research review paper

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

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

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

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

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

What Is A Review Paper?

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

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

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

• clarify, and
• evaluate previous findings.

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

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

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

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

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

Types Of Review Paper

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

Systematic Review Paper

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

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

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

Literature Review Paper

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

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

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

Narrative Reviews

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

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

Scoping Reviews

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

• key concepts,
• theories, and

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

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

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

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

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

Title & Abstract

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

• analyse, and
• critique existing literature.

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

Discussion & Conclusion

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

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

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

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

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

Clearly Define Your Research Question

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

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

Efficient Literature Searching

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

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

Organise Your Findings Systematically

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

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

Build An Outline Before Writing

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

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

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

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

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

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

Learn How To Write An Article Review

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

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

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

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

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

2024 © Academia Insider

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

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 that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

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 summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of 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, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely 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 its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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 problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. 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 as 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 useful 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 also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to 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.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

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?
• 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 use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

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 is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation 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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you 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 organizing the body of a literature review. 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 summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze 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 organize 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.

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, you can follow these tips:

• 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

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

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

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

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

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

Collection: Careers toolkit

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

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

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

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

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

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

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

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

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

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

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

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

Careers Collection: Publishing

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

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

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

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

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

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

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

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

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

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

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

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

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

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

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

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

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

Tools and techniques

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

Reference managers

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

Collaborative writing tools

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

Career Column 14 AUG 24

‘Who will protect us from seeing the world’s largest rainforest burn?’ The mental exhaustion faced by climate scientists

Career Feature 12 AUG 24

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

Career Column 09 AUG 24

The need for equity in Brazilian scientific funding

Correspondence 13 AUG 24

Canadian graduate-salary boost will only go to a select few

A hike of postdoc salary alone will not retain the best researchers in low- or middle-income countries

Chatbots in science: What can ChatGPT do for you?

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

Career Feature 07 AUG 24

Editor (Applied and Industrial Microbiology)

We’re seeking a biologist who has a critical eye, a deep understanding of their subject and interests beyond, and who can think on their feet.

London, Madrid or Pune (hybrid working)

Springer Nature Ltd

Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d)

Fachbereich Physik - Institut für Theoretische Physik AG Netz Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) full-time job limited to 3 years (end of project...

14195, Berlin (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Faculty Positions in Bioscience and Biomedical Engineering (BSBE) Thrust, Systems Hub, HKUST (GZ)

Tenure-track and tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor)

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Global recruitment of CMO/Senior Director for Clinical Study

Responsible to lead a team run the development of local cancer therapeutics in Latam.

Brazil (BR)

Sinovac Biotech Ltd.

Global recruitment of Principal Investigator

The principal investigators (PI) is responsible to manage research teams focused on innovative drug R&D.

Beijing, China

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

Quick links

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

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

• Published: 02 October 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
• Mark B. Houston 2 &
• John Hulland 3  

239k Accesses

480 Citations

64 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

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

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

Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach

• University of Garut

• UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

• Universitas Pasundan

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Andreas Ahrens

• Anastasija Bikova
• Irina Abjalkiene

• Agnes Nofita

• Roshimah Shamsudin
• Wijianto Wijianto
• M. Furqon Hidayatullah
• Slamet Riyadi
• Bramastia Bramastia

• WENDY MATHEVULA
• SELLO MOABELO

• Harumi Iring Primastuti

• Amisha Gunderia
• Priyansh Agarwal
• V. B. Nikam
• A.N. Bambole
• Nur Holifah
• Miskan Miskan
• J CLEAN PROD

• Kira Schabram

• Steve Counsell
• Jose Galvan

• Ros Carnwell

• Joyce Colling
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

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

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

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

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

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

How to write a review article

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

Check the journal’s aims and scope

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

Define your scope

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

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

Finding sources to evaluate

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

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

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

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

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

Introduce the topic

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

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

Include critical discussion

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

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

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

Use a critical friend

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

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

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

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

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

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

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

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

Expert help for your manuscript

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

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: July 27, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,129,703 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

COMMUNICATION IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Department of Biology

LITERATURE REVIEW PAPER

WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER?

CHOOSING A TOPIC

RESEARCHING A TOPIC

HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER    

The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers .

A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report . It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.

Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:

                Current Opinion in Cell Biology

                Current Opinion in Genetics & Development

                Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology

                Annual Review of Physiology

                Trends in Ecology & Evolution

You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized.

Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American ) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology ).

A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.

The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject.  You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.

Click here for advice on choosing a topic.  

Click here for advice on doing research on your topic.  

HOW TO WRITE THE PAPER

Overview of the Paper: Your paper should consist of four general sections:

Review articles contain neither a materials and methods section nor an abstract.

Organizing the Paper: Use topic headings. Do not use a topic heading that reads, "Body of the paper." Instead the topic headings should refer to the actual concepts or ideas covered in that section.

Example  

What Goes into Each Section:

Home  

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

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 92.4K views

Table of Contents

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

Types of review articles

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

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

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

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

Tips for writing a good review article

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

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

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

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

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

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

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

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

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

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.

Page Content

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

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

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

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

Informal Structure

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

Formal Structure

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

In Both Cases

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

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

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

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

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

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

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

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

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

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

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

You might examine:

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

Major Flaws in Information

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

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

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

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

The First Paragraph

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

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

The Second Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

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

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

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

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

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

You may also wish to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

On Grammar and Punctuation

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

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

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

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

Originality and Topicality

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

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

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

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

2. Materials and Methods

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

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

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

Repeatable Methods

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

Robust Research

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

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

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

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

3. Results and Discussion

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

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

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

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

4. Conclusions

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

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

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

Where information is clear, you should check that:

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

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

6. List of References

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

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

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

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

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

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

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

7. Plagiarism

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

Identified Concern

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

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

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

Suspected Concern

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

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

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

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

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Issues

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

Minor Issues

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

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

You should also:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommending Acceptance

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

Recommending Revision

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

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

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

Recommending Rejection

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

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

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

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

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

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

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

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

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?

Researchers often have to write different types of articles, from review papers to review papers and more, each with its own purpose and structure. This makes it critical for students and researchers to understand the nuances of good writing and develop the skills required to write various kinds of academic text. With so many different types of academic writing to pursue – scholarly articles, commentaries, book reviews, case reports, clinical study reports – it is common for students and early career researchers to get confused. So in this article, we will explain what is a review paper and what is a research paper, while summarizing the similarities and difference between review papers and research papers.

Table of Contents

What is a Review Paper ?

A review paper offers an overview of previously published work and does not contain any new research findings. It evaluates and summarizes information or knowledge that is already available in various published formats like journals, books, or other publications, all of which is referred to as secondary literature. Well-written review papers play a crucial role in helping students and researchers understand existing knowledge in a specific field or a research topic they are interested in. By providing a comprehensive overview of previous studies, methodologies, findings, and trends, they help researchers identify gaps in a specific field of study opening up new avenues for future research.

What is a Research Paper ?

A research paper is based on original research and primary sources of data. Unlike review papers, researchers writing research papers need to report new findings derived from empirical research or experimentation. It requires the author to draw inferences or make assumptions based on experiments, surveys, interviews, or questionnaires employed to collect and analyze data. Research papers also typically follow the recommended IMRAD format, which includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Through research papers, authors address a specific research question or hypothesis with the aim of contributing novel insights to the field.

Similarities between research papers and review papers

Research papers and review papers share several similarities, which makes it understandable that it is this pair of academic documents that are often most confused.

• Research papers and review papers are written by scholars and intended for an academic audience; they’re written with the aim of contributing to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field and can be published in peer reviewed journals.
• Both research papers and review papers require a comprehensive understanding of all the latest, relevant literature on a specific topic. This means authors must conduct a thorough review of existing studies, theories, and methodologies in their own subject and related areas to inform their own research or analysis.
• Research papers and review papers both adhere to specific formatting and citation styles dictated by the target journal. This ensures consistency and allows readers to easily locate and reference the sources cited in the papers.

These similarities highlight the rigorous, scholarly nature of both research papers and review papers, which requires both research integrity and a commitment to further knowledge in a field. However, these two types of academic writing are more different than one would think.

Differences between research papers and review papers

Though often used interchangeably to refer to academic content, research papers and review papers are quite different. They have different purposes, specific structure and writing styles, and citation formats given that they aim to communicate different kinds of information. Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers:

• Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken by the author, who is required to contribute new knowledge to the research field.
• Structure: Research papers typically follow a structured format, including key sections like the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Meanwhile, review papers may have a more flexible structure, allowing authors to organize the content based on thematic or chronological approaches. However, they generally include an introduction, main body discussing various aspects of the topic, and a conclusion.
• Methodology: Research papers involve the collection of data, experimentation, or analysis of existing data to answer specific research questions. However, review papers do not involve original data collection; instead, they extensively analyze and summarize existing studies, often using systematic literature review methods.
• Citation style: Research papers rely on primary sources to support and justify their own findings, emphasizing recent and relevant research. Review papers incorporate a wide range of primary and secondary sources to present a comprehensive overview of the topic and support the evaluation and synthesis of existing literature.

In summary, it’s important to understand the key differences between research papers and review papers. By mastering the art of writing both research papers and review papers, students and researchers can make more meaningful contributions to their chosen disciplines. All the best!

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What are the Best Research Funding Sources

What are Experimental Groups in Research

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

Title Page Setup

A title page is required for all APA Style papers. There are both student and professional versions of the title page. Students should use the student version of the title page unless their instructor or institution has requested they use the professional version. APA provides a student title page guide (PDF, 199KB) to assist students in creating their title pages.

Student title page

The student title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation, course number and name for which the paper is being submitted, instructor name, assignment due date, and page number, as shown in this example.

Title page setup is covered in the seventh edition APA Style manuals in the Publication Manual Section 2.3 and the Concise Guide Section 1.6

Related handouts

• Student Title Page Guide (PDF, 263KB)
• Student Paper Setup Guide (PDF, 3MB)

Student papers do not include a running head unless requested by the instructor or institution.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the student title page.

Professional title page

The professional title page includes the paper title, author names (the byline), author affiliation(s), author note, running head, and page number, as shown in the following example.

Follow the guidelines described next to format each element of the professional title page.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

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

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

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

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

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

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

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

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

Finding Studies

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

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

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

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

Formulating a Synthesis

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

Conclusions

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

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• MDMA assisted therapy:...

MDMA assisted therapy: Three papers are retracted as FDA rejects PTSD application

• Related content
• Peer review
• Elisabeth Mahase

Three research papers on MDMA assisted psychotherapy have been retracted by the journal Psychopharmacology because of “protocol violations amounting to unethical conduct” by researchers at a study site.

In the retraction notices the journal said that the authors were aware of the violations when they submitted the articles but failed to disclose them or remove the affected data from their analysis. 1 2 3 All three papers related to phase 2 randomised controlled trials for MDMA assisted therapy, with similar authors listed for all three papers.

Although the notices did not detail what the …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2024

Experiences of informal caregivers supporting individuals with upper gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review

• Melinda Furtado   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5472-4707 1 ,
• Dawn Davis 1 ,
• Jenny M. Groarke 1 , 2 &
• Lisa Graham-Wisener 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  932 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGICs) are increasingly prevalent. With a poor prognosis and significant longer-term effects, UGICs present significant adjustment challenges for individuals with cancer and their informal caregivers. However, the supportive care needs of these informal caregivers are largely unknown. This systematic review of qualitative studies synthesises and critically evaluates the current evidence base on the experience of informal caregivers of individuals with UGIC.

A Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed in four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL) from database inception to February 2021. Included studies explored experiences of informal caregivers of individuals diagnosed with primary cancer of the oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, bile duct, gallbladder, or liver. Studies were independently screened for eligibility and included studies were appraised for quality by two reviewers. Data were extracted and synthesised using meta-aggregation.

19 papers were included in this review, and 328 findings were extracted. These were aggregated into 16 categories across three findings: (1) UGIC caregiver burden; UGIC caregivers undertake extensive responsibilities, especially around patient diet as digestion is severely impacted by UGICs. (2) Mediators of caregiver burden; The nature of UGICs, characterised by disruptive life changes for caregivers, was identified as a mediator for caregiver burden. (3) Consequences of caregiver burden: UGIC caregivers’ experiences were shaped by unmet needs, a lack of information and a general decline in social interaction.

Conclusions

The findings of this review suggest the need for a cultural shift within health services. Caregiving for UGIC patients is suggested to adversely affect caregivers’ quality of life, similarly to other cancer caregiving populations and therefore they should be better incorporated as co-clients in care-planning and execution by including them in discussions about the patient’s diagnosis, treatment options, and potential side effects.

Peer Review reports

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) [ 1 ] define upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGICs) as cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, bile duct/gallbladder, or liver. Of all new cancer diagnoses in 2020 globally, 16.6% were UGICs [ 2 ]. Incidence of UGICs is increasing in countries under economic transition, and in Western countries due to heightened exposure to certain risk factors [ 3 ]. Overall prevalence of UGICs is also expected to rise annually with growing life expectancy and improved diagnostics [ 4 ]. Despite this, UGICs still have a uniquely poor prognosis in comparison to other cancer populations [ 5 ]. UGICs do not typically benefit from screening programmes and individuals are more likely to present at diagnosis with advanced disease [ 6 ]. This is compounded by a high rate of recurrence for individuals able to receive curative treatment [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. As a result, UGICs persistently account for a significant proportion of global cancer deaths; 27.1% in 2020 [ 2 ]. Poor prognosis contributes significantly to the heightened disease burden of UGIC, alongside increased utilisation of health services due to the complexity of the treatment trajectory and symptom management [ 10 , 11 ]. In comparison to other cancer populations, having UGIC is associated with late consultation with palliative care services [ 12 ] meaning patients and their families have delayed access, if any, to supportive interventions such as counselling, psycho-education, financial advice and structured family meetings [ 13 ].

The supportive care needs of the sizeable population of individuals with UGIC are considerable, with sustained late and longer-term effects. In addition to the common sequalae from cancer diagnosis and treatment, disruption to the digestive system presents problems with swallowing, nausea and keeping food down, a modified diet, extreme changes in weight, chronic pain and living with a stoma [ 14 , 15 ]. The poor prognosis and longer-term effects present a challenge in adjustment both for the individual with UGIC and their informal caregiver, defined as “close persons” who may be related to the diagnosed individual (siblings, relatives, or spouses) or not (friends, neighbours). A caregiver is anyone identified as such by the patient to provide unpaid ongoing care and support [ 16 ]. Examples of challenges for caregivers include learning new practical skills such as managing negative responses to foods, providing a new diet, monitoring weight changes, chronic pain management and stoma management [ 17 , 18 ]. With biomedical advances leading to a reduction in hospital stay length [ 19 ], there is increasing emphasis placed on the role of the UGIC caregiver to provide support to the individual with cancer in the community.

This unique caregiver population face distinct challenges which contribute to caregiver burden which reflects the need for further research into their experiences. For example, due to changes in the diet of the individual with UGIC, the social aspect of dining for both is compromised and can lead to feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and shame [ 20 , 21 ]. Evidence of caregiver burden is suggested by high levels of anxiety and depression. In caregivers of post-treatment oesophageal cancer patients, 30% of caregivers reported moderate-high levels of anxiety and 10% reported moderate-high levels of depression, alongside a significant fear of recurrence [ 22 ]. Research suggests that UGIC caregivers may experience higher levels of psychological distress than the individual with UGIC, and that clinical levels of anxiety and depression may be sustained in the longer-term [ 22 , 23 ]. However it is worth noting that a lot of the effects of UGIC caregiving acknowledged in the literature are consistent with the general experience of informally providing care and as such there is scope to apply the beneficial practices from other settings (both extra-GI cancer and non-cancer).

It is crucial that we recognise the role of caregivers as co-clients and understand the experiences of this significant caregiver population. Caregivers’ personal experiences are inherently subjective, and due to this subjective nature, a qualitative research approach is optimal [ 24 ]. A synthesis of existing qualitative studies will help to establish a knowledge base on the experience of informal caregivers of individuals with UGIC and will help to inform the provision for supportive care. An initial search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was conducted and no current or underway systematic reviews on the topic were identified.

This qualitative systematic review aims to synthesise the best available evidence on the experiences of informal caregivers supporting individuals diagnosed with UGIC.

This systematic review was conducted following the JBI approach to qualitative systematic reviews [ 25 ]. A protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021235354). The systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement [ 26 ].

Search strategy

An initial limited search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid) was undertaken using the following keywords: Oesophageal cancer OR Stomach cancer OR Gastrointestinal cancer OR pancreas cancer OR gallbladder cancer OR liver cancer AND caregiver AND Qualitative. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE and adapted for the other databases.

The final search strategy (Additional information 1 ) was then employed against four databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Each database was searched on 12th February 2021.

Study selection

Following the formal searches, all identified citations were collated and uploaded into Endnote [ 27 ] to identify and remove duplicates. Rayyan reference management software [ 28 ] was then used by independent two reviewers (DD, MF) to screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full and screened against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers (DD, MF). Reasons for exclusion of papers at full text review were recorded. Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process was resolved through discussion (DD, MF), or with an additional reviewer (LGW). The reference list and citation list of all eligible articles was searched for additional studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This review included studies exploring experiences of adults (≥ 18 years of age) who are informal caregivers of individuals diagnosed with UGIC at any stage within the disease process. This included those diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, bile duct, gallbladder, or liver [ 1 ]. This diagnosis must be the primary cancer site. Studies involving informal caregivers of individuals who had secondary gastrointestinal system metastases were not included.

A caregiver is anyone identified as such by the patient to provide unpaid ongoing care and support [ 16 ]. Paid professional caregivers were not included. The caregivers included provided various services, such as practical (providing transport, overseeing meals) or emotional support roles in caring for the patient. Caregivers with any gender or ethnicity were considered for inclusion. Both active and bereaved caregivers were eligible, if discussing their pre-bereavement experience.

Studies which reviewed experiences of multiple groups (e.g., patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals) or multiple cancers beyond the remit of UGIC were included, provided the data pertaining to informal caregivers and UGICs was clearly delineated and could be extracted separately. Where data was hard to distinguish regarding participant-type or cancer-type, the study was only included if at least 50% of the sample size was drawn from the target population.

Phenomena of interest

The review included qualitative studies that looked at caregivers’ experiences of caring for an individual with UGIC.

Studies for inclusion were based in any geographic location or setting. All care contexts were considered relevant (e.g., primary care, secondary, tertiary, community, or home settings).

Types of studies

Research studies considered for inclusion were focused on qualitative data including, but not limited to; designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research. Mixed method studies were considered relevant if data from the qualitative component could be clearly extracted. Only English language studies were included.

Only empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals were included. There was no restriction on publication year. Systematic reviews were not included, however relevant studies were harvested from them, when relevant. Editorials, opinion papers, case studies and any articles without relevant, original data were excluded, alongside grey literature.

Quality Appraisal

Subsequently, two independent reviewers (DD, MF) critically appraised the included studies to evaluate the strength of the evidence for methodological quality using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research [ 29 ]. All studies, regardless of the results of their methodological quality, underwent data extraction and synthesis. One of the included studies employed use of free-test questionnaires [ 30 ], the robustness of which has been called into question by qualitative researchers as the data generated from these responses is rarely rich enough to provide the necessary strong insights [ 31 ]. However, the reviewers felt the robustness of this study was upheld by the fact that the researchers conducted a comprehensive search on existing literature prior to data collection, thus allowing questionnaire findings to be scaffolded onto existing conceptual frameworks.

Data extraction

Data were extracted using standardized JBI data extraction tool [ 32 ] by two independent reviewers (DD, MF). Each undertook data extraction for half of the articles and then checked the other reviewer’s data extraction. The extracted data included specific details about the population, context, study methods and the phenomena of interest relevant to the review objective. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion. Four authors of papers were contacted to request missing or additional data for clarification mainly regarding breakdown of participant populations by cancer type of which no new information arose.

A finding is defined by the JBI as “a verbatim extract of the author’s analytic interpretation accompanied by either a participant voice, or fieldwork observations or other data.” [ 33 , p40]. Findings were identified through repeated reading of the text, and extraction of findings included any distinct analytic observation reported by authors with an accompanying illustration (Additional information 2 ).

Data synthesis

Each finding was identified by an alphanumeric code (e.g., A1, A2, B1, etc.). Each letter corresponded to a study and each number to a unique finding. The progressive numbers indicate the order of the findings within the original article. Each finding was rated with one of three levels of credibility as per the ConQual system [ 34 ]:

Unequivocal - findings accompanied by an illustration that is beyond reasonable doubt and therefore not open to challenge.

Credible - findings accompanied by an illustration lacking clear association with it and therefore open to challenge.

Not Supported - findings are not supported by the data.

Qualitative research findings were pooled with the meta-aggregation approach and captured in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet [ 33 ]. Findings were aggregated by assembling the findings and categorizing these findings based on similarity in meaning, then labelling the categories accordingly. Categories were then synthesised to produce a comprehensive set of synthesized findings. Two reviewers (DD, MF) repeatedly read the findings and developed a set of categories. To assess the quality and confidence of each qualitative finding synthesised within this review, authors utilised the ConQual system (Additional information 3 ), a tool used to assign ratings of confidence in synthesised qualitative research findings [ 34 ]. Only unequivocal and credible findings were included in the synthesis.

The combined database searches yielded 5465 records. After removing duplicates and screening studies against eligibility criteria (Fig.  1 ), the review included 19 studies [ 18 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. Additional information 4 displays the characteristics of the 19 included studies.

PRISMA flowchart of study selection process

Description of included studies

All included studies were published between 2004 and 2021. Most commonly, studies focused on caregivers of individuals with oesophageal cancer ( N  = 7), or pancreatic ( N  = 7), including one study of pancreatic and bile duct cancer. Other studies included caregivers of individuals with liver cancer ( N  = 2), gastric cancer ( N  = 1) and the gastrointestinal tract generally ( N  = 2). Geographically, studies were conducted in eight regions. The largest group ( N  = 6) were conducted in the US [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], followed by Denmark ( N  = 3) [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Most samples included a variety of within-family caregivers ( N  = 13), generally spouses/partners, children, and siblings. Others ( N  = 3) looked specifically at spouses and three did not specify the caregiver-patient relationship. Most studies included a semi-structured interview format ( N  = 12), others used focus groups ( N  = 4), secondary analysis of existing data ( N  = 2) or questionnaires ( N  = 1).

Quality of included studies

The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist [ 25 ] was used to establish the quality of the research. The included studies were generally of good quality, with all 19 papers achieving at least 60% across the ten JBI quality assessment criteria (Additional information 5 ). Within the JBI checklist there are five questions assessing study dependability, where the studies performed at a lower satisfactory level. Of the included papers, two achieved a 5/5 score on dependability questions, seven achieved 4/5, nine scored 3/5 and one scored 2/5. Only 26% of studies could adequately locate the researcher(s) culturally or theoretically and only 37% of papers addressed the influence of the researcher on the research and vice-versa. Conversely, nearly all papers adequately addressed the research methodology’s congruity on objectives, data collection, data representation and analysis.

Meta-aggregation findings

Across the 19 studies, 328 supported findings were extracted, of which 239 were unequivocal and 89 were credible. Findings could be aligned into 23 categories with unique core meanings, which were then synthesised into three findings: (1) UGIC caregiver burden; (2) Mediators of caregiver burden; (3) Consequences of caregiver burden (Additional information 6 ). Figure  2 outlines how the categories relate to the overarching synthesised findings. To remain grounded in the data, the actual participants’ words are used throughout the narrative and double quotation marks illustrate a direct caregiver quote. References given after a quotation links the quote to the study as outlined in Additional information 2 .

Structural arrangement of categories and synthesised findings

Synthesised finding 1: UGIC caregiver burden

As caregivers began supporting those with UGIC, they faced numerous challenges to adjustment. This largely stemmed from efforts to integrate a broad and complex caregiving role within their existing routine. Difficulties such as disruption to daily routines and meals impacted caregivers’ psychological wellbeing. Caregivers were often unprepared for this life disruption, leading them to seek out information from which to learn and distribute to others.

1. Breadth of the caregiver role

The extent of responsibilities on UGIC caregivers was perceived as broad and complex, with an ‘all encompassing’ focus on patient outcomes. UGIC caregivers ‘assume different roles’ [ 42 ].

“The food thing is omnipresent. We have been told that he is not allowed to have further weight loss (K23).

Specific responsibilities included working around reduced appetite and oral intake; monitoring physical signs e.g., patient weight; perioperative management such as care of surgical wounds and organising medical appointments and treatments.

“We’d have to keep. . .going with all the medical appointments and surgery and treatment” (B11).

2. Challenges around patients’ meals

Treatment for and progression of UGIC severely impacts the patient’s relationship with food; with diet quantity and content at times significantly altered. Adaption for the caregiver involved learning about dietary modifications and management of digestive symptoms such as dysphagia. Several studies found that the new dietary restrictions were a source of worry for caregivers regarding the patients’ weight [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. The social importance of food was a common theme throughout the included studies, with interruption to established social norms perceived as distressing. Mealtimes are considered a ‘unifying family ritual’ [ 49 ], but when mealtimes constantly serve to remind caregivers of their responsibility of monitoring, they became a potential source of distress.

“I can’t get Bernard out of the small meals. . I have to ring him every day from work to tell him to eat” (A7).

3. Life disruption

UGIC was experienced as coming unexpectedly into caregivers’ lives, intruding on their existing routines, for instance, as working professionals or parents. Caregivers described their responsibilities as time and energy-consuming. This conflict caused caregivers to feel a loss of control [ 44 ]. Caregiving responsibilities for UGICs demanded commitment over a long-time frame, impacting caregivers’ employability and their ‘own social life’ [ 35 ]:

“It’s changed my daily routine. It totally disrupted my life. I have to rearrange a lot of things such as my kids , my work , and getting help for my house cleaning” (J4).

4. Unpreparedness

Caregivers expressed being ill-equipped and unqualified to manage the needs of the UGIC patient. Caregivers reported feeling out of their depth, partially attributed to the lack of available support, relating to patients’ medical requirements:

“I went , ‘You’re not supposed to call 911? What am I supposed to do? What if he just dies right here?’ I mean , it seems they should have somebody say , ’OK , if he’s with you , then here’s the procedure…[The nurse] gave me really no support about what to do” (R21).

Caregivers sometimes felt misled about the extent of their new responsibilities, as while the patient was cared for in hospital by medical staff, they could not gauge what caregiving at home would involve.

“I wish they would have talked to me about it as well… it was a bit of a shock. …but the next morning it all dawned on me that I had just replaced a whole team” (E10).

5. Information manager

Caregivers perceived a key responsibility was to make executive decisions in the dissemination of information, for instance symptomatology, treatment plans and prognosis. Caregivers felt they were the ‘conduit’ [ 18 ] through which medical details were communicated to members of the extended social circle, a time-consuming role where they spent “hours on the phone telling everyone what is happening” (I32).

The caregivers also viewed their role as giving healthcare providers (HCPs) valuable insight into how the patient was coping outside of the medical setting:

“[describing a discussion during a clinical consultation , contradicting the patient] It is not correct that you almost eat as usual. You are eating food of more liquid substance than you usually do and your drinks are high-protein” (C1).

Synthesised finding 2: mediators of caregiver burden

While supporting patients with UGIC, caregivers are exposed to mediators which could increase or reduce caregiver burden, including their use of coping strategies, financial and social resources, and their caregiving context. For instance, higher levels of social support helped alleviate some caregiver burden. Similarly, how excluded a caregiver felt in the medical setting influenced the burden experienced.

1. Degree of inclusion in medical settings

Many studies reported that caregivers perceived they are often kept at a distance in medical settings, increasing caregiver burden. Although some caregivers felt this was fitting and chose to take a ‘subordinate position’ [ 44 ], others struggled with a sense of exclusion, which commonly left unresolved questions:

“…my husband could ask questions , but I didn’t have the space to ask questions , not unless my husband allowed it” (K39).

In such cases, caregivers relied on HCPs’ judgement. Caregivers described only being ‘seen’ if they actively called attention to themselves [ 41 ]. Caregivers experienced being left out of important decisions.

Caregivers expressed wanting to ask questions without the patient present but felt they had no opportunity to directly communicate with HCPs. This pervasive, default invisibility was perceived as disempowering:

“No health professionals involved me in this decision” (K38).

2. Social resources

The degree and quality of support received by caregivers varied and shaped their overall caring experience. The support network is especially beneficial for normalisation of caregivers’ experiences, providing hope and reducing feelings of isolation.

“it was only when I came here that I started talking to people … it was just like a breath of fresh air. . this dumping syndrome , he [the patient] wasn’t the only one” (A10).

Support could be from spiritual groups ( “I have a lot of people that stand behind me…” (B19), empathetic HCPs ( “It’s easier to talk with a nurse when it concerns important questions. You may receive quite good and reassuring answers” (H22) or peers who have undergone a similar caregiving experience, and therefore could reliably address and empathise with caregivers’ challenges.

3. Financial resources

Caregivers reported financial pressure as they had to consider the dyad’s financial situation while one or both members may not be able to work. Providing full-time care was a drain on caregivers’ resources, time, and money. Caregivers struggled with financial planning for the future in the face of prognostic ambiguity.

“We talked about if we should stay on at the house or sell it” (K6).

There were additional pressures on dyads living in countries where utilisation of private health services is the norm.

“Now my grandmother is sick and I can understand how high is the cost of the disease” (D5).

4. Patient-caregiver relationship

The caregiving experience was shaped by the inter-dyad relationship. Some caregivers reported having an emotionally distant relationship with the patient before the diagnosis which led to poor attachment during the cancer trajectory. Others reported a decline in the relationship quality due to cancer-related pressures.

“When I got upset , I would say to my husband , ‘You got cancer because you didn’t listen to me! You deserve it!” (F35).

Others noted a shift within the relationship, transitioning from ‘caregiver’ to ‘curer’ or from a spousal role to a parental one [ 45 ] especially where the caregiver was actively involved in delivering treatment:

“Sometimes I felt like a mother talking to a child: ‘Remember to do this and that’ ” (K29).

Caregivers experienced reciprocal suffering when seeing the patient suffer, especially if an established close relationship existed:

“up when the patient is up and down when the patient is down” (I21).

5. Emotion-focused coping

The cancer experience was perceived to result in significant distress for caregivers. To address this challenge, caregivers engaged in positive emotion-focused coping strategies to directly regulate distress. Many caregivers reported trying to maintain positive thinking. One participant recalled using humour:

“Sometimes you can’t believe what happens and the only thing you can do is laugh” (I41).

Maintaining a positive outlook was perceived to involve “looking for the good in every situation” and by being selective about what news caregivers received through ‘denial’ and “choosing what to hear” (I44). Conversely, another study described positivity as an open-minded reflection on the conflict between current suffering and spiritual beliefs [ 38 ]. Caregivers described how formally addressing their feelings through therapy was also helpful.

Individuals were limited in their opportunity for emotional expression. Caregivers described hiding their own negative thoughts from the patient and took practical measures to divert the patient’s attention by doing “normal things like [going] for a drive and [having] visits from our children and grandchildren” (C15).

6. Information seeking

Caregivers perceived challenges around a lack of information from HCPs regarding UGIC’s pathology and related management options. The experiences of caregivers included difficulties in accessing information.

“We have little information in these areas. When we go to the physician’s office for treatment , the doctor is too busy to give us information in this regard and he merely visits the patients. When we see that nobody could survive from such diseases , we get worried more” (D9).

Caregivers addressed the information challenge by persistently seeking information relating to the disease itself, namely cancer-related symptomatology, prognosis, and treatment options (including alternative therapies). Caregivers referred to sources like medically knowledgeable peers, the internet and print (e.g., encyclopaedias). HCPs were trusted for honest information, with their word choices and body language carefully analysed:

“When my husband and I visit the doctor together , you see when he opens the door that there is no good news today” (H6).

Caregivers were especially empowered when they could differentiate between symptoms due to disease progression and treatment-related adverse effects.

Synthesised finding 3: consequences of caregiver burden

There were consequences of caregiver burden such as feelings of helplessness, distress, anger, guilt and a strong fear of losing the patient. Conversely, there was potential for positive outcomes as caregivers experienced growth and feelings of hope.

1. Distress and helplessness

When recounting the most involved phase of providing care, active treatment, many caregivers reported experiencing heightened distress. One caregiver perceived gastric cancer a ‘death sentence’ [ 49 ], and seeing the patient struggle with the effects of disease and treatments an unbearably ‘ challenging experience’ [ 40 ]. This distress also affected children with one spouse noting their child’s “grades dropped disastrously during his first term” (H14).

Helplessness originates from a lack of control over the disease progression. A particular source of distress were the delays along the cancer trajectory, especially at diagnosis due to the ambiguous presentation of UGICs and lack of control over symptom management.

“It is distressing seeing him in pain all the time” (E6).

2. Anger and guilt

Caregivers experienced a sense of guilt and anger because they perceived stigma from society towards certain cancers. Others may assume that the diagnosis was caused by the patient’s behaviours and therefore indirectly the caregiver may also have been involved. A few studies described this judgement from society towards the patient, with caregivers fearing that others would see the diagnosis as a justified fate:

“You know , when you say cirrhosis of the liver , they think , ‘Oh , you drank yourself’” (R7).

Caregivers also harboured anger at being forced to take on caregiving responsibilities, describing they had “been dealt a bad hand” (I39); however, they felt guilty for feeling this way.

3. Fear of cancer progression and recurrence

Due to the unpredictability of UGICs, caregivers described living in constant dread of the patient’s health declining, and the potential for disease progression or recurrence:

“I am not sure I am going to like the answers I get. Maybe it is better not to know so very much but to do like the ostrich , to bury your head in the sand and hope for the best and keep your fingers crossed” (H41).

Caregivers were fearful of any new physical or psychological symptoms in patients, especially weight-loss, as caregivers saw this as a marker of recurrence. Further, caregivers feared the cancer would progress to a terminal stage which meant they were afraid of the means through which the bereavement would occur and their own subsequent reaction.

“the fear of not being sure of how it’s going to happen and how I’m going to react…I’m afraid of losing him” (L1).

The high mortality associated with most UGICs caused several caregivers to experience acceptance, with the realisation of the long-term impact of their loved one’s cancer and possibility of bereavement.

“The possibility is there for one of us dying quickly” (K5).

4. Isolation and loneliness

Caregivers commonly reported experiencing isolation within their unique role, feeling unable to share their anxieties. As patients were burdened already, caregivers did not want to unload their own worries on to the patient.

“And I had nobody to talk to…There was just nobody. I couldn’t let myself down , my guard down and I found the isolation terrible” (A3).

Loneliness was not only an ongoing concern, but a future threat as spousal caregivers relayed their fear of life post-bereavement.

5. Personal growth

Caregivers reflected that they saw the experience of caregiving as a catalyst for personal change, resulting in positive outcomes such as personal growth and appreciation for life, individually and within the relationship. Caregivers recounted that this unexpected, immense challenge had given them ‘ new perspectives about life’ [ 35 ]. Couples got to spend time together that they would not have had otherwise which led to an improved quality of relationship.

“We’ll talk three or four times a month. Where 10 years ago it might be 6 months or 10 months you know between phone calls” (B14).

The current study presents the first comprehensive synthesis of qualitative research on the experiences of caregivers of individuals with UGICs. This review is the first to systematically identify and synthesise the current evidence base on the experiences of informal caregivers of individuals with UGIC. Given the emergence of this prominent caregiver population, this review contributes to advancing cancer caregiver literature as a whole, an important area of study recognised by individuals with cancer, their family and healthcare professionals [ 52 ]. The review included 19 studies, presented synthesised findings, and identified aspects of caregiving experiences that UGIC caregivers have in common with other cancer caregivers, and aspects more distinct to UGICs. UGIC caregivers experience significant challenges contributing to high levels of burden which are mediated by social, psychological, and practical resources, as well as aspects of health service delivery. The consequences of caregiver burden are primarily negative, including distress, anger, fear, and loneliness.

Caregivers of UGIC patients experienced burden due to the breath and complexity of their role for which they felt unprepared. Caring involved incorporating novel skills into existing responsibilities, causing significant life disruption. Caregivers perceive burden in providing multifaceted care with demands that shift along the illness trajectory. For example, in the beginning caregivers felt it necessary to partake in provision of care, and due to UGIC treatment and disease progression, many responsibilities evolved to monitor and maximise physical health, such as diligent weight monitoring and meal preparation [ 45 , 46 , 47 ]. These findings align to the general cancer caregiver literature [ 53 ], with caregivers recognised in having steep initial learning curves to rapidly acquire skills to provide care. Only one of the 19 studies evaluated data over an extended period [ 45 ]. An extended review is needed to map supportive care resources available across the disease path and longitudinal studies tracking UGIC caregiver support needs across the illness trajectory is warranted.

One of the most reported findings in this review was informal caregivers’ continuous search for information related to their role. Many struggle to satisfy their informational needs at different stages of the disease trajectory contributing to caregiver burden. This corresponds with systematic review findings of Wang et al. [ 54 ] that informational needs were the most common unmet need of informal caregivers. To begin addressing this need, caregivers could be signposted to existing sources of general caregiver support information and interventions, such as Cancer Caring Coping [ 55 , 56 ]. These supports could be used to develop informational resources tailored for UGIC caregivers. A core information set has been developed to aid HCPs at consultation with UGIC patients, to ensure key information is being delivered [ 57 , 58 ] and now the focus of improving patient-carer education should be raising awareness of this key information toolkit to HCPs who commonly interact with this population. A similar approach could be utilised by identifying informational needs of UGIC caregivers at consultations and developing standardised information points delivered by HCPs to caregivers within those consultations. There is also potential to expand the pool of reliable sources of information to individuals outside of the HCP cohort, such as peer networks or psychologists in providing longitudinal support without necessarily adding to the cost burden required for the development of additional personnel and resources.

This review found caregivers experienced exclusion in the medical setting, suggesting enhanced communication between HCPs and caregivers could improve caregivers’ experience. Indeed, a qualitative study by Reblin et al. [ 59 ] identified communication within health services as a key driver for improving cancer caregiver support. One potential avenue to bridge the gap between HCPs and patient-caregiver dyad is incorporating better the clinical nurse specialist (CNS) [ 60 ] as these professionals can be a key contact for bi-directional communication between HCPs and caregivers. That is, caregivers support and help the clinical team to understand the patient’s progress and through this process HCPs acknowledge and include caregivers in the patient’s care. However, the current issue of under resourcing in cancer nursing would need to be addressed as it presently limits the amount of CNS time available to support caregivers [ 61 ].

One review finding specific to UGIC caregiver burden was the challenge around preparing meals. Taleghani and colleagues [ 62 ] mirror this, highlighting gastric caregivers experienced inadequate education in managing patient’s dietary requirements appropriately, resulting in feeling inefficient, uncomfortable, and fearful. Dietician-led interventions are typically patient focused [ 63 , 64 , 65 ]. However, this review highlights an opportunity for HCPs to include caregivers in dietician-led interventions as many caregivers assume responsibility over meal preparation and grocery shopping. The challenge around meals also has social consequences as meals are important social settings. Changes in eating behaviours can lead to both dyad members feeling isolated and lonely [ 18 , 66 ]. Loneliness is prevalent among people living with cancer and is influenced by cancer-specific and non-cancer specific risk factors, such as lack of social support [ 67 ]. There is less of an understanding of loneliness among UGIC caregivers compared to general cancer caregivers [ 68 ]. This is of concern as negative physical and mental health impacts of loneliness are well-established [ 69 , 70 ]. Peer support is the most used intervention to reduce caregivers’ loneliness, with strategies of psychoeducation and emotional support featuring prominently [ 71 ]. Research is needed to identify risk and protective factors for loneliness among UGIC caregivers.

In addition to loneliness, distress and negative affect were identified as consequences of UGIC caregiver burden. There is evidence of heightened distress and reduced physical and mental health among UGIC caregivers relative to UGIC patients [ 72 , 73 ]. This review also found that caregivers engage in emotion-focused strategies to cope with their caregiving role. A review by Teixeira et al. [ 74 ] found that among cancer caregivers, emotion-focused coping was related to higher distress, whereas problem-focused coping was related to better adjustment and reduced burden. There is a need to develop targeted theory-based psychosocial interventions for this caregiver group. The Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping (TTSC) framework could be utilised to understand how mediating processes specific to coping strategies influence distress and negative affect among UGIC caregivers [ 75 , 76 , 77 ], similar to how Bowan et al. [ 78 ] used a Baltes and Baltes [ 79 ] coping framework to develop interventions for cancer patients’ families. Candidate interventions could involve problem-solving and coping skills training [ 80 , 81 ], which could in turn ameliorate the negative consequences of caregiver burden. If effective with UGIC caregivers, such interventions could be extended to all caregivers as part of a standard care pathway. This review recommends further research to develop an understanding of adjustment in UGIC caregivers.

In contrast to the many negative consequences described by informal caregivers, there were a small group of findings which indicated some positive outcomes. These findings align with a review of the positive aspects of caregiving, which reported improved relationship quality, reward, fulfilment, and personal growth [ 82 ]. The review concluded that positive aspects of caregiving are interconnected and suggested, in addition to interventions reducing negative burden, that interventions could be developed to enhance positive outcomes, such as personal growth. Tedeschi and Calhoun’s Transformational Model (TM) [ 83 ] proposes that potentially traumatic stressors, such as caring for an individual diagnosed with cancer, cause a disruption in one’s worldview triggering attempts to make meaning in response to the stressor. Cognitive disruptions also lead to distress, which in turn can act as a catalyst for post-traumatic growth (PTG). Studies have found that caregivers of people with advanced cancer and early-stage breast cancer experience PTG in relation to their caregiving role [ 84 , 85 ], and that PTG was positively associated with greater social support and perceived hope [ 86 ]. Additional research is needed to understand how the challenging UGIC caregiver role may facilitate growth and help the caregiver adjust to their role.

Study limitations

The current systematic review has several strengths. Firstly, it followed an internationally recognised methodology (JBI) for the conduct of qualitative systematic reviews. This helped ensure methodological approach rigour and subsequently, confidence in findings should they be used to inform policy and practice. There are however several limitations. Although studies in the review are generally of good quality, only 19 studies were identified. Indeed, the UK Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce [ 87 ] advocates for more research focused on cancers with low life expectancy, two-thirds of which are UGICs. This lack of research into UGICs extends to the evidence on caregivers. Synthesised findings are therefore based on a small number of studies, largely conducted in the US and Denmark. Within the studies, caregivers of individuals with oesophageal and pancreatic cancer were well represented. However, there were a dearth of studies focused on caregivers’ experiences with gallbladder, or stomach cancer, alongside multiple studies exploring caregivers’ experiences related to dysphagia and malabsorption but fewer exploring jaundice. Therefore, more primary qualitative research is necessary to understand experiences of all UGIC caregiver populations.

Clinical implications

Of relevance for clinical practice was the finding that caregivers often felt excluded in medical settings, increasing caregiver burden. Caregivers should be seen as co-clients along with patients in the medical setting. This is very much in line with the priorities of care within palliative healthcare settings. Since the palliative care approach seeks to addresses the physical, psychological, cultural, social, and spiritual needs [ 88 ] of both individuals with life-limiting and chronic illnesses like cancer and their support networks, early referral to palliative care services could be particularly beneficial for caregivers as their needs are formally and expertly acknowledged and thus help alleviate the burden identified for informal caregivers in this study.

HCPs have an opportunity to give caregivers reliable, specific, and up-to-date information, pitched at the right level to reassure but not overwhelm. Morris and Thomas [ 89 ] mirror this suggestion and highlight its importance, as there is potential for tension in information exchange due to HCP’s lack of formal acknowledgement of caregivers. Clinical guidance and policy could be updated to include recognition of caregivers as co-clients, and with caregiver training, could formally be part of the patient support team. This could help meet the caregivers’ needs, especially post-diagnosis. On an institutional level, caregivers may be more recognised within their role if acknowledged formally, for example in NICE [ 1 ] guidelines for UGICs. In understanding the considerable role caregivers undertake supporting the care of UGIC patients outside of the healthcare system, policymakers and HCPs need to improve support for caregivers which will in turn reduce the burden on health services.

The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to synthesize evidence about the experiences of UGIC caregivers and has found that caregivers face significant challenges leading to caregiver burden which negatively impacts adjustment. Due to the nature of UGICs, caregivers experienced unique challenges such as how best to manage disruptions to mealtimes and how to monitor surrogate markers of patient health, such as weight. UGICs are a medically complex and evolving chronic condition and caregivers struggle to gain information. This review found that caregiver burden was impacted by feeling excluded in medical settings which could be improved with better communication between HCPs, patients, and their caregivers. There is a lack of data relating to the experiences of certain UGIC caregivers (e.g., gallbladder, stomach) in comparison to others (e.g., oesophageal), as well as a lack of understanding on how to manage the impact of caregiving for these types of cancer, thus providing directions for future research.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Gastrointestinal tract (upper). cancers - recognition and referral | Health topics A to Z | CKS |NICE. https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/gastrointestinal-tract-upper-cancers-recognition-referral/2022 . Accessed 25 Aug 2022.

Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, Znaor A, Soerjomataram I, Bray F. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer (2020). https://gco.iarc.fr/today . Accessed 1 Sep 2021.

Xie Y, Shi L, He X, Luo Y. Gastrointestinal cancers in China, the USA, and Europe. Gastroenterol Rep. 2021;9(2):91–104.

Google Scholar  

Gastrointestinal Cancers Global Burden Expected to Rise. National Cancer Institute. 2020. https://dceg.cancer.gov/news-events/news/2020/global-burden-gastro . Accessed 25 Aug 2022.

Veitch AM, Uedo N, Yao K, East JE. Optimizing early upper gastrointestinal cancer detection at endoscopy. Nat Reviews Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12(11):660–7.

Vedeld HM, Goel A, Lind GE. Epigenetic biomarkers in gastrointestinal cancers: the current state and clinical perspectives. InSeminars in cancer biology 2018 Aug 1 (Vol. 51, pp. 36–49). Academic.

Hong L, Huang YX, Zhuang QY, Zhang XQ, Tang LR, Du KX, Lin XY, Zheng BH, Cai SL, Wu JX, Li JL. Survival benefit of re-irradiation in esophageal cancer patients with locoregional recurrence: a propensity score-matched analysis. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):1–9.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Lee S, Kang TW, Song KD, Lee MW, Rhim H, Lim HK, Kim SY, Sinn DH, Kim JM, Kim K, Ha SY. Effect of microvascular invasion risk on early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after surgery and radiofrequency ablation. Ann Surg. 2021;273(3):564–71.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sakamoto H, Attiyeh MA, Gerold JM, Makohon-Moore AP, Hayashi A, Hong J, Kappagantula R, Zhang L, Melchor JP, Reiter JG, Heyde A. The evolutionary origins of recurrent pancreatic CancerOrigins of recurrent pancreatic cancer. Cancer Discov. 2020;10(6):792–805.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Lund JL, Dellon ES, Williams JL… Sandler, R. S. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254–72. Study 2.

Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Lund JL, Dellon ES, Williams JL, Jensen ET, Shaheen NJ, Barritt AS, Lieber SR, Kochar B. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254–72.

Valentino T, Paiva B, Oliveira M, Hui D, Paiva C. Factors associated with palliative care referral among patients with advanced cancers: a retrospective analysis of a large Brazilian cohort. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:1933–41.

Hudson P, Remedios C, Thomas K. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for family carers of palliative care patients. BMC Palliat Care. 2010;9:17–17.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Khan NN, Maharaj A, Evans S, Pilgrim C, Zalcberg J, Brown W, Cashin P, Croagh D, Michael N, Shapiro J, White K. A qualitative investigation of the supportive care experiences of people living with pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–1.

Cencioni C, Trestini I, Piro G, Bria E, Tortora G, Carbone C, Spallotta F. Gastrointestinal cancer patient nutritional management: from specific needs to novel epigenetic dietary approaches. Nutrients. 2022;14(8):1542.

Given BA, Given CW, Sherwood PR. Family and caregiver needs over the course of the cancer trajectory. J Support Oncol. 2012;10:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suponc.2011.10.003

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kim Y, Baek W. Caring experiences of family caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer: an integrative literature review. Support Care Cancer. 2022;7:1–0.

McCorry NK, Dempster M, Clarke C, Doyle R. Adjusting to life after esophagectomy: the experience of survivors and carers. Qual Health Res. 2009;19:1485–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309348366

Bozzetti F, Braga M, Gianotti L, Gavazzi C, Mariani L. Postoperative enteral versus parenteral nutrition in malnourished patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2001;358(9292):1487–92.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Laursen L, Schønau MN, Bergenholtz HM, Siemsen M, Christensen M, Missel M. Table in the corner: a qualitative study of life situation and perspectives of the everyday lives of oesophageal cancer patients in palliative care. BMC Palliat care. 2019;18(1):1–0.

Cooper C, Burden ST, Molassiotis A. An explorative study of the views and experiences of food and weight loss in patients with operable pancreatic cancer perioperatively and following surgical intervention. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(4):1025–33.

Dempster M, McCorry NK, Brennan E, Donnelly M, Murray LJ, Johnston BT. Psychological distress among family carers of oesophageal cancer survivors: the role of illness cognitions and coping. Psycho-oncology. 2011;20(7):698–705.

Graham L, Dempster M, McCorry NK, Donnelly M, Johnston BT. Change in psychological distress in longer-term oesophageal cancer carers: are clusters of illness perception change a useful determinant? Psycho‐Oncology. 2016;25(6):663–9.

Penner JL, McClement SE. Using phenomenology to examine the experiences of family caregivers of patients with advanced head and neck cancer: reflections of a novice researcher. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2008;7:92–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690800700206

Article   Google Scholar  

Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2014;3(3):123.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Clarivate analytics. endnote (version 7.7.1). Philadelphia, USA. https://endnote.com Accessed 25 Aug 2022.

Mourad Ouzzani H, Hammady Z, Fedorowicz, Ahmed Elmagarmid. Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Reviews. 2016;5:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2011.

Hodgson T. Oesophageal cancer: experiences of patients and their partners. Br J Nurs. 2006;15(21):1157–60.

LaDonna K, Taylor T, Lingard L. Why open-ended survey questions are unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Acad Medicine: J Association Am Med Colleges. 2017;93(3):347–9.

Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2014 edition. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2014:88–91.

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):179–87.

Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):1–7.

Sherman DW, McGuire DB, Free D, Cheon JY. A pilot study of the experience of family caregivers of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer using a mixed methods approach. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;48(3):385–99.

Winterling J, Wasteson E, Glimelius B, Sjödén PO, Nordin K. Substantial changes in life: perceptions in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their spouses. Cancer Nurs. 2004;27:381–8.

Hansen L, Rosenkranz SJ, Wherity K, Sasaki A. Living with hepatocellular carcinoma near the end of life: family caregivers’ perspectives. In Oncology nursing forum 2017 Sep 1 (Vol. 44, No. 5).

Nolan MT, Hodgin MB, Olsen SJ, Coleman J. Spiritual issues of family members in a pancreatic cancer chat room. In Oncology Nursing Forum 2006 Mar 1 (Vol. 33, No. 2, p. 239). Oncology Nursing Society.

Padron A. Dyadic relationships among sense of mastery, cancer-related distress, and cortisol in patients and caregivers impacted by abdominal and pelvic malignancies. In University of Florida. 2018.

Petrin K, Bowen DJ, Alfano CM, Bennett R. Adjusting to pancreatic cancer: perspectives from first-degree relatives. Palliat Support Care. 2009;7(3):281–8.

Wong SS, George TJ, Godfrey M, Le J, Pereira DB. Using photography to explore psychological distress in patients with pancreatic cancer and their caregivers: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(1):321–8.

Larsen LS, Blix BH, Hamran T. Family caregivers’ involvement in decision-making processes regarding admission of persons with dementia to nursing homes. Dementia. 2020;19(6):2038–55.

Gerhardt S, Dengsø KE, Herling S, Thomsen T. From bystander to enlisted carer–a qualitative study of the experiences of caregivers of patients attending follow-up after curative treatment for cancers in the pancreas, duodenum and bile duct. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020;44:101717.

Larsen MK, Birkelund R, Mortensen MB, Schultz H. Being a relative on the sideline to the patient with oesophageal cancer: a qualitative study across the treatment course. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35(1):277–86.

Shaw J, Harrison J, Young J, Butow P, Sandroussi C, Martin D, Solomon M. Coping with newly diagnosed upper gastrointestinal cancer: a longitudinal qualitative study of family caregivers’ role perception and supportive care needs. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(3):749–56.

Gooden HM, White KJ. Pancreatic cancer and supportive care—pancreatic exocrine insufficiency negatively impacts on quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(7):1835–41.

Andreassen S, Randers I, Näslund E, Stockeld D, Mattiasson AC. Family members’ experiences, information needs and information seeking in relation to living with a patient with oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2005;14(5):426–34.

Morowatisharifabad MA, Gerayllo S, Jouybari L, Amirbeigy MK, Fallahzadeh H. Concerns and fear of esophageal cancer in relatives of patients with cancer: a qualitative study. J Gastrointest cancer. 2020;51(3):957–64.

Yi M, Kahn D. Experience of gastric cancer survivors and their spouses in Korea: secondary analysis. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2004;34(4):625–35.

Morowatisharifabad MA, Gerayllo S, Jouybari L, Amirbeigy MK, Fallahzadeh H. Perceived threats toward esophageal cancer among immediate relatives of sufferers: a qualitative study. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2021;52:643–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-020-00422-y

Shih WM, Hsiao PJ, Chen ML, Lin MH. Experiences of family of patient with newly diagnosed advanced terminal stage hepatocellular cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(8):4655–60.

James Lind, Alliance. 2021. https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk . Accessed 1 Sep 2021.

Girgis A, Lambert S. Caregivers of cancer survivors: the state of the field. In Cancer Forum 2009 Nov (Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 168–171).

Wang T, Molassiotis A, Chung BP, Tan JY. Unmet care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review. BMC Palliat care. 2018;17(1):1–29.

Cancer Caring Coping. 2021. https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/CancerCaringCoping . Accessed 1 Sep 2021.

Santin O, McShane T, Hudson P, Prue G. Using a six-step co‐design model to develop and test a peer‐led web‐based resource (PLWR) to support informal carers of cancer patients. Psycho‐oncology. 2019;28(3):518–24.

Blazeby JM, Macefield R, Blencowe NS, Jacobs M, McNair AG, Sprangers M, Brookes ST, Avery KN, Blazeby JM, Blencowe NS, Brookes ST. Core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery. J Br Surg. 2015;102(8):936–43.

Jacobs M, Henselmans I, Macefield RC, Blencowe NS, Smets EM, de Haes JC, Sprangers MA, Blazeby JM, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Delphi survey to identify topics to be addressed at the initial follow-up consultation after oesophageal cancer surgery. J Br Surg. 2014;101(13):1692–701.

Reblin M, Ketcher D, Vadaparampil ST. Care for the cancer caregiver: a qualitative study of facilitators and barriers to caregiver integration and support. J Cancer Educ. 2021;30:1–7.

Pape E, Decoene E, Debrauwere M, Van Nieuwenhove Y, Pattyn P, Feryn T, Pattyn PR, Verhaeghe S, Van Hecke A, Vandecandelaere P, Desnouck S. Experiences and needs of partners as informal caregivers of patients with major low anterior resection syndrome: a qualitative study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2022;58:102143.

Dacre J, Francis R, Appleby J, Charlesworth A, Peckham S, Ahmed S, Brown J, Dickson J, Morris N, Patel M. Expert panel: evaluation of the Government’s commitments in the area of cancer services in England.

Taleghani F, Ehsani M, Farzi S, Farzi S, Adibi P, Moladoost A, Shahriari M, Tabakhan M. Nutritional challenges of gastric cancer patients from the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and health professionals: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(7):3943–50.

Reece L, Hogan S, Allman-Farinelli M, Carey S. Oral nutrition interventions in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: a systematic literature review. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(12):5673–91.

Hanna L, Huggins CE, Furness K, Silvers MA, Savva J, Frawley H, Croagh D, Cashin P, Low L, Bauer J, Truby H. Effect of early and intensive nutrition care, delivered via telephone or mobile application, on quality of life in people with upper gastrointestinal cancer: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):1–3.

Missel M, Hansen M, Jackson R, Siemsen M, Schønau MN. Re-embodying eating after surgery for oesophageal cancer: patients’ lived experiences of participating in an education and counselling nutritional intervention. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(7–8):1420–30.

Dempster M, McCorry NK, Brennan E, Donnelly M, Murray LJ, Johnston BT. Illness perceptions among carer–survivor dyads are related to psychological distress among oesophageal cancer survivors. J Psychosom Res. 2011;70(5):432–9.

Deckx L, van den Akker M, Buntinx F. Risk factors for loneliness in patients with cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(5):466–77.

Gray TF, Azizoddin DR, Nersesian PV. Loneliness among cancer caregivers: a narrative review. Palliat Support Care. 2020;18(3):359–67.

Beutel ME, Klein EM, Brähler E, Reiner I, Jünger C, Michal M, et al. Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):97. pmid:28320380.

Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227–37. pmid:25910392.

Velloze IG, Jester DJ, Jeste DV, Mausbach BT. Interventions to reduce loneliness in caregivers: an integrative review of the literature. Psychiatry Res. 2022;12:114508.

Haj Mohammad N, Walter AW, van Oijen MGH, et al. Burden of spousal caregivers of stage II and III esophageal cancer survivors 3 years after treatment with curative intent. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:3589–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2727-4

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Langenberg SM, Reyners AK, Wymenga AN, Sieling GC, Veldhoven CM, van Herpen CM, Prins JB, van der Graaf WT. Caregivers of patients receiving long-term treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST): a cross-sectional assessment of their distress and burden. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(2):191–9.

Teixeira RJ, Applebaum AJ, Bhatia S, Brandão T. The impact of coping strategies of cancer caregivers on psychophysiological outcomes: an integrative review. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2018;11:207.

Folkman S, Lazarus RS. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984. p. 460.

Han Y, Hu D, Liu Y, Lu C, Luo Z, Zhao J, Lopez V, Mao J. Coping styles and social support among depressed Chinese family caregivers of patients with esophageal cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(6):571–7.

Rankin SR. Influence of coping styles on social support seeking among cancer patient family caregivers (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Bowman KF, Rose JH, Radziewicz RM, O’Toole EE, Berila RA. Family caregiver engagement in a coping and communication support intervention tailored to advanced cancer patients and families. Cancer Nurs. 2009;32(1):73–81.

Baltes PB, Baltes MM, editors. Successful aging: perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press; 1993 May. p. 28.

Toseland RW, Blanchard CG, McCallion P. A problem solving intervention for caregivers of cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(4):517–28.

McMillan SC, Small BJ, Weitzner M, Schonwetter R, Tittle M, Moody L, Haley WE. Impact of coping skills intervention with family caregivers of hospice patients with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 2006;106(1):214–22.

Li Q, Loke AY. The positive aspects of caregiving for cancer patients: a critical review of the literature and directions for future research. Psycho-oncology. 2013;22(11):2399–407.

Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. Trauma and transformation. Sage; 1995 Jun. p. 20.

Liu Y, Li Y, Chen L, Li Y, Qi W, Yu L. Relationships between family resilience and posttraumatic growth in breast cancer survivors and caregiver burden. Psycho-oncology. 2018;27(4):1284–90.

Moore AM, Gamblin TC, Geller DA, Youssef MN, Hoffman KE, Gemmell L, Likumahuwa SM, Bovbjerg DH, Marsland A, Steel JL. A prospective study of posttraumatic growth as assessed by self-report and family caregiver in the context of advanced cancer. Psycho‐oncology. 2011;20(5):479–87.

Nouzari R, Najafi SS, Momennasab M. Post-traumatic growth among family caregivers of cancer patients and its association with social support and hope. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2019;7(4):319.

Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce.org.uk. London: Principle Consulting. https://lesssurvivablecancers.org.uk . Accessed 30 December 2021.

Dy S, Isenberg S, Hamayel N. Palliative care for cancer survivors. Med Clin N Am. 2017;101(6):1181–96.

Morris SM, Thomas C. The need to know: informal carers and information 1. Eur J Cancer Care. 2002;11(3):183–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK

Melinda Furtado, Dawn Davis, Jenny M. Groarke & Lisa Graham-Wisener

School of Psychology, University of Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland

Jenny M. Groarke

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.F., D.D. wrote the main manuscript text with supervision/assistance from J.M.G and L G-W . All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melinda Furtado .

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: Additional file 1

Search Strategy

Supplementary Material 2: Additional file 2

Findings illustrations table

Supplementary Material 3: Additional file 3

ConQual table

Supplementary Material 4: Additional file 4

Characteristics of studies

Supplementary Material 5: Additional file 5

Methodological assessment

Supplementary Material 6: Additional file 6

Meta-synthesis

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.

Furtado, M., Davis, D., Groarke, J.M. et al. Experiences of informal caregivers supporting individuals with upper gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 932 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11306-3

Download citation

Received : 20 June 2024

Accepted : 10 July 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11306-3

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

• Caregiver burden
• Esophageal neoplasms
• Gastrointestinal neoplasms
• Gallbladder
• Quality of life
• Delivery of health care

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 14.8.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

This is a member publication of University of Toronto

Leadership for AI Transformation in Health Care Organization: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

• Abi Sriharan 1, 2 , MSc, DPhil   ; 
• Nigar Sekercioglu 2 , PhD   ; 
• Cheryl Mitchell 3 , PhD   ; 
• Senthujan Senkaiahliyan 2 , MHSc   ; 
• Attila Hertelendy 4 , PhD   ; 
• Tracy Porter 5 , PhD   ; 
• Jane Banaszak-Holl 6 , PhD  

1 Krembil Centre for Health Management and Leadership, Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

2 Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Victoria, ON, Canada

4 College of Business, Florida International University, Florida, FL, United States

5 Department of Management, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, United States

6 Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, OH, United States

Corresponding Author:

Abi Sriharan, MSc, DPhil

Krembil Centre for Health Management and Leadership

Schulich School of Business

York University

MB Room G315

4700 Keele St

Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3

Phone: 1 3658855898

Email: [email protected]

Background: The leaders of health care organizations are grappling with rising expenses and surging demands for health services. In response, they are increasingly embracing artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to improve patient care delivery, alleviate operational burdens, and efficiently improve health care safety and quality.

Objective: In this paper, we map the current literature and synthesize insights on the role of leadership in driving AI transformation within health care organizations.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across several databases, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Business Source Premier (via EBSCO), and Canadian Business & Current Affairs (via ProQuest), spanning articles published from 2015 to June 2023 discussing AI transformation within the health care sector. Specifically, we focused on empirical studies with a particular emphasis on leadership. We used an inductive, thematic analysis approach to qualitatively map the evidence. The findings were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

Results: A comprehensive review of 2813 unique abstracts led to the retrieval of 97 full-text articles, with 22 included for detailed assessment. Our literature mapping reveals that successful AI integration within healthcare organizations requires leadership engagement across technological, strategic, operational, and organizational domains. Leaders must demonstrate a blend of technical expertise, adaptive strategies, and strong interpersonal skills to navigate the dynamic healthcare landscape shaped by complex regulatory, technological, and organizational factors.

Conclusions: In conclusion, leading AI transformation in healthcare requires a multidimensional approach, with leadership across technological, strategic, operational, and organizational domains. Organizations should implement a comprehensive leadership development strategy, including targeted training and cross-functional collaboration, to equip leaders with the skills needed for AI integration. Additionally, when upskilling or recruiting AI talent, priority should be given to individuals with a strong mix of technical expertise, adaptive capacity, and interpersonal acumen, enabling them to navigate the unique complexities of the healthcare environment.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence in health care: overview.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have gained significant momentum in health care, presenting a transformative potential across clinical processes, operational efficiency, decision-making, and workforce optimization [ 1 - 3 ]. The global AI market is projected to shift from US $14.6 billion in 2023 to a formidable estimate of US $102.7 billion by 2028 [ 4 ], unveiling a dynamic transformation of unprecedented scale. This investment, coupled with the engagement of nontraditional health care players such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon and the convergence of technological prowess and health care innovation signaled by generative AI, will place the trajectory of AI in health care in a state of exponential growth [ 5 ].

Current investments in health care AI predominantly center on bolstering data capacity, enhancing computational power, and advancing methodological innovations in AI. This includes developing and testing AI models and algorithms tailored for precision medicine, drug discovery, clinical decision-making support, public health surveillance, operational optimization, and process improvement [ 6 , 7 ]. Notably, between August 2022 and July 2023, there were over 150 submissions of drug and biological applications incorporating AI and machine learning components to the US Food and Drug Administration, encompassing a wide array of therapeutic domains and developmental stages [ 8 ].

Yet the seamless integration of AI technologies into health care organizational settings presents a multifaceted challenge for health care leaders. This challenge arises from several factors, including the complex nature of AI models, the rapid pace of technological advancement, the imperative of regulatory adherence, ethical concerns surrounding data security and privacy, the risk of perpetuating racial and ethnic biases in data, the necessity of prioritizing human-centric approaches to patient care, and the intricate clinical workflows that must be navigated [ 9 - 15 ]. Furthermore, health care leaders are facing critical and intricate strategic decisions. They must discern which AI solutions merit investment while weighing the merits of in-house development against strategic partnerships with external vendors. Selecting the right vendors and defining the scope of collaboration is pivotal, as is devising a sustainable funding strategy to support both initial development and continuous innovation. Furthermore, they must confront the crucial question of whether to bring in new AI talent or bolster the expertise of their current workforce through upskilling. Each of these decisions will shape the trajectory of health care organizations as they navigate this transformative era. A report by Bain in 2023 revealed that although 75% of surveyed health system executives recognize AI’s potential to reshape the health care industry, only 6% have established concrete strategies related to AI [ 16 ].

The lack of strategy and strategic failures in AI integration not only have financial consequences for organizations but also erode trust among patients, providers, and organizations [ 17 ]. A prominent example is the collaboration between MD Anderson and IBM Watson, aimed at leveraging IBM Watson’s cognitive capabilities to combat cancer. This ambitious endeavor, however, incurred a substantial financial toll of over US $62 million for MD Anderson because of setbacks in clinical implementation [ 18 ].

Despite a growing body of AI literature, including toolkits such as Canada Health Infoway’s “Toolkit for AI Implementers” [ 19 ] and guidance from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ AI Task Force [ 20 ] and the UK National Strategy for AI in Health and Social Care [ 21 ], there is still insufficient scholarly attention on how leadership behavior guides AI transformation in health care. Existing reviews focus on AI in medical education [ 22 , 23 ], workforce impact [ 24 ], applications in clinical medicine [ 13 , 25 ], barriers to implementation [ 26 , 27 ], and ethical considerations [ 28 , 29 ]. However, no systematic mapping of empirical literature has clarified our understanding of leadership or identified gaps in research. Understanding leadership behavior is crucial for health care organizations considering AI because effective leadership shapes the strategic direction, adoption, and successful implementation of AI technologies.

Research Aim

To address this research gap and to establish a future research agenda this scoping review study aims to address two primary questions: (1) What role does leadership play in AI transformation within health care? and (2) What approaches can health care organizations use to empower their leaders in facilitating AI transformation?

Research Approach

This review follows scoping review methodology [ 30 ] to identify and analyze the current literature and report results following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews; Multimedia Appendix 1 ) guidelines [ 31 ].

Key Definitions

In the context of this study, AI refers to combination of machine learning algorithms, large language models, robotics, and natural language processing systems designed to mimic human cognitive functions, enabling machines to perform tasks autonomously or with minimal human intervention.

AI transformation refers to the systematic changes in clinical, operational, or organizational processes and business models due to the introduction of AI systems to optimize decision-making, automate tasks, improve patient outcomes, and drive organizational change. This involves identifying opportunities for AI-related innovation, integrating them into processes, and developing strategies to operationalize implementation while ensuring organizational readiness. This is essential for getting health care organizations AI-ready.

Further, in the context of this study, drawing from seminal management and leadership theories, we view leadership as an effective management practice [ 32 ]. However, we recognize that leadership roles in health care occur at the clinical, organizational, and systems levels of health systems. At the clinical level, leadership emerges through health care professionals who steer patient care and treatment decisions. At the organizational level, leadership involves middle managers such as unit heads and division leaders guiding health care institutions, administrative units, and personnel toward their goals. At the systems level, leadership encapsulates C-suite leadership responsible for navigating regulatory complexities and organizational and structural silos within complex health systems.

Eligibility Criteria

The following inclusion and exclusion criteria guided our study: (1) focused on AI in health care, (2) contained an evaluation of leadership, (3) were written in English, (4) were published in a peer-reviewed journal, (5) published between January 2015 and June 2023, and (6) used research.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

We adopted comprehensive search strategies for the following electronic databases focused on the health care and business literature: MEDLINE (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Business Source Premier (via EBSCO), and Canadian Business & Current Affairs (via ProQuest). An academic librarian developed these search strategies with input from the research team. We initially conducted the search in Ovid MEDLINE. We then reviewed our search results using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies tool [ 33 ], a checklist for comparing, among other things, the types of errors found in articles and the relative fit of articles to the research question before translating the search strategy into other databases using their command language. Our search was limited to articles published from January 2015 (from the first use of AI-powered chatbots in health care [ 34 ] to June 2023. We then ran searches in 4 databases and exported the final search results into the EndNote reference management software (Clarivate), and we removed duplicate articles manually. To capture any papers that may have been missed during the search process, we did forward and reverse citation searches of systematic review articles related to AI [ 35 ]. However, we did not find any additional articles that met our criteria. Finally, we imported search results to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation), a review management software for abstract and title screening, full-text screening, and data charting.

Selection of Sources of Evidence and Data Charting

To minimize selection bias, 2 independent screeners reviewed the titles and abstracts of articles identified via the search against the eligibility criteria using Covidence. We identified articles that met the eligibility criteria for a comprehensive full-text screening. Two independent reviewers then evaluated the full texts against the eligibility criteria using Covidence. In discrepancies between the reviewers, a third reviewer served as the consensus reviewer and used Covidence to resolve conflicts between reviewer 1 and reviewer 2. Following the exclusion of irrelevant articles, we used a predefined data extraction form aligned with our research objectives and guiding questions for systematic data collection. Data extraction categories included data on study characteristics (eg, citations and country); methods (eg, aim, data collection methods, and methodological quality); study context (eg, leadership role, ie, clinical, organizational, or systems); leadership practices (ie, behavior, enablers, and barriers to leadership success); results (ie, main results and author conclusion); and an open-ended reviewer note (ie, capture any relevant information that might aid in the data analysis stage). The data abstraction form was piloted on a random sample of 4 included articles and modified based on feedback from the team. Full data abstraction began only after sufficient agreement had been obtained. Two reviewers independently extracted the data using Covidence, and a third reviewer assessed the data extraction for quality and consensus. Three authors then held a group discussion to resolve any conflicts.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The focus of scoping reviews is to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature, identifying the extent, range, and nature of research on a particular topic rather than assessing the methodological quality of individual studies [ 35 ]. Therefore, we did not perform risk of bias evaluations on the articles included in compliance with the guidelines for scoping reviews.

Data Analysis and Synthesis

Our data analysis was guided by a thematic analysis process [ 36 ]. To ensure the accuracy of the emerging themes, we conducted our analysis collaboratively in reviewer pairs [ 35 ].

We initially analyzed the extracted data using an open-coding method guided by our research questions. Subsequently, we grouped the codes into categories based on the emerging patterns in the data, which we then synthesized into leadership functional domains, capacities, and context.

In the context of our analysis, functional domains refer to distinct areas of responsibility that a leader must effectively manage a task or a role. Capacity, on the other hand, pertains to the abilities—skills, competencies, or behaviors—that a leader must demonstrate to achieve desired goals. Context refers to the environment, conditions, and situational factors that shape and influence leadership practices and decisions.

Study Selection

As described in Figure 1 , the original searches generated 3541 articles published from January 2015 to June 2023. After removing 728 duplicate articles in EndNote, 2813 unique articles were uploaded to Covidence. A total of 2813 relevant studies were then screened using Covidence using the articles’ titles and abstracts. We determined that 97 articles met the criteria for a full-text review for eligibility screening. Within these 97 articles, 75 were excluded as they were opinion articles or commentaries without objective data. After conducting the full-text screening, we found that 22 articles met the final inclusion criteria.

Study Characteristics

Of the 22 studies identified for final inclusion in our review, 12 involved qualitative methods [ 37 - 48 ] such as interviews and case studies, whereas 4 studies involved mixed methods research [ 49 - 52 ] with a qualitative and quantitative strand. There were 3 narrative reports [ 53 - 55 ] based on document synthesis, and 3 studies involved quantitative methods [ 56 - 58 ] such as surveys. These articles focused on clinical, organizational, and systems leadership and came from Canada, China, Finland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The included papers addressed a broad array of AI applications in health care, including studies focused on improving workflows, quality of care, patient safety, resource optimization, and patient experience. From a clinical domain, researchers focused on primary care, health care systems, radiology, or global health. From a population perspective, the papers covered leadership from the perspective of primary care physicians, radiologists, nurses, nurse managers, public health professionals, global health professionals, health care entrepreneurs, and health care leaders. Table 1 provides a summary of study characteristics.

a N/A: not applicable.

Leadership Tasks Essential for AI Transformation in Health Care

We mapped the themes from the included studies across 4 functional domains of leadership task responsibility—technological (AI innovation), strategic (vision and alignment), operational (process and oversight), and organizational (culture and work environment).

The technological functional domain garnered the most significant attention in the literature. The core themes that emerged under the technological domain primarily focused on applying subject matter expertise and AI technical skills to effectively identify AI opportunities, as well as to foster an innovation mindset to develop, tailor, and seamlessly implement AI-driven solutions to address key AI opportunities within health care organizations.

Within the strategic functional domain, the literature underscored the importance of change management and communication as strategic tools for consensus and collaboration related to the AI transformation process. Another core theme that emerged focused on the critical importance of integrating AI solutions into the existing clinical care processes. This strategic alignment is essential for getting support from the staff and ensuring smooth operations of patient care outcomes while embracing the potential of AI solutions. Although the significance of talent strategy related to the recruitment and retention of AI technical expertise within organizations was mentioned, it was not widely seen across the included papers.

Table 2 provides a summary of how the technological and strategic functional domains map across the papers and provides key themes that emerged with the domain area.

Emerging evidence in the operational functional domain highlights leaders’ need to navigate ethical and risk management issues by establishing robust governance structures prioritizing patient data privacy and security while ethically integrating AI technologies within existing workflows. Additionally, the literature emphasizes that implementing AI in health care will require leaders to ensure new AI solutions comply with existing regulatory and control systems. The literature highlighted that leaders need to pay attention to process agility through continuous monitoring to ensure AI solutions can adapt to contextual changes.

Finally, the organizational functional domain emerges from the thematic analysis as a pivotal area for AI leadership. The literature emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement in building collaboration. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of decision makers’ sense-making to enhance their trust in AI opportunities and ensure that AI integration is supported by individuals across the organization. Further, the literature underscored the importance of organizational culture readiness to support physicians and nurses through protected time and incentive pay to engage, innovate, and adopt AI solutions. Table 3 provides a summary of how operational and organizational functional domains map across the papers.

Leadership Skills and Behaviors for Preparing Health Care Organizations for AI Transformation

We categorized the themes related to skills and behaviors into 3 essential capacities that a leader must demonstrate to achieve desired goals—technical capacity, adaptive capacity, and interpersonal capacity. Technical capacity encompasses (1) AI literacy, (2) subject matter knowledge, (3) change leadership skills, and (4) innovation mindset to identify AI innovation opportunities. The interpersonal capacity involves several vital facets such as (1) the ability to foster partnerships among diverse stakeholders, (2) the ability to comprehend diverse stakeholder perspectives and deftly influence adoption, (3) the ability to build trust and collaboration, (4) self-awareness and humility to assemble teams with complementary skills, and (5) the integrity and accountability to embody ethical principles. The adaptive capacity encompasses (1) the foresight and sense-making abilities to discern emerging technologies and their implications within the health care sphere; (2) the agility to identify and capitalize on transformative opportunities, swiftly adapting and aligning strategies with evolving contexts; and (3) systems thinking to enable an understanding of how elements interconnect and how changes in 1 area can reverberate throughout the entire system.

Contextual Factors Influencing Leadership in AI Transformation

The emerging themes from our review reveal that dynamic environmental and situational factors, including regulatory, technology, and organizational contexts, shape AI transformation within health care organizations. For instance, the regulatory context and frameworks related to health professions and health care organizations play a critical role in how AI can be integrated within the organizations. Similarly, the technology context such as the availability of AI technical talent, the retention of technical expertise, the dynamic nature of AI maturity, and the presence of incentives and technological resources for AI innovation or adoption will significantly influence a leader’s ability to effectively drive AI readiness. Finally, the organization context is a critical influence on leaders’ capacity for AI adoption and implementation. Organizations that promote and reward innovation and that have transparent communication practices shape leaders’ ability to pursue AI opportunities.

Strategies for Empowering Health Care Leaders to Facilitate AI Transformation

For the technological domain, the included papers discussed approaches such as upskilling clinical experts with the necessary AI technical skills and ensuring the presence of specialized experts, such as computer scientists, to enable the subject matter experts to develop, test, and seamlessly integrate AI solutions. Further, the papers discussed collaborative strategies such as clinicians and computer scientists working together to effectively identify AI opportunities and develop, adopt, and implement AI solutions in clinical or operational areas.

For the strategic domain, organizational support was essential in supporting leaders to assess and identify AI opportunities that strategically align with organizational priorities and develop strategies to ensure AI transformation garners support from key stakeholders within the complex regulatory and environmental contexts. The literature also highlighted the competition for AI talent in health care and emphasized the significance of talent retention strategies to preserve the organization’s AI technical expertise.

Then, in the operational domain, the emphasis was on establishing governance structures to continuously monitor data quality, patient privacy, and patient care experiences and assess the feasibility and financial implications of AI transformation. These governance structures ensure effective oversight and management of AI initiatives within health care organizations.

Finally, for the organizational domain, the focus was on the pivotal role of organizational culture in AI leadership. Leaders require organizational support to cultivate an environment that fosters innovation and actively incentivizes clinical leaders, such as physicians and nurses, through protected time and incentive pay to innovate and adopt AI solutions. Transparent decision-making processes related to AI solutions are essential cultural elements that build trust in AI systems and promote collaboration among the diverse stakeholders involved in AI transformation within health care organizations.

Principal Findings

The purpose of a scoping review is not to draw definitive conclusions but to map the literature, identify emerging patterns, and develop critical propositions. As described in Figure 2 , analysis of current literature shows that leading organizations toward AI transformation requires multidimensional leadership. As such, health care organizations need to engage leaders in the technological, strategic, operational, and organizational domains to facilitate AI transformation in their organizations. Further, the reviewed papers suggest that individuals in AI-related leadership roles need to demonstrate (1) technical capacity to understand the technology and innovation opportunities, (2) adaptive capacity to respond to contextual changes, and (3) interpersonal capacity to navigate the human aspects of the AI transformation process effectively. Furthermore, our study illuminates that leaders in the AI-related leadership roles need to navigate regulatory context, the dynamic nature of changing technology context, and organization context.

Prior Research

Health care organizations are marked by multifaceted interdependencies among medical facilities, health care providers, patients, administrative units, technology, and the regulatory environment. Therefore, the leadership required for AI transformation—which includes identifying AI opportunities, implementing AI solutions, and achieving full-scale AI adaptation—is not a static role but a continuous and dynamic process. Effective leadership involves the capacity to continuously identify opportunities for AI transformation, influence the thoughts and actions of others, and navigate the complex dynamics of the health care setting and AI technology landscape simultaneously. However, the current literature has not fully articulated this multidimensionality, often focusing on leadership through a linear approach.

Further, multiple situational factors can shape AI transformation. First, the rapid growth of AI technologies introduces an element of uncertainty, making it challenging to anticipate the long-term impact and sustainability of specific AI solutions [ 6 ]. Second, AI implementation involves many stakeholders, from technical experts and domain specialists to clinicians, administrators, patients, vendors, and regulatory bodies. Each stakeholder group brings its unique perspectives, priorities, and control systems into the equation, necessitating leaders to navigate competing values, trade-offs, and paradoxes [ 27 ]. Third, once alignment is achieved, the integration of AI within an organization triggers a need for a cultural shift, altering work practices and decision-making processes [ 38 , 59 ]. Fourth, the effectiveness of AI solutions hinges on the availability of high-quality data for informed insights and decision-making. When implementing solutions originally developed within different contexts, local organizations must ensure data integrity and the solution’s adaptability to the organization’s unique context [ 18 ]. This challenge is compounded by emerging regulatory frameworks, which add a layer of complexity. Ensuring compliance and the responsible use of AI technologies has become a critical consideration [ 29 , 50 , 60 ]. Finally, introducing AI may provoke resistance from employees concerned about job displacement or disruptions to established workflows. This problem is further compounded when an organization transitions toward integrating multiple AI systems, as these changes can lead to periods of chaos and confusion [ 59 ].

Emerging key opinions and evidence from outside the health domain indicate that leaders must possess an understanding of data quality nuances, assess process risks, and manage AI as a new team member. Additionally, leaders should have a firm grasp of technology, articulate clear business objectives, define precise goals, uphold a long-term vision, prepare their teams for AI transformation, manage data resources effectively, and foster organizational collaboration [ 3 , 61 - 67 ].

Our findings on the leadership required for AI transformation in health care organizations reinforce this multidimensionality of leadership to effectively navigate the complexities of AI transformation and successfully leverage its potential to drive transformative change. Leaders must operate across different functional domains—technological, strategic, operational, and organizational—while demonstrating technical, adaptive, and interpersonal capacities.

Further, our findings show contingency leadership theories, complexity theory, and transformational leadership theory as relevant theoretical domains for further explaining the different facets of leadership behaviors needed to navigate the multidimensionality of leadership required for AI transformation.

Contingency theories suggest that leadership effectiveness depends on situational factors, which should be considered in future AI implementation studies in the context of AI adaptation and integration within health care organizations [ 68 , 69 ]. Complexity theory provides a framework for examining leadership behaviors in interconnected, dynamic environments where leaders must balance innovation and stability and demonstrate an adaptive approach to challenges, characterized by uncertainty and change [ 70 - 73 ]. Transformational leadership theory emphasizes motivating, empowering, and developing others by fostering trust and collaboration while challenging the status quo to drive organizational change and innovation [ 74 , 75 ]. These theories should be considered in future AI implementation studies within health care organizations.

Future research and training programs related to AI in health care should examine the leadership required for AI transformation through the lens of multidimensionality, providing insights into the interrelatedness of functional domains, leadership capacities, and contextual enablers and barriers, while exploring the key theoretical domains related to contingency, complexity, and transformational leadership to further understand the interpersonal dynamics shaping AI transformation in health care.

Limitations

Some limitations to our scoping review are worth noting. First, given the contextual variability in the included studies and the methodological variations, we could not establish firm correlations about specific leadership domains, capacities, and contextual factors; the effectiveness of leadership approaches; or the moderating effects of contextual factors. Consequently, we have presented only the overarching emergent themes.

Second, our study is limited by the significant variation in conceptual definitions of leadership and leadership competencies found in the current literature, which often lacks more standardized definitions or instruments for measurement. This variation caused conceptual inconsistencies. We addressed the inconsistencies by clearly defining what constitutes a functional domain, capacity, and context before our data analysis to address this. We iteratively coded the data into themes to ensure all relevant aspects were captured.

Third, our search strategy focused on MEDLINE-indexed journals, which may exclude some newer journals indexed in PubMed but not yet in MEDLINE. While this might limit the capture of the very latest advancements in digital health, it does not diminish the robustness of the review. Fourth, we retrieved only articles written in English, which possibly limited the comprehensiveness of our findings. Fifth, we looked at AI as a system and did not look at the relationship between the implementation of different types of AI tools and leadership behaviors which was beyond the scope of our review. Finally, our analysis used an inductive approach and was not informed by a predetermined theory to aid the mapping of the literature. This may have limited our analysis in capturing different elements of an umbrella theory.

Recommendations for Future Design and Research

Leading organizations toward AI transformation is an adaptive challenge influenced by a myriad of interwoven situational factors that create a dynamic and intricate environment. The body of literature related to AI in health care is rapidly expanding, and the recommendations imparted by this review, alongside the multidimensional leadership framework ( Figure 2 ), stand poised to guide research and practice to empower health care organizations in their AI transformation journey. Future research on AI transformation, which includes innovation identification, implementation, and scaling, can use this framework to understand the role of leadership in driving successful outcomes.

Further, future research must undergo methodological expansion by embracing qualitative and mixed methods approaches to illuminate the intricate temporal aspects of AI transformation and corresponding evolving leadership behaviors.

Conclusions

In summary, emerging evidence shows that multidimensional leadership plays crucial role in AI transformation in health care organization. Leaders must adeptly balance technology opportunities while demonstrating unwavering empathy for stakeholder needs and nimble adaptability to accommodating the ever-changing contextual landscape, which encompasses the regulatory frameworks, the evolution of technology, and the organization’s priorities.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported through a grant from the University of Toronto’s Connaught Global Challenges. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the study.

Data Availability

The main study data are the data extraction materials and quality ratings of included papers, most of which are included in the study tables. The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

All authors were involved in conception and design of the study and approved the protocol. AS and NS were responsible for overseeing the search of databases and literature. AS, NS, and SS were involved in the screening of articles, data extraction and data verification, and analysis of data. All authors were involved in data interpretation, supported in the drafting of the paper, which was led by AS, and all authors supported in revising and formatting of the paper. All authors have provided final approval of the version of the paper submitted for publication, and all authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) checklist.

• Fyfe I. AI predicts pancreatic cancer risk. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;20(7):413. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Haug CJ, Drazen JM. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical medicine, 2023. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1201-1208. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sharma M, Savage C, Nair M, Larsson I, Svedberg P, Nygren JM. Artificial intelligence applications in health care practice: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(10):e40238. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• AI in healthcare market | size, share, growth | 2022-2027. MarketWatch. 2023. URL: https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/artificial-intelligence-in-healthcare-market [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Meskó B, Topol EJ. The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):120. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bohr A, Memarzadeh K. The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications. In: Bohr A, Memarzadeh K, editors. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. Cambridge. Academic Press; 2020:25-60.
• Kasula BY. AI applications in healthcare: a comprehensive review of advancements and challenges. Int J Manag Educ Sustain Dev. 2023;6(6). [ FREE Full text ]
• Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML)-enabled medical devices. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2023. URL: https:/​/www.​fda.gov/​medical-devices/​software-medical-device-samd/​artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-aiml-enabled-medical-devices [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Minssen T, Vayena E, Cohen IG. The challenges for regulating medical use of ChatGPT and other large language models. JAMA. 2023;330(4):315-316. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Capel T, Brereton M. What is human-centered about human-centered AI? a map of the research landscape. 2023. Presented at: CHI '23: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; April 23-28, 2023:1-23; Hamburg, Germany. [ CrossRef ]
• Matheny ME, Whicher D, Thadaney Israni S. Artificial intelligence in health care: a report from the National Academy of Medicine. JAMA. 2020;323(6):509-510. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rajpurkar P, Chen E, Banerjee O, Topol EJ. AI in health and medicine. Nat Med. 2022;28(1):31-38. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shaheen MY. Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Healthcare: A Review. Saudia Arabia. ScienceOpen; 2021.
• Tipton K, Leas BF, Flores E, Jepson C, Aysola J, Cohen J, et al. Impact of healthcare algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and healthcare. AHRQ. 2023. [ CrossRef ]
• Chin MH, Afsar-Manesh N, Bierman AS, Chang C, Colón-Rodríguez CJ, Dullabh P, et al. Guiding principles to address the impact of algorithm bias on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(12):e2345050. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Berger E, Dries M. Beyond hype: getting the most out of generative AI in healthcare today. Bain & Company. 2023. URL: https://www.bain.com/insights/getting-the-most-out-of-generative-ai-in-healthcare/ [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Khanna NN, Maindarkar MA, Viswanathan V, Fernandes JFE, Paul S, Bhagawati M, et al. Economics of artificial intelligence in healthcare: diagnosis vs. treatment. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(12):2493. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Schmidt C. M.D. Anderson breaks with IBM Watson, raising questions about artificial intelligence in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(5). [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Toolkit for AI implementers. Canada Health Infoway. URL: https:/​/www.​infoway-inforoute.ca/​en/​digital-health-initiatives/​innovative-technologies/​artificial-intelligence/​toolkit-for-ai-implementers [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Liu Q, Huang R, Hsieh J, Zhu H, Tiwari M, Liu G, et al. Landscape analysis of the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in regulatory submissions for drug development from 2016 to 2021. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2023;113(4):771-774. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• The national strategy for AI in health and social care. NHS Transformation Directorate. URL: https:/​/transform.​england.nhs.uk/​ai-lab/​ai-lab-programmes/​the-national-strategy-for-ai-in-health-and-social-care/​ [accessed 2024-02-24]
• Chan KS, Zary N. Applications and challenges of implementing artificial intelligence in medical education: integrative review. JMIR Med Educ. 2019;5(1):e13930. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Han ER, Yeo S, Kim MJ, Lee YH, Park KH, Roh H. Medical education trends for future physicians in the era of advanced technology and artificial intelligence: an integrative review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):460. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chowdhury S, Dey P, Joel-Edgar S, Bhattacharya S, Rodriguez-Espindola O, Abadie A, et al. Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework. Hum Resour Manage Rev. 2023;33(1):100899. [ CrossRef ]
• Shah R, Chircu A. IOT and AI in healthcare: a systematic literature review. Issues Inf Syst. 2018;10:48009. [ CrossRef ]
• Chomutare T, Tejedor M, Svenning TO, Marco-Ruiz L, Tayefi M, Lind K, et al. Artificial intelligence implementation in healthcare: a theory-based scoping review of barriers and facilitators. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):16359. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gama F, Tyskbo D, Nygren J, Barlow J, Reed J, Svedberg P. Implementation frameworks for artificial intelligence translation into health care practice: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(1):e32215. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Morley J, Machado CC, Burr C, Cowls J, Joshi I, Taddeo M, et al. The ethics of AI in health care: a mapping review. Soc Sci Med. 2020;260:113172. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Reddy S, Allan S, Coghlan S, Cooper P. A governance model for the application of AI in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(3):491-497. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. [ CrossRef ]
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mintzberg H. Managing. California. Berrett-Koehler; 2009.
• McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-46. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kaul V, Enslin S, Gross SA. History of artificial intelligence in medicine. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(4):807-812. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tricco CA, Langlois E, Straus ES. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems. WHO Organization. 2017. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258698/9789241512763-eng.pdf [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Boyatzis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. USA. Sage Publications; 1998.
• Barbour AB, Frush JM, Gatta LA, McManigle WC, Keah NM, Bejarano-Pineda L, et al. Artificial intelligence in health care: insights from an educational forum. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019;6:2382120519889348. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Darcel K, Upshaw T, Craig-Neil A, Macklin J, Steele Gray C, Chan TCY, et al. Implementing artificial intelligence in Canadian primary care: barriers and strategies identified through a national deliberative dialogue. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0281733. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dicuonzo G, Donofrio F, Fusco A, Shini M. Healthcare system: moving forward with artificial intelligence. Technovation. 2023;120:102510. [ CrossRef ]
• Ganapathi S, Duggal S. Exploring the experiences and views of doctors working with artificial intelligence in English healthcare; a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0282415. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gillan C. Healthcare Professional Association Agency in Preparing for Complex Technological Interventions: A Multiple-Case Study of Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Medicine and Medical Imaging (Dissertation). Canada. University of Toronto; 2022.
• Henriksen A, Bechmann A. Building truths in AI: making predictive algorithms doable in healthcare. Inf Commun Soc. 2020;23(6):802-816. [ CrossRef ]
• Laukka E, Hammarén M, Kanste O. Nurse leaders' and digital service developers' perceptions of the future role of artificial intelligence in specialized medical care: an interview study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(8):3838-3846. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Olaye IM, Seixas AA. The gap between AI and bedside: participatory workshop on the barriers to the integration, translation, and adoption of digital health care and AI startup technology into clinical practice. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e32962. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Petersson L, Larsson I, Nygren JM, Nilsen P, Neher M, Reed JE, et al. Challenges to implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative interview study with healthcare leaders in Sweden. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):850. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ronquillo CE, Peltonen LM, Pruinelli L, Chu CH, Bakken S, Beduschi A, et al. Artificial intelligence in nursing: priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the nursing and artificial intelligence leadership collaborative. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(9):3707-3717. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Strohm L, Hehakaya C, Ranschaert ER, Boon WPC, Moors EHM. Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology: hindering and facilitating factors. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(10):5525-5532. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Upshaw TL, Craig-Neil A, Macklin J, Gray CS, Chan TCY, Gibson J, et al. Priorities for artificial intelligence applications in primary care: a Canadian deliberative dialogue with patients, providers, and health system leaders. J Am Board Fam Med. 2023;36(2):210-220. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hakim Z, Ierasts T, Hakim I, D'Penha A, Smith KPD, Caesar MCW. Connecting data to insight: a pan-Canadian study on AI in healthcare. Healthc Q. 2020;23(1):13-19. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Morley J, Murphy L, Mishra A, Joshi I, Karpathakis K. Governing data and artificial intelligence for health care: developing an international understanding. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(1):e31623. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Willis M, Duckworth P, Coulter A, Meyer ET, Osborne M. Qualitative and quantitative approach to assess of the potential for automating administrative tasks in general practice. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e032412. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Yang J, Luo B, Zhao C, Zhang H. Artificial intelligence healthcare service resources adoption by medical institutions based on TOE framework. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221126034. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dixit A, Quaglietta J, Gaulton C. Preparing for the future: how organizations can prepare boards, leaders, and risk managers for artificial intelligence. Healthc Manage Forum. 2021;34(6):346-352. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Galsgaard A, Doorschodt T, Holten AL, Müller FC, Ploug Boesen M, Maas M. Artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary team meetings; a communication challenge for radiologists' sense of agency and position as spider in a web? Eur J Radiol. 2022;155:110231. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sawers N, Bolster N, Bastawrous A. The contribution of artificial intelligence in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): what can eye health can learn from commercial industry and early lessons from the application of machine learning in eye health programmes. Front Public Health. 2021;9:752049. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li X, Cheng M, Xu J. Leaders' innovation expectation and nurses' innovation behaviour in conjunction with artificial intelligence: the chain mediation of job control and creative self-efficacy. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(8):3806-3816. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Nasseef OA, Baabdullah AM, Alalwan AA, Lal B, Dwivedi YK. Artificial intelligence-based public healthcare systems: G2G knowledge-based exchange to enhance the decision-making process. Gov Inf Q. 2022;39(4):101618. [ CrossRef ]
• Ergin E, Karaarslan D, Şahan S, Çınar Yücel Ş. Artificial intelligence and robot nurses: from nurse managers' perspective: a descriptive cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(8):3853-3862. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hazarika I. Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the health workforce. Int Health. 2020;12(4):241-245. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Stanfill MH, Marc DT. Health information management: implications of artificial intelligence on healthcare data and information management. Yearb Med Inform. 2019;28(1):56-64. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Davenport T, Foutty J. AI-driven leadership. Sloan Management Review. 2018. URL: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/ai-driven-leadership/ [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2019;6(2):94-98. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Greenhill RG, Pearson JS, Schmidt RN, Stuart D, Rossettie S. Exploring healthcare leadership competencies for the fourth industrial revolution: a scoping review of the literature. J Health Adm Educ. 2021;38(3):695-708.
• Forum W. Empowering AI leadership: AI C-suite toolkit. World Economic Forum. 2022. URL: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Empowering_AI_Leadership_2022.pdf [accessed 2024-03-08]
• Jones WA. Artificial intelligence and leadership: a few thoughts, a few questions. J Leadersh Stud. 2018;12(3):60-62. [ CrossRef ]
• Peifer Y, Jeske T, Hille S. Artificial intelligence and its impact on leaders and leadership. Procedia Comput Sci. 2022;200:1024-1030. [ CrossRef ]
• Smith AM, Green M. Artificial intelligence and the role of leadership. J of Leadership Studies. 2018;12(3):85-87. [ CrossRef ]
• Hersey P, Blanchard KH, Natemeyer WE. Situational leadership, perception, and the impact of power. Group Organ Manag. 2016;4(4):418-428. [ CrossRef ]
• Westbrook D, Kennerley H, Kirk J. Contingency theories of effective leadership. In: The SAGE Handbook of Leadership. London. SAGE; 2011:286-298.
• Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, McKelvey B. Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadersh Q. 2007;18(4):298-318. [ CrossRef ]
• Uhl-Bien M, Meyer D, Smith J. Complexity leadership in the nursing context. Nurs Adm Q. 2020;44(2):109-116. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Heifetz AR, Grashow A, Linsky M. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Cambridge. Harvard Business Press; 2009.
• Heifetz RA, Laurie DL. The Work of Leadership. New York. Harv Bus Rev; 2001.
• Bass BM, Riggio RE. Transformational Leadership. New York. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006.
• Bass B, Avolio B. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. J Eur Ind Train. 1990;14(5). [ CrossRef ]

Abbreviations

Edited by T de Azevedo Cardoso, G Eysenbach; submitted 14.11.23; peer-reviewed by D Chrimes, TAR Sure, S Kommireddy, J Konopik, M Brommeyer; comments to author 20.02.24; revised version received 12.03.24; accepted 15.07.24; published 14.08.24.

©Abi Sriharan, Nigar Sekercioglu, Cheryl Mitchell, Senthujan Senkaiahliyan, Attila Hertelendy, Tracy Porter, Jane Banaszak-Holl. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.08.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Announcing the NeurIPS 2024 Workshops

Communications Chairs 2024 2024 Conference

by Adil Salim, Bo Han, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Rose Yu

We are excited to announce the list of NeurIPS 2024 workshops! We received 204 total submissions — a significant increase from last year. From this great batch of submissions, we have accepted 56 workshops that will take place on Dec. 14 & 15. 

Given the exceptional quality of submissions this year, we wish we could have accepted many more, but we could not due to logistical constraints. We want to thank everyone who put in tremendous effort in submitting a workshop proposal.

Review Process

We continue to use OpenReview as our submission platform this year, which is aligned with other NeurIPS submission tracks due to the success of OpenReview in matching reviewers well to proposals. Additional details about the selection process are provided below.

The requested items for the proposals have not changed much this year. We kept the length of the main proposal limited to three pages and the organizer information limited to two pages, along with unlimited references. We specifically let reviewers know that they need not read beyond those pages. With respect to last year, we have further increased the reviewer pool. We sent out over 418 invitations and managed to recruit 189 reviewers. This resulted in at least two reviews per proposal for (almost) all 204 proposals. We thank all the reviewers for their timely and professional efforts to provide quality reviews that greatly assisted our decision-making and facilitated an exciting and well-informed workshop program this year.

Selection Process

In making our selections, we asked the reviewers to closely follow our Guidance for Workshop Proposals , which was also shared with the proposal authors. Workshop proposals must be reviewed somewhat differently from academic papers, and hence we asked the reviewers to consider both scientific merits and broader impacts in their assessments. We recognize that workshop reviews might be somewhat more subjective than academic paper reviews. To offer feedback to the proposal authors, we have decided to release the review comments.

Individual evaluations of proposals by reviewers were important for the decision process, but they were not the only considerations in the decision process. For example, we also strived for a good balance between research areas, and between applications and theory. As interest across a variety of  research areas is not uniform, some areas were more competitive than others. For example, there were many strong proposals surrounding large language models this year and we could not accept all. We attempted some balance of topics to cover both mainstream and emerging topics.

The next step is your contributions! Several workshops have begun soliciting submissions, many using our suggested submission date of Aug 30, 2024. We typically let each workshop advertise its own call for papers (if they plan to include workshop papers). We will communicate with the workshop organizers some additional deadlines to facilitate the successful planning of 56 exciting workshops. Stay tuned for more technical and contextual information coming soon!

NeurIPS 2024 Accepted Workshops

On to the best part: the preliminary list of accepted workshops for 2024!

• Intrinsically Motivated Open-ended Learning (IMOL)
• ML with New Compute Paradigms
• Federated Foundation Models
• Foundation Model Interventions
• Bayesian Decision-making and Uncertainty: from probabilistic and spatiotemporal modeling to sequential experiment design
• Open-World Agents: Synergizing Reasoning and Decision-Making in Open and Interactive Environments
• Audio Imagination: AI-Driven Speech, Music, and Sound Generation
• Foundation Models for Science: Progress, Opportunities, and Challenges
• AI for New Drug Modalities
• Statistical Frontiers in LLMs and Foundation Models
• Machine Learning in Structural Biology
• Table Representation and Generative Learning 
• Data-driven and Differentiable Simulations, Surrogates, and Solvers
• Mathematical Reasoning and AI
• Red Teaming GenAI: What Can We Learn from Adversaries?
• Advancements In Medical Foundation Models: Explainability, Robustness, Security, and Beyond
• Causality and Large Models
• Large Foundation Models for Educational Assessment
• Machine Learning and Compression
• Machine Learning for Systems
• Scientific Methods for Understanding Neural Networks: Discovering, Validating, and Falsifying Theories of Deep Learning with Experiments
• Pluralistic Alignment
• Responsibly Building Next Generation of Multimodal Foundation Models
• Touch Processing: From Data to Knowledge
• GenAI for Health: Potential, Trust and Policy Compliance
• Symmetry and Geometry in Neural Representations
• Mathematics of Modern Machine Learning
• Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning: Questioning Common ML Assumptions in the Context of Climate Impact
• Attributing Model Behavior at Scale
• Compositional Learning: Perspectives, Methods, and Paths Forward
• Time Series in the Age of Large Models
• Efficient Natural Language and Speech Processing: Highlighting New Architectures for Future Foundation Models
• Behavioral Machine Learning
• Interpretable AI: Past, Present and Future
• UniReps: Unifying Representations in Neural Models
• Regulatable ML: Towards Bridging the Gaps between Machine Learning Research and Regulations
• Evaluating Evaluations: Examining Best Practices for Measuring Broader Impacts of Generative AI
• Multimodal Algorithmic Reasoning
• Self-Supervised Learning: Theory and Practice
• Language Gamification
• Fine-Tuning in Modern Machine Learning: Principles and Scalability
• Safe Generative AI
• Adaptive Foundation Models: Evolving AI for Personalized and Efficient Learning
• Optimization for Machine Learning
• New Frontiers in Adversarial Machine Learning
• Towards Safe & Trustworthy Agents
• Algorithmic Fairness through the lens of Metrics and Evaluation
• Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences
• Socially Responsible Language Modelling Research
• AI for Accelerated Materials Design
• System-2 Reasoning at Scale
• Causal Representation Learning
• Scalable Continual Learning for Lifelong Foundation Models
• NeuroAI: Fusing Neuroscience and AI for Intelligent Solutions
• Video-Language Models
• Generative AI and Creativity: A dialogue between machine learning researchers and creative professionals

Related Links

• Call for Post-Conference Workshops
• Guidance for Workshop Proposals

Related Posts

2024 Conference , NeurIPS Newsletters

NeurIPS 2024 June Newsletter

2024 Conference

NeurIPS 2024 Competitions Announced!

Neurips 2024 may newsletter.