayhew AJ, Amog K, Phillips S, Parise G, McNicholas PD, de Souza RJ, Thabane L, Raina P. The prevalence of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults, an exploration of differences between studies and within definitions: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):48–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy106 . PMID: 30052707.

Cao M, Lian J, Lin X, Liu J, Chen C, Xu S, Ma S, Wang F, Zhang N, Qi X, Xu G, Peng N. Prevalence of Sarcopenia under different diagnostic criteria and the changes in muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function with age in Chinese old adults. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):889. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03601-7 . PMID: 36418979; PMCID: PMC9682713.

Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, Martin FC, Michel JP, Rolland Y, Schneider SM, Topinková E, Vandewoude M, Zamboni M, European working group on sarcopenia in older people. sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European working group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing. 2010;39(4):412–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq034 . Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392703; PMCID: PMC2886201.

Verstraeten LMG, de Haan NJ, Verbeet E, van Wijngaarden JP, Meskers CGM, Maier AB. Handgrip strength rather than chair stand test should be used to diagnose s in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: restoring health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT). Age Ageing. 2022;51(11):afac242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac242 . PMID: 36413590; PMCID: PMC9681126.

Cheng KY, Chow SK, Hung VW, Wong CH, Wong RM, Tsang CS, Kwok T, Cheung WH. Diagnosis of sarcopenia by evaluating skeletal muscle mass by adjusted bioimpedance analysis validated with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2021;12(6):2163–73. Epub 2021 Oct 4. PMID: 34609065; PMCID: PMC8718029.

Sousa-Santos AR, Barros D, Montanha TL, Carvalho J, Amaral TF. Which is the best alternative to estimate muscle mass for sarcopenia diagnosis when DXA is unavailable? Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021 Nov-Dec;97:104517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104517 . Epub 2021 Sep 3. PMID: 34547538.

González Correa CH, Marulanda Mejía F, Castaño González PA, Vidarte Claros JA, Castiblanco Arroyabe HD. Bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual x-ray absorptiometry agreement for skeletal muscle mass index evaluation in sarcopenia diagnosis. Physiol Meas. 2020;41(6):064005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ab8e5f . PMID: 32348971.

Hwang B, Lim JY, Lee J, Choi NK, Ahn YO, Park BJ. Prevalence rate and associated factors of sarcopenic obesity in Korean elderly population. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(7):748–55. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2012.27.7.748 . Epub 2012 Jun 29. PMID: 22787369; PMCID: PMC3390722.

Kera T, Kawai H, Hirano H, Kojima M, Fujiwara Y, Ihara K, Obuchi S. Differences in body composition and physical function related to pure Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity: a study of community-dwelling older adults in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(12):2602–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13119 . Epub 2017 Jun 28. PMID: 28657168.

Aibar-Almazán A, Martínez-Amat A, Cruz-Díaz D, Jiménez-García JD, Achalandabaso A, Sánchez-Montesinos I, de la Torre-Cruz M, Hita-Contreras F. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in Spanish community-dwelling middle-aged and older women: Association with balance confidence, fear of falling and fall risk. Maturitas. 2018;107:26–32. Epub 2017 Oct 7. PMID: 29169576.

Prokopidis K, Giannos P, Reginster JY, Bruyere O, Petrovic M, Cherubini A, Triantafyllidis KK, Kechagias KS, Dionyssiotis Y, Cesari M, Ibrahim K, Scott D, Barbagallo M, Veronese N, the Task Force on Pharmaceutical Strategy of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS). Special interest group in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and sarcopenia is associated with a greater risk of polypharmacy and number of medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023;14(2):671–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.13190 . Epub 2023 Feb 13. PMID: 36781175; PMCID: PMC10067503.

Zhang N, Sundquist J, Sundquist K, Ji J. An increasing Trend in the prevalence of polypharmacy in Sweden: a nationwide register-based study. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00326 . PMID: 32265705; PMCID: PMC7103636.

Dalle S, Rossmeislova L, Koppo K. The role of inflammation in age-related sarcopenia. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.01045 . PMID: 29311975; PMCID: PMC5733049.

Riuzzi F, Sorci G, Arcuri C, Giambanco I, Bellezza I, Minelli A, Donato R. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of sarcopenia: the S100B perspective. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2018;9(7):1255–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12363 . Epub 2018 Nov 30. PMID: 30499235; PMCID: PMC6351675.

Yuan S, Larsson SC. Epidemiology of sarcopenia: prevalence, risk factors, and consequences. Metabolism. 2023;144:155533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2023.155533 . Epub 2023 Mar 11. PMID: 36907247.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark

This work was done without any fund.

Author information

Fereshteh Baygi, Sussi Friis Buhl contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Fereshteh Baygi, Sussi Friis Buhl, Trine Thilsing, Jens Søndergaard & Jesper Bo Nielsen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FB conceived and designed the review, participated in literature review, data extraction, interpretation of the results and wrote the manuscript. SFB designed the review, participated in literature review, data extraction, and revised the manuscript. TT, JBN and JS contributed to the conception of the study and revised the manuscript critically. All the authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fereshteh Baygi or Sussi Friis Buhl .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Baygi, F., Buhl, S.F., Thilsing, T. et al. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among older adults in the nordic countries: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 24 , 421 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04970-x

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 13 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04970-x

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

• Sarcopenic obesity
• Nordic countries

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]