what is a literature review in an article

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ 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:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

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.

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 September 3, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

News 28 AUG 24

Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure Track) - Integrative Biology & Pharmacology

The Department of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology (https://med.uth.edu/ibp/), McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Scienc...

Houston, Texas (US)

UTHealth Houston

Faculty Positions

The Yale Stem Cell Center invites applications for faculty positions at the rank of Assistant, Associate, or full Professor. Rank and tenure will b...

New Haven, Connecticut

Yale Stem Cell Center

Postdoc/PhD opportunity – Pharmacology of Opioids

Join us at MedUni Vienna to explore the pharmacology of circular and stapled peptide therapeutics targetting the κ-opioid receptor in the periphery.

Vienna (AT)

Medical University of Vienna

Assistant Professor Neuroscience

The Michigan Neuroscience Institute at the University of Michigan invites applications for tenure-track faculty position at the Assistant Professor.

Ann Arbor, Michigan

University of Michigan; Michigan Neuroscience Institute

Assistant Professor Neurodegeneration

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

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

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

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information

Literature Review

• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary
• Methodology
• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The literature review section of an article is a summary or analysis of all the research the author read before doing his/her own research. This section may be part of the introduction or in a section called Background. It provides the background on who has done related research, what that research has or has not uncovered and how the current research contributes to the conversation on the topic. When you read the lit review ask:

• Does the review of the literature logically lead up to the research questions?
• Do the authors review articles relevant to their research study?
• Do the authors show where there are gaps in the literature?

The lit review is also a good place to find other sources you may want to read on this topic to help you get the bigger picture.

• << Previous: Journal Information
• Next: Author and affiliation >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

A literature review is an academic text that surveys, synthesizes, and critically evaluates the existing literature on a specific topic. It is typically required for theses, dissertations, or long reports and  serves several key purposes:

• Surveying the Literature : It involves a comprehensive search and examination of relevant academic books, journal articles, and other sources related to the chosen topic.
• Synthesizing Information : The literature review summarizes and organizes the information found in the literature, often identifying patterns, themes, and gaps in the current knowledge.
• Critical Analysis : It critically analyzes the collected information, highlighting limitations, gaps, and areas of controversy, and suggests directions for future research.
• Establishing Context : It places the current research within the broader context of the field, demonstrating how the new research builds on or diverges from previous studies.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can take various forms, including:

• Narrative Reviews : These provide a qualitative summary of the literature and are often used to give a broad overview of a topic. They may be less structured and more subjective, focusing on synthesizing the literature to support a particular viewpoint.
• Systematic Reviews : These are more rigorous and structured, following a specific methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a particular question. They aim to minimize bias and provide a comprehensive summary of the existing evidence.
• Integrative Reviews : Similar to systematic reviews, but they aim to generate new knowledge by integrating findings from different studies to develop new theories or frameworks.

Importance of Literature Reviews

• Foundation for Research : They provide a solid background for new research projects, helping to justify the research question and methodology.

Identifying Gaps : Literature reviews highlight areas where knowledge is lacking, guiding future research efforts.

• Building Credibility : Demonstrating familiarity with existing research enhances the credibility of the researcher and their work.

In summary, a literature review is a critical component of academic research that helps to frame the current state of knowledge, identify gaps, and provide  a basis for new research.

The research, the body of current literature, and the particular objectives should all influence the structure of a literature review. It is also critical to remember that creating a literature review is an ongoing process - as one reads and analyzes the literature, one's understanding may change, which could require rearranging the literature review.

Paré, G. and Kitsiou, S. (2017) 'Methods for Literature Reviews' , in: Lau, F. and Kuziemsky, C. (eds.)  Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach . Victoria (BC): University of Victoria.

Perplexity AI (2024) Perplexity AI response to Kathy Neville, 31 July.       

Royal Literary Fund (2024)  The structure of a literature review.  Available at: https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/ (Accessed: 23 July 2024).

Library Services for Undergraduate Research (2024) Literature review: a definition . Available at: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our?p=302677 (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading:

Methods for Literature Reviews

Literature Review (The University of Edinburgh)

Literature Reviews (University of Sheffield)

• How to Write a Literature Review Paper? Wee, Bert Van ; Banister, David ISBN: 0144-1647

• Next: Steps for Creating a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

Examples of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

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

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

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

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — ChatPDF Showdown

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Libraries & Cultural Resources

Research guides, research in education.

• Where to Start

Education Literature Review Guide

General literature review guides.

• Citation Resources
• Contact Us!

• << Previous: Where to Start
• Next: Citation Resources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 5:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ucalgary.ca/edresearch

Libraries & Cultural Resources

• 403.220.8895

New change to library operations

All Main Library and Weaver Library doors lock 15 minutes before closing.

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

• What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
• Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

• Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
• Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

• methodology
• theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

• Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

• Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
• Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
• Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
• Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
• Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

Education College Guide

• Kemp Library Video Tutorials
• Advanced Search Techniques
• Tools for Educators
• Database Video Tutorials
• Online/Electronic Resources
• Google Scholar
• Peer Reviewed
• How to confirm and cite peer review
• What are...
• Action Research
• ESU Off Campus Log In
• Primary/Secondary Sources
• Legal Research Resources
• Evidence Based Practice/Appraisal Resources
• Apps You Didn't Know You Needed
• Internet Searching
• Online Learning Study Tips
• Annotated Bibliography

Literature Reviews

• Thesis Guide
• Who is citing me?
• Dissertation/Thesis Resources
• Citations APA
• Journal Impact Factors
• Class Pages
• We Don't Have It? / Interlibrary Loan
• Questions After Hours
• Video Tutorial

Literature Review Tracking

• Research Worksheet Lit Review

This worksheet will help you summarize and track your research as you build your literature review. It's an optional tool that may help you.

• What is a literature review?

Steps of a literature review

• Steps of a Literature Review
• Cooper's Taxonomy & Scope
• Questions to Ask Yourself

A literature review is a systematic examination of the existing research on a particular topic. It acknowledges the work of previous researchers and puts that work in the context of a particular research problem. It is often used to provide the framework for a particular topic. A good literature review will incorporate the following:

• analyze the research already done,
• identify strengths and weaknesses in that research,
• see the connections and discrepancies in the research, and
• identify gaps where further research is needed.

Additionally, writing a literature review demonstrates that you are familiar with the scholarly body of work in your area of interest. It is usually written in essay style and is often organized by themes or trends in the research.

When writing a literature review, your observations and analysis of the research you are describing are expected. If someone is reading your review, they don't want to have to go read all of the original articles. You should have fair summations of what each article you're describing concluded and be able to describe how that conclusion is or is not relevant/important.

Literature reviews should not be persuasive arguments. They don't pick sides, but discuss the points of views on all sides of a debate/issue.

It is not a list of resources, a bibliography, or an annotated bibliography. An annotated bibliography is a list of citations to resources that includes a brief descriptive or evaluative summary of that resource. It is generally arranged alphabetically.

Writing a literature review will take time. You have to collect and analyze multiple articles, books, etc. to ensure you are reviewing all the research relevant to your topic, so it best to start early. The process of writing a literature review usually involves the following steps:

• Defining your research question
• Planning your approach to your research & your review
• Searching the literature
• Analyzing the literature you’ve found
• Managing the results of your research
• Writing your review

Steps 4 and 5 are interchangeable.  You'll want to manage your citations and searches as you go so you don't have to repeat your work.

Before you begin writing your literature review, I recommend reading a few, particularly those in your topic field.

• Here is a link to Justus J. Randolph of Walden University's article A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review which you may find to have some useful information. He goes into Cooper's Taxonomy more as well.

Want to see an example of a literature review?

• Check out one of the ESU masters theses available at the library.
• Go to ProQuests Open Dissertation ( PQDT Open ) or EBSCO Open Dissertations   web site where you can read the full text of dissertations, including the literature review chapter
• For an example of a review article check out the Annual Review of Psychology which published review articles on specific topics in psychology.
• This meta-analysis of OER literature by John Hilton III is a type of literature review

The below chart, called Copper's Taxonomy, lists some questions you should ask yourself before beginning a Literature Review.

For example, the first row, "FOCUS," is asking what outcomes, methods, theories or practices your literature review is about. Are you tracking the outcomes of previous studies, the methods that have been used over time, or something else?

Using this chart can help you organize your thoughts both before and as you perform your research.

Source: “Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews,” by H.M. Cooper, 1988, Knowledge in Society, 1, p. 109.

These are questions to consider when doing your research. They don't all need to be answered, but they will help you focus your research:

• Which of these characteristics seem to fit within your field?
• What would you like your Literature Review/thesis/dissertation to accomplish?
• Is your aim to influence theory within your field, or have specific application?
• Who is your audience?
• Does your field necessitate a particular perspective?
• How does your field typically organize its findings?
• What is known about the subject?
• Are there any gaps in the research of/on the subject?
• Have areas of further study been identified by other researchers that you may want to consider?
• Who are the significant research individuals in this area?
• Is there consensus about the topic?
• What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic?
• What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?
• What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed?
• What is the current status of research in this area?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Thesis Guide >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 11:56 AM
• URL: https://esu.libguides.com/ed

Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques

• Theoretical Studies
• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• De Van Vo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8515-0221 1 &
• Geraldine Mooney Simmie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5026-4261 1  

While national curricula in science education highlight the importance of inquiry-based learning, assessing students’ capabilities in scientific inquiry remains a subject of debate. Our study explored the construction, developmental trends and validation techniques in relation to assessing scientific inquiry using a systematic literature review from 2000 to 2024. We used PRISMA guidelines in combination with bibliometric and Epistemic Network Analyses. Sixty-three studies were selected, across all education sectors and with a majority of studies in secondary education. Results showed that assessing scientific inquiry has been considered around the world, with a growing number (37.0%) involving global researcher networks focusing on novel modelling approaches and simulation performance in digital-based environments. Although there was modest variation between the frameworks, studies were mainly concerned with cognitive processes and psychological characteristics and were reified from wider ethical, affective, intersectional and socio-cultural considerations. Four core categories (formulating questions/hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions) were most often used with nine specific components (formulate questions formulate prediction/hypotheses, set experiment, vary independent variable, measure dependent variable, control confounding variables, describe data, interpret data, reach reasonable conclusion). There was evidence of transitioning from traditional to online modes, facilitated by interactive simulations, but the independent tests and performance assessments, in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats remained the most frequently used approach with a greater emphasis on context than heretofore. The findings will be especially useful for science teachers, researchers and policy decision makers with an active interest in assessing capabilities in scientific inquiry.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In contemporary times as more information and knowledge are created in a shorter timeline, the need for scientific literacy and inquiry-based capabilities beyond nature of science is increasing, especially in relation to the pressing needs of the wider world (Erduran, 2014 ). This is a growing concern, in relation to the future survival of humanity and sustainability of the planet for the reconceptualization of science education for epistemic justice and the foregrounding of intersectionality (Wallace et al., 2022 ). At the same time, policymakers and employers demand 21st century skills and inquiry-oriented approaches that include creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, communication and digital competencies (Binkley et al., 2012 ; Chu et al., 2017 ; Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ). Rather than teaching extensive content knowledge, there is a policy imperative to teach skills, dispositions, literacies and inquiry-oriented competencies. Mastery of capabilities, such as inquiry-oriented learning has therefore become a core outcome of national science education curricula globally (Baur et al., 2022 ).

Inquiry orientations are continuously emphasized in science education by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) operating in more than forty countries globally (OECD, 2015 , 2017 ) in the US (National Research Council [NRC], 2000 ), in Europe (European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2015 ), and in nation states, such as in Ireland with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA, 2015 ).

The policy imperative for inquiry-oriented activities in science classrooms prompts a growing interest in assessing students’ scientific inquiry capabilities. While scientific inquiry is a well-established research area in science education (Fukuda et al., 2022 ), assessing students’ scientific inquiry capabilities is a growing topic of research, innovation and consideration.

There is a growing demand for innovative assessments that aim to either enhance or replace traditional summative methods. These assessments should focus on creating customized, student-centered formative tasks, tools, and techniques that capture both the final products and the processes used to achieve them (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ). Many researchers argue that traditional models, originally designed to measure content knowledge, are no longer adequate for assessing competencies. Griffin et al. ( 2012 ) argued that traditional methods lack the ability to measure the higher-order skills, dispositions, and knowledge requirements of collaborative learning. Instead, it is asserted that modes of formative assessment can provide teachers and students with diagnostic information in order to continually adapt instruction and to foster a pedagogical cycle of learning (Kruit et al., 2018 ; Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ).

In this study, we systematically examined the construction, developmental trends and validation tasks, tools and techniques used in assessing students’ scientific inquiry capabilities in educational settings. We combined a systematic literature review from 2000 to 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with Bibliometric (Diodato & Gellatly, 2013 ) and Epistemic Network Analyses (ENA) (Shaffer et al., 2016 ). Our aim was to illuminate current global trends, possibilities and challenges in relation to the assessment of scientific inquiry and to suggest potential spaces for future research. Our study was guided by the following three research questions:

RQ1: To what extent is research on assessment of scientific inquiry in educational contexts found in the international literature?

RQ2: What are the predominant components, tasks, tools, and techniques used to assess scientific inquiry?

RQ3: What are the trends and developments in the assessment of scientific inquiry?

We structured the paper as follows. First, we briefly interrogate current conceptualisations of inquiry-based learning and scientific inquiry as an important background to the study. Second, we justify our selected methodology, the use of a systematic literature review with bibliometric and ENA analyses. Third, we present the results from each research question in turn. Finally, we discuss the changing shape of this research domain and the implications for the future of science education.

Conceptualizations of Scientific Inquiry

Here we first explore the construct of inquiry-based learning in science education before considering something of the global policy imperatives underway in this regard.

Inquiry-based Approach in Science Education

In science education, two visions of scientific literacy are discussed: Vision I emphasizes scientific content and propositional knowledge, while Vision II focuses on engaging students with real-world applications of science knowledge (Roberts, 2007 ; Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). Achieving the scientific literacy mentioned in Vision II literacy is a key challenge for 21st-century science education, shifting towards enabling individuals to apply scientific concepts in everyday life rather than solely producing ‘mini-scientists’ (Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). Balancing these visions is crucial to meeting diverse student needs and enhancing understanding science-in-context in today’s highly scientific world (Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). Scientific inquiry is considered fundamental to scientific literacy, encompassing practices and epistemology, with a growing focus on the meaning, application and contexts of real world inquiry (Schwartz et al., 2023 ).

An inquiry-orientation therefore provides a pedagogical approach in which students learn by actively using scientific methods to reason and generate explanations in relation to design, data and evidence (Anderson, 2002 ; Stender et al., 2018 ). Neumann et al. ( 2011 ) considered the Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as separate domains for inquiry-orientations including for analysing data, identifying and controlling variables, and forming logical cause-and‐effect relationships. Wenning ( 2007 ) proposed a detailed rubric for developing proficiency in scientific inquiry, that included identifying a problem to be investigated, doing background research, using induction, formulating a hypothesis, incorporating logic and evidence, using deduction, generating a prediction, designing experimental procedures to test the prediction, conducting a scientific experiment, observing or simulating a test or model, collecting data, organizing, and analysing data accurately and precisely, applying statistical methods to support conclusions and communicating results. Moreover, Turner et al. ( 2018 ) grouped sixteen of the activities into three components of inquiry for secondary school students in science and math classrooms, namely working with hypotheses (i.e., generation of hypotheses/predictions, designing procedures), communication in inquiry (i.e., interpreting outcomes, asking questions), hands-on inquiry (i.e., recording data, visualising data).

Pedaste et al. ( 2015 ) conceptualised an inquiry-based learning framework of four phases based on their review of thirty-two studies: orientation , conceptualization , investigation , and conclusion . The orientation phase stimulates interest and curiosity, involves background research and results in the writing of a problem statement or topic by the teacher and/or students. Conceptualization involves formulating theory-based questions as predictions or hypotheses. The investigation phase turns curiosity into action through exploration, experimentation, data gathering and interpretation. In the conclusion phase, learners address their original research questions and consider whether these questions are answered, supported or refuted.

The studies showed that the inquiry-orientation enhanced comprehension (Marshall et al., 2017 ), fostered an appreciation of the nature of scientific knowledge (Dogan et al., 2024 ), improved students’ achievement in both scientific practices and conceptual knowledge (Marshall et al., 2017 ). Inquiry-based approach was found to positively impact student engagement and motivation while the hands-on experimental skills made learning science more enjoyable (Ramnarain, 2014 ). Inquiry activities make learning visible and help to integrate scientific reasoning skills for the social construction of knowledge (Stender et al., 2018 ).

Global Policy Imperatives in Relation to Scientific Inquiry

The US National Science Education Standards presented by the National Research Council (NRC, 1996 ) defined inquiry is “a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results” (p. 23). Scientific inquiry encompasses the various methods scientists use to investigate the natural world and formulate explanations grounded in evidence from their research. It also involves students’ activities where they gain knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and learn about the processes which scientists use to explore the natural world.

Later NRC standards (2000, 2006) elaborated such proficiency as identifying a scientific question, designing and conducting an investigation, using appropriate tools to collect and analyse data, and developing evidence-based explanations. The US framework for K-12 science education (NRC, 2012 ) focused on a few core ideas and concepts, integrating them with the practices needed for scientific inquiry and engineering design. The emphasis appeared to have shifted from “inquiry” to “scientific practices” as a basis of the framework (Rönnebeck et al., 2016 ). It listed eight components of scientific and engineering practices, including asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, constructing explanations, engaging in argument from evidence, obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC, 2012 ). The eight practices intentionally intersect and connect with others rather than stand-alone (NRC, 2012 ; Rönnebeck et al., 2016 ).

The Twenty First Century Science program (2006) in England emphasized a broad qualitative understanding of significant “whole explanations” and placed a strong focus on Ideas about Science . It also prioritized developing the understanding and skills needed to critically evaluate scientific information encountered in everyday life. This initiative focuses on a foundational course aimed at fostering scientific literacy among all students. It emphasized equipping students with the knowledge and skills needed to critically evaluate scientific information encountered in daily life​. This connects science to real-world contexts and applications, and the big ideas of science rather than isolated facts​ (Millar, 2006 ).

The 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) specified a number of essential science inquiry competencies in three key areas: explaining phenomena scientifically, interpreting data and evidence scientifically, and evaluating and designing scientific inquiry (OECD, 2017 ). The explaining phenomena dimension involves students being able to identify, provide, and assess explanations for a variety of natural and technological phenomena. The interpreting dimension means that students can describe and evaluate scientific investigations and suggest methods for scientifically addressing questions. The designing dimension refers to students who can analyse and assess claims and arguments presented in various forms and draw accurate scientific conclusions (OECD, 2017 ).

In the 21st-century vision for science education in Europe, involving citizens as active participants in inquiry-oriented learning was essential (European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2015 ). The scientific inquiry involves students identifying research problems and finding solutions that apply science to everyday life. Inquiry-based science education engages students in problem-based learning, hands-on experiments, self-regulated learning, and collaborative discussion, fostering a deep understanding of science and awareness of the practical applications of scientific concepts.

In summary, global policy imperatives focus on enhancing the cognitive processes and psychological characteristics of scientific inquiry and its application in real-world contexts. This approach consistently emphasizes inquiry as fundamental to teaching and learning science, although the focus has varied over time between Vision I and Vision II in relation to scientific literacy and science education.

Methodology

For the systematic literature review, we used the PRISMA methodology (Moher et al., 2009 ) in order to assemble an evidence base of relevant studies. This was further supported by Bibliometric analysis (Diodato & Gellatly, 2013 ) and ENA analysis (Shaffer et al., 2016 ). Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative method used to evaluate various aspects of academic publications within a specified field of study. It involves the application of mathematical and statistical tools to analyse patterns, and impact within a defined body of literature. It is a powerful tool for analysing the knowledge framework and structure in a specific research area (Diodato & Gellatly, 2013 ). Meanwhile, ENA is an analytical method to describe individual (group) framework patterns through quantitative analysis of data by examining the structure of the co-occurrence or connections in coded data (Shaffer et al., 2016 ). ENA can be used to compare units of analysis in terms of their plotted point positions, individual networks, mean plotted point positions, and mean networks, which average the connection weights across individual networks. This approach has been applied in several fields, including educational research (Ruis & Lee, 2021 ).

A comprehensive examination of extant literature was undertaken using the PRISMA-framework stages, with a specific focus on empirical research. The criterion for article selection was predicated on the utilization of a testing instrument for assessment of scientific inquiry. The inclusion criteria were threefold. Firstly, empirical studies that assessed the information retrieval abilities of students - qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods - were considered. Secondly, the selected studies were required to incorporate scientific inquiry assessment tasks for K-12 science education. Thirdly, the chosen articles were limited to those originally published in the English language and within a timeline from 2000 to 2024 (09/06/2024).

We conducted a systematic search for academic papers in electronic databases as presented in Fig. 1 , employing specific search terms in the title, keywords, and abstract sections: (“inquiry” OR “scientific inquiry” OR “science inquiry” OR “investigation skill”) AND (“assessment” OR “testing” OR “measurement” OR “computer-based assessment”) AND NOT (“review”). The review used two scientific databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). The results in Scopus and WoS suggested 2228 and 1532 references respectively through the first search strategy. After merging the two datasets based on articles’ DOIs indices, as well as following the removal of duplicate entries, we reached 589 articles. We continued to check the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles for pre-selection purposes based on our predefined inclusion criteria. The process led to the identification of 263 papers for further consideration. In this stage, the authors further discussed and agreed on the inclusion criteria, content relevance, methodological quality, and methodological relevance for the selection of papers. We also facilitated discussions among raters to build consensus on ambiguous cases. Finally, we ended up with sixty-three articles selected for our dataset. Then, the data were manually entered one by one, coded and documented for final selection.

Flowchart of the inclusion and exclusion process following PRISMA guidelines

To server our research questions, we collected information from the selected articles as a dataset for thematic analysis in the PRISMA framework. This information included: (1) year of publication, (2) age groups of the participants (categorized into four age groups: 5–10 years, 11–15 ages and 16–18 ages, (3) study context, (4) components of scientific inquiry, (5) instruments/tests, and (6) technique/validation approaches. (Readers can access full raw data at https://osf.io/5bt82 ).

For bibliometric analysis, the data of the selected articles was exported from the Scopus platform. It involved common bibliographical information such authors, title, year, DOI, affiliation, abstract, keyword and reference. We used bibliometric analysis via R software version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2023 ) with shiny (Chang et al., 2023 ) and bibliometrix package (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ).

To facilitate for ENA analysis, we coded the data regarding components of scientific inquiry, based on existing frameworks (Table 1 ). The analyses were employed via ENA Web Tool (Marquart et al., 2018 ).

The results are presented here in relation to the key research questions. First, we present surface characteristics that provide a general overview of empirical studies on assessing scientific inquiry worldwide. Then, we explore the components, constructs, and techniques most often used in these assessments across the empirical studies with specific illustrative examples highlighted. Finally, we review the results to identify trends and developments in the assessment of scientific inquiry over time.

Studies on Measuring Scientific Inquiry in School Contexts Worldwide

The 63 selected articles comprised a total of 189 authors, with only four single-author articles (Kind, 2013 ; Mutlu, 2020 ; Sarıoğlu, 2023 ; Teig, 2024 ). Bibliometric analysis showed 3194 references cited, while international co-author index and co-author per article was 17.46% and 3.62, respectively. There were 21 papers published from 2000 to 2012. This number more than doubled to 42 articles from 2013 to 2024. The articles were published in 29 journals, with the core source recognized for the International Journal of Science Education ( IJSE) (11 articles) and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) (10 articles), followed by the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ( IJSME) (7 articles), and the Research in Science and Technological Education (RSTE) (3 articles). Figure 2 depicts the cumulative articles of the core sources’ production during the period from 2000 to 2024. The graph shows the major journals contributing to this field of study (IJSE, JRST and IJSME), and the noticeable growth curve in the last decade.

The cumulative occurrence of articles in key journals published over time

The findings showed that the 63 articles have a global reach, with study contexts spanning 19 different countries and territories. Notably, a high proportion of studies (23 articles, 36.5%) come from the United States, followed by Taiwan (9 articles, 14.3%), Turkey (5 articles, 7.9%), and Germany (4 articles, 6.3%), while Israel and China each contributed 3 studies (4.8%). The distribution indicates that assessing scientific inquiry is a relatively attractive area of research in science education at a global level.

Regarding affiliation contribution, Fig. 3 shows that five universities emerge as the significant contributors to this collection of publications. Among these institutions, two are located in the US: The University of California (UC) and the Caltech Precollege Science Initiative (CAPSI). UC has remained consistently active in the field since 2002, while CAPSI’s involvement has stagnated since 2005. Humboldt University in Berlin (HU-Berlin) began contributing in 2012. Meanwhile, the National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) has been actively contributing since 2013, with a sharp increase in activity. Beijing Normal University (BNU) entered the research landscape later, but has shown a steady increase in contributions recently. It is noted that the contributions refer to the frequency distribution of affiliations of all co-authors for each paper (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ).

Top 5 of the research institution contribution over time

With respect to collaboration network in the research field, Fig. 4 represents collaborative patterns among researchers in selected articles, covering author and country levels. Based on the studies selected, the analysis identified 11 distinct research networks, illustrated in Fig. 4 a, that present as networks with a significant number of researchers. For instance, in the networks, we can find research groups such as the ones led by Wu, Linn, and Gobert. Furthermore, Fig. 4 b shows that the United States play a pivotal role in leading out international collaborations within the field of scientific inquiry assessment.

Collaboration networks of researchers identified in the articles selected

The cumulative participant count involved in all the studies totalled 50,470 individuals, encompassing educational levels from primary to high schools. Participant categorization was contingent upon respective age group, with a predominant focus on students at age range of 11–15 years. Notably, more than half of the studies (36 studies, accounting for 57.1%) were centred on participants in this age range. Following closely, another significant portion, comprising 23 studies (36.5%), targeted students in the 16-18-year students. It was noted that there are seven studies assessing students, covering two age range groups.

Task, Tests and Techniques of Assessing Scientific Inquiry

Components (facets) for assessing scientific inquiry.

In empirical studies selected, various assessment frameworks were introduced to evaluate scientific inquiry, each incorporating a diverse range of specific components. Zachos et al. ( 2000 ) considered scientific inquiry as multi-aspects of competence related to human cognitive characteristics. They employed hands-on performance assessment tasks, Floating and Sinking and the Period of Oscillation of a Pendulum, to assess students’ inquiry abilities within specific components: linking theory with evidence, formulating hypotheses, maintaining records, using appropriate or innovative laboratory materials, identifying cause-and-effect relationships, controlling experiments, and applying parsimony in drawing conclusions.

Cuevas and colleages ( 2005 ) developed contextual problem tasks to assess inquiry in five components: questioning, planning, implementing, concluding, and reporting. Their assessment task described a story about a child named Marie, who was trying to determine if the size of a container’s opening would influence the rate at which water evaporated. Students were asked to formulate a question reflecting the problem Marie was trying to solve, develop a hypothesis, design an investigation, list the materials needed, describe how to record results, and explain how to draw a conclusion. The framework were referred in a study by Turkan and Liu ( 2012 ) and later utilized in a study by Yang et al. ( 2016 ), where science inquiry was defined as comprising seven aspects of identifying a research question, formulating a hypothesis, designing an experimental procedure, planning necessary equipment and materials, collecting data and evidence, drawing evidence-based conclusions, and constructing conceptual understanding.

Other studies described inquiry as process skills (Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008 ), science process skills (Feyzíoglu, 2012 ; Temiz et al., 2006 ) and scientific process skills (Tosun, 2019 ). For example, Temiz et al. ( 2006 ) developed an instrument aimed to measure the development of 12 science process skills: formulating hypotheses, observing, manipulating materials, measuring, identifying and controlling variables, recording the data, demonstrating the ability to use numbers in space and time relationships, classifying, using the data to create models, predicting, interpreting data, and inferring information or solutions to problems. Meanwhile, an inquiry process framework of Kipnis and Hofstein ( 2008 ) included identifying problems, formulating hypotheses, designing an experiment, gathering and analysing data, and drawing conclusions about scientific problems and phenomena.

Furthermore, based on the previous studies (Gobert et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2008 ; Pine et al., 2006 ; Quellmalz et al., 2012 ; Zachos et al., 2000 ), Kuo et al., ( 2015 ) defined an inquiry proficiency framework to integrate cognitive skills with scientific knowledge during student participation in activities akin to scientific discovery. The framework emphasized four fundamental abilities as core components including questioning (e.g., asking and identifying questions), experimenting (e.g., identifying variables and planning experimental procedures), analysing (e.g., identifying relevant data and transforming data), and explaining (e.g., making a claim and using evidence). Their scenario-based tasks were created within a web-based application, covering four content areas (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Earth Science) across four inquiry abilities (Wu et al., 2015 ). Chi et al. ( 2019 ) defined scientific inquiry as the ability to integrate science knowledge and skills to identify scientific questions design and conduct investigation, analyse and interpret information and generate evidence-based explanations. A hands-on performance assessment instrument for measuring student scientific inquiry competences in the science lab was developed based on this framework (see a sample task in Fig. 5 a).

PISA 2015 developed the framework to assess 15-year-old students’ scientific inquiry competency of explaining phenomena, designing inquiry, interpreting data (OECD, 2017 ). Some empirical studies (e.g., Intasoi et al., 2020 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ) developed assessment framework based on the framework to assess scientific inquiry competence of students. For example, Lin and Shie ( 2024 ) developed a PISA-type test to assess Grade 9 students’ scientific competence and knowledge related to curriculum and daily-life contexts (e.g., trolley motion, camping, household electricity, driving speed, etc.).

In the line, Arnold et al. ( 2018 ) referred to scientific inquiry as the competence to emphasize the cognitive aspects of the ability to use problem-solving procedures. Scientific competence was defined as the ability to understand, conduct, and critically evaluate scientific experiments on causal relationships, addressing problems and phenomena in the natural world. Three key sub-competences of experimentation were identified: generating hypotheses, designing experiments, and analysing data. Each sub-competence included five specific components. For instance, the sub-competence of generating hypotheses covered the ability to define the investigative problem, identify the relationship between dependent and independent variables to generate testable hypotheses or predictions and justify them, as well as propose different independent variables or alternative predictions. Zheng et al. ( 2022 ) categorized inquiry into eight components, highlighting information processing and reflective evaluation, echoed in study by Mutlu ( 2020 ).

In other approaches, Nowak et al. ( 2013 ) developed a model for assessing students’ inquiry ability, which had two dimensions: scientific reasoning (including question and hypothesis, plan and performance, and analysis and reflection) and inquiry methods (comprising modelling, experimenting, observing, comparing, and arranging). Together, these dimensions form a 9-cell matrix. Based on the theoretical structure, they developed a test instrument to assess students’ scientific inquiry (see sample item in Fig. 5 b). Meanwhile, Pedaste and colleages ( 2021 ) developed a science inquiry test for primary students based on the four-stage inquiry-based learning framework by Pedaste et al. ( 2015 ). The test encompassed the essential skills aligned with the four stages of the inquiry-based learning framework. These included analytical skills, which are primarily required in the Orientation, Conceptualization, and Investigation phases; planning skills, mainly needed in the Investigation phase; and interpretation skills, primarily needed in the Conclusion and Discussion phases.

Samples of the item/task for assessing scientific inquiry

A virtual experimentation environment developed by McElhaney and Linn ( 2011 ) simulated the experimentation activities of Airbags. These activities illustrated the interaction between the airbag and the driver during a head-on collision, using the steering wheel as a point of reference. Referred the existing studies (e.g., Kind, 2013 ; Liu et al., 2008 ; Pine et al., 2006 ), a simulation-based test developed by Wu et al. ( 2014 ) focused on two types of abilities: experimental and explaining. Experimental ability involved three sub-abilities: identifying and choosing variables, planning an experiment and selecting appropriate measurements, while explaining ability covered three sub-abilities: making a claim, using evidence, and evaluating alternative explanations. They designed four simulation tasks, namely Camera, Viscosity, Buoyancy and Flypaper. For example, the Flypaper task simulated a farm context in which students investigated which colour of flypaper could catch the most fruit flies. They were asked to propose hypotheses related to the decrease in flies according to the given chart, conduct appropriate experiments to measure the effect of the flypaper colour, investigate which colour of flypaper is best for catching fruit flies, and decide on alternative explanations based on the data evidence.

In the vein, Sui et al. ( 2024 ) designed an animation-based web application allow students conduct a scientific inquiry on atmospheric chemistry with animation experiments to understand the climate change and atmospheric chemistry. The scientific inquiry was defined with three core abilities: data analytic, control of variables and scientific reasoning. The digital game-based inquiry, BioScientist (Bónus et al., 2024 ) involved series of tasks, which focused on inquiry skills focusing on design of experiment, identification and control of variables, interpretation of data, and conclusion. For instance, a simulation provided some relevant variables, students need to manipulate the first one and then second variables to generate the data set. Based on the data-based evidence, they selected the answer and draw reasonable conclusions.

In summary, what becomes clear is that the mainstream framing of the construct of scientific inquiry was categorised as lists of specific components of competence. The frameworks for assessing scientific inquiry in technology-rich environments share many similarities with those used in traditional settings. In this view, it may summarise scientific competence into four main sub-competencies and their respective components (facets) based on the existing frameworks, as shown in Table 1 .

The Frequent Usage of the Components in Assessing Scientific Inquiry

In this section, we employed ENA to quantitatively visualize the usage frequency of yed ENA to quantitatively visualize the usage frequency of individual components and their co-usage with others in the selected empirical studies. Figure 6  illustrates the frequency of usage (represented by the size of the nodes) and the degree of co-usage of the components (represented by the width of the lines) across the reviewed studies.

In general, it appears that the nine facets were most often used to assess scientific inquiry, including formulate prediction or hypotheses (FP), formulate questions (FQ), set experiment (DS), vary independent variable (DV), measure dependent variable (DM), control confounding variables (DC), describe data (AD), interpret data (AI), and reach reasonable conclusion (CR). Other components were frequently used in inquiry tasks, including identify independent variable (FI), Identify dependent variable (FD), using appropriate method (AU) and evaluate methods (CE).

The pattern of components of scientific inquiry competence in selected studies simulated in the ENA model

Foundation Frameworks for Scientific Inquiry Assessment

To explore foundational frameworks for scientific inquiry assessment, we employed the Bibliometric analyses via the co-citation networks prevalent in the studies selected. The findings as depicted in Fig. 7 showed that US science education standards (NRC, 1996 ) stood out as the most frequently cited, followed by NRC texts A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas” (2012) and “Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning” (NRC, 2000 ). Other texts were often cited such as: “The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school” (Zimmerman, 2007 ) and “Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States” (2013). It is clear that the 1996 NRC standards were prominently featured in the discussion, while the 2012 framework was referred to more frequently than the actual standards, particularly in terms of citations in the reviewed studies.

The co-citation networks found in the studies reviewed

Constructs, Formats and Techniques Approaches in Assessing Scientific Inquiry

Generally, three types of tests emerged within the realm of scientific inquiry assessment: hands-on performance assessment, a battery of independent tests (paper battery), and digital-based battery tests (online battery) and simulation performance assessment. The analysis revealed that paper battery (41.1%) and on-line battery tests (39.7%) were the most widely applied construct, followed by and simulation performance assessment (37.0%). Hands-on performance (17.6%) still continues to hold its place in the field. The findings also suggest that, regardless of the mode of assessment, multiple-choice (71.4%) and open-ended (69.8%) formats are consistently prevalent. Notably, several studies (44.5%) used a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended formats.

Assessment of Scientific Inquiry in Traditional Environment

Performance assessments represent a groundwork approach to measuring students’ capabilities in scientific investigation, conceptualization, and problem-solving within authentic contexts. Researchers explored various dimensions of hands-on performance assessments, designing tasks that authentically mirror the scientific process. For example, Zachos et al. ( 2000 ) developed performance tasks mirroring scientific inquiry processes, assessing concepts, data collection, and conclusion drawing. Pine et al. ( 2006 ) emphasized inquiry skills like planning and data interpretation. Emden and Sumfleth ( 2016 ) assessed students’ ability in generating ideas, planning experiments, and drawing conclusions through hands-on inquiry tasks. They used video analysis in combined with paper-pencil free response reports to measure performance.

Traditional assessments tend to rely on standardized tests, featuring multiple-choice items aligned with policy-led standards. These tests, often administered in a paper-and-pencil format, measure students’ proficiency levels in comparison with peers. Without the need for advanced technology, they covered a wide range of content and question types, including multiple-choice, short answer, and essays (Fig. 8 ). The majority of studies employed such a battery of independent tests to assess one or more components of scientific inquiry (e.g., Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kaberman & Dori, 2009 ; Kazeni et al., 2018 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Schwichow et al., 2016 ; Vo et al., 2023 ; Van Vo & Csapó, 2021 ). There were a significant positive correlations between the paper-and-pencil tests and performance assessment tasks (e.g., Kruit et al., 2018 ). Table 2 presents an excerpt from the summarised table of the studies selected (See more Supplemental material at https://osf.io/5bt82 ).

Samples of item/task assessing scientific inquiry in paper-based modality. a A sample item in requiring interpretation [source from Kruit et al. ( 2018 )]. b A sample of a task for assessing inquiry [source from Temiz et al. ( 2006 )]

Assessment of Scientific Inquiry in Digital Based Environments

From 2012 onwards, studies started to increasingly use advanced technologies in digital-based environments in their assessment of scientific inquiry. Studies (e.g., Gobert et al., 2013 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ; Quellmalz et al., 2012 ; Sui et al., 2024 ) started to use innovative tools and methodologies to construct assessment platforms that more accurately captured the nuanced complexities of scientific inquiry. These include dynamic simulations with web-based applications like (Quellmalz et al., 2012 , 2013 ), Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System (Inq-ITS) (Gobert et al., 2013 ), 3D-game simulation (Hickey et al., 2009 ; Ketelhut et al., 2013 ), PISA 2015 (e.g., OECD, 2017 ; Teig et al., 2020 ) (see Fig. 9 ) and scenario-based tasks integrating multimedia elements (Kuo et al., 2015 ). For example, Inq-ITS is an online intelligent tutoring and assessment platform designed for physics, life science, and earth science. It aims to automatically evaluate scientific inquiry skills in real-time through interactive microworld simulations.

Simulation-based tools like Simulation-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities (Wu et al., 2014 ; Wu & Wu, 2020 ) can effectively assess abilities in explaining and other relevant components. Immersive virtual settings and automated content scoring engines offered efficient evaluation methods (Baker et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2016 ; Scalise & Clarke-Midura, 2018 ; Sui et al., 2024 ) and were potential for formative assessment (Hickey et al., 2009 ). The digital game-based inquiry, i.e., BioScientist (Bónus et al., 2024 ), Quest Atlantis (Hickey et al., 2009 ), allowed students to engage with a series of tasks, which focused on inquiry skills using simulation in which students interacted with suitable elements during the inquiry process. Table 3 illustrates an excerpt regarding components, tools and techniques in digital-based scientific inquiry assessment (See Supplemental material at https://osf.io/5bt82 ).

A screenshot of item 3 of Task 1 from the PISA 2015 item from the Running in Hot Weather unit [Source from OECD ( 2015 )]

Techniques for Developing and Validating Scientific Inquiry Assessment

Most studies referred to the American Education Research Association (AERA, 1999 ) for developing and validating scientific inquiry assessment tasks. This included defining the assessment framework, designing tasks and items, scoring rubrics, and conducting a pilot test (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Lin et al., 2016 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Schwichow et al., 2016 ; Vo & Csapó, 2023 ).

Numerous methods and techniques were employed for scoring proficiency in assessing scientific inquiry. Full credit was applied to correct answers in multiple-choice tests and partial credit to score open-ended questions (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kaberman & Dori, 2009 ; OECD, 2017 ; Sui et al., 2024 ; Teig et al., 2020 ). Interestingly, a high percentage of studies, as much as 36.8%, utilized a 3-point scale rubric in their assessments or evaluations (Intasoi et al., 2020 ). Log-file techniques were increasingly popular for assessing scientific inquiry in recent studies (Baker et al., 2016 ; McElhaney & Linn, 2011 ; Teig, 2024 ; Teig et al., 2020 ). Data-mining algorithms enhanced assessment accuracy (Gobert et al., 2015 ). Virtual Performance Assessments allowed to record a log data (Baker et al., 2016 ), containing students’ actions (e.g., clicks, double clicks, slider movements, drag and drop, changes in the text area) along with the timestamp for each action. Different actions and their timings were combined to reveal behavioural indicators, such as number of actions, number of trials, time before the first action, response time for each item, and total time for each unit. The process of assessment development and validation was found to be based on a construct modelling approach (Brown & Wilson, 2011 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ).

For validation approaches, the face validity of the test instrument was established based on faculty and student feedback (Kuo et al., 2015 ) or expert judgments (Šmida et al., 2024 ; Vo & Csapó, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2014 ). Construct validity focused on the test score as a measure of the psychological properties of the instrument. For validity analysis, most studies applied Rasch measurement model (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Chi et al., 2019 ; Intasoi et al., 2020 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Liu et al., 2008 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Pedaste et al., 2021 ; Quellmalz et al., 2013 ; Scalise & Clarke-Midura, 2018 ; Schwichow et al., 2016 ; Vo & Csapó, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2015 ), followed by factor analyses (Feyzíoglu, 2012 ; Lou et al., 2015 ; Pedaste et al., 2021 ; Samarapungavan et al., 2009 ; Šmida et al., 2024 ; Tosun, 2019 ). Predictive or criterion-related validity was used to demonstrate that the test scores are dependent on other variables, tests, or outcome criteria. In assessment of scientific inquiry, predictive validity referred to some standard tests, such as Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Inquiry (e.g., Kuo et al., 2015 ; Wu et al., 2014 ), Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (e.g., Lou et al., 2015 ), General cognitive ability (e.g., Dori et al., 2018 ; Kruit et al., 2018 ) and science grades in school (Pedaste et al., 2021 ).

Most popular software employed for data analysis including the R (Sui et al., 2024 ; Van Vo & Csapó, 2021 ), ConQuest (Kuo et al., 2015 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Seeratan et al., 2020 ; Vo & Csapó, 2021 ), SPSS (Bónus et al., 2024 ; Temiz et al., 2006 ) and Winsteps (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Chi et al., 2019 ; Pedaste et al., 2021 ), and LISREL (Tosun, 2019 ).

Developmental Trend in Assessing Scientific Inquiry

The objective here was to investigate the evolving trends and patterns of scientific inquiry employed within the studies over time. The articles were sub-divided into two distinct temporal spans − 2000–2012 and 2013–2024. Figure 10 visualizes patterns of components of scientific inquiry competence which were used the studies in the 2000–2012 period (Fig. 10 a), the 2013–2024 period (Fig. 10 b) and a comparison of that between the two periods (Fig. 10 c). The graph of comparison was calculated by subtracting the weight of each connection in one network from the corresponding connections in another.

The results revealed that some main components, i.e., measure dependent variable (DM), reach reasonable conclusion (CR), identify independent variable (FI), set experiment (DS), control confounding variables (DC), vary independent variable (DV), identify dependent variable (FD), and formulate prediction (FP), were often used consistently over time. However, components such as using appropriate method (AU), evaluate methods (CE), defining task time (DT), defining replication (DR), and recognizing limitations (CL) demonstrated a heightened prevalence in the later period, indicating a heightened emphasis on these aspects of assessing scientific inquiry. Conversely, when examining the earlier period (2000–2012), components like identify independent variable (FI) and justify question / hypothesis (FJ) exhibited a more noticeable frequency of application.

Patterns of facets of scientific inquiry competence in selected studies simulated in the ENA model

To streamline the understanding of these tests in the scientific inquiry tasks, we employed co-occurrence networks adapted in Bibliometric analysis. The analysis revealed that battery independent tests and performance assessment are most frequently used with multiple-choice and open-ended constructs. However, the trend is toward the online and simulation ones with new techniques of log-file tracking and scaffolding (Figure 11 a).

When it comes to emphasizing vision in science education, empirical evidence has shown that the design of inquiry tests incorporated both the content of pure science, vision I scientific literacy, and the science-in-context applications related to science, vision II scientific literacy. This ensures a balanced evaluation that covers fundamental scientific principles as well as their real-world applications. However, it is noteworthy that recent studies have shown a growing preference for assessing scientific inquiry within science-in-context (Figure 11 b).

Trend of types and formats in assessing scientific inquiry. a Co-occurrence networks depicting types, formats and “vision” emphasis. b Types, formats and “vision” emphasis over time

Discussion and Conclusions

The paper utilized the PRISMA guideline for systematic review in combination with bibliometric analyses for reviewing scientific research literature to draw together a detailed overview of research on assessing scientific inquiry abilities in global educational settings.

Our review of the problem of assessing scientific inquiry allowed us illuminate this rapidly changing area of research. In the last two decades, while research on curriculum reforms in science inquiry-orientations have proceeded apace, research on digital modes of assessing scientific inquiry have only recently started to make an impact. Our analysis of sixty-three studies showed that scientific inquiry has been emphasized, integrated, and assessed in the settings of science education around the world. The bulk of this research, started in the US, was brought to global significance through the influence of transnational policy decision-makers, such as the OECD and mainly US-led networks of researchers. The US researchers published several academic papers in the earliest part of the timeline studied, and their findings remain today as foundational citations. This research was quickly followed by new networks forming from Germany, Turkey, Taiwan and China. Co-citation networks revealed that the US National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996 ) remains as a foundational reference, even though the 2012 document should have had nearly equal significance. Surprisingly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) benchmarks were not cited as frequently in the case.

Over two decades, performance assessments and batteries of independent tests, employing both multiple-choice and open-ended formats, continue to be widely used for assessing scientific inquiry. Hands-on performance assessment remains one of the main modes of assessing competence in scientific inquiry. Moreover, a traditional written test can be easily administered, reliably scored, and is familiar to students, but falls short in effectively capturing the dynamics of real-life inquiry and may be significantly influenced by reading proficiency (Kruit et al., 2018 ). Besides, hands-on performance assessment is not efficient for large-scale assessments (Kuo et al., 2015 ). Therefore, there is a growing emphasis on developing authentic tests. These tests, which may include manipulatives, are considered to provide a more comprehensive assessment of students’ capability in conducting scientific inquiry through multiple formats (e.g., open-constructed, multiple-choice, multiple-true-false, short closed-constructed).

Our analysis showed that original components like formulating questions or hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions were consistently used for assessing scientific inquiry capabilities over time. However, certain sub-components, such as formulating prediction or hypotheses , formulating questions , setting experiment , varying independent variable , measuring dependent variable , controlling confounding variables , describing data , interpreting data , and reaching reasonable conclusions , were the most frequently used competences in the selected studies. Meanwhile, facets like specifying test time , defining replication , and recognizing limitations were shown to have an increasing prevalence in the last decade. This trend signals a possible enhanced emphasis on these facets or sub-components of scientific inquiry, particularly in digital-based environments. The growing focus on these areas may reflect the advancements in technology that allow for more precise measurement and analysis, thereby promoting a more rigorous approach to scientific inquiry.

In the last decade, online battery tests and simulation performance assessments have gained increasing popularity. These studies reflect the design and enactment of innovative assessments using advanced technology, such as Web-based Inquiry Science Environments (McElhaney & Linn, 2011 ), SimScientists (Quellmalz et al., 2012 , 2013 ), iSA–Earth Science (Lou et al., 2015 ), Multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities (Kuo et al., 2015 ; Wu et al., 2015 ), Inq-ITS system (Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System (Gobert et al., 2013 , 2015 ), Virtual Performance Assessments (Baker et al., 2016 ), Dynamic visualization to design animation-based activities (Sui et al., 2024 ).

In terms of emphasizing vision in science education, empirical evidence demonstrated that the design of inquiry tests included pure science content (vision I) and science-in-context considerations (vision II). However, recent studies increasingly preferred assessing scientific inquiry within real-world contexts. This trend reflects an understanding of the importance of students being able to apply scientific concepts to real-world problems, thus preparing them for the complex, interdisciplinary challenges they are likely to face in their futures. By focusing on context, these studies aim to enhance students’ ability to think critically and engage with science in a way that is relevant to their everyday lives and broader community issues. These are also partly reflected in alignment with national and international frameworks.

Implications

The paper not only identifies various aspects of studies and research within a specific field of assessing inquiry competence, but also provides systematic rationales related to the construction of the tools, tasks and techniques used to assess scientific inquiry capabilities in educational settings. This is valuable for science teachers as they create inquiry-oriented tasks in their classrooms. Additionally, new researchers can gain an overview of the research teams working in this area.

The foreseeable trend may be that the move towards dynamic and interactive inquiry assessments enables researchers to examine not just the accuracy of students’ responses (product data) but also the procedures and actions they employ to arrive at responses (process data) (Teig, 2024 ). Multi-faceted aspects of scientific inquiry can be observed during assessment tasks. Beside traditional components in formulating questions or hypotheses , designing experiments , analysing data , and drawing conclusions , some new aspects like task time , replication and recognizing limitations seem to more consider as they become measurable in technology-rich environment. Therefore, log-file analysis will be more popular approach in the field.

The development of scientific inquiry assessments should be considered as a multifaceted process of construct modelling. The combination of multiple validity approaches is encouraged in development of the assessment of scientific inquiry. Psychometric analysis through Rasch model is often employed in validating and scaling student performance. Alternative approaches to deal with log-file records are still in the early pioneering stages of development (e.g., Baker et al., 2016 ; McElhaney & Linn, 2011 ; Teig, 2024 ; Teig et al., 2020 ). An automated scoring engine demonstrated a promising approach to scoring constructed-response in assessment of inquiry ability (Liu et al., 2016 ). This opens a potential space for upcoming new research in this field with application of artificial intelligence.

The review illuminates the evolving landscape of scientific inquiry assessment development and validation, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive and flexible approach to meet the diverse needs of educational and research settings. However, tackling such novel tasks necessitated not only an understanding of scientific inquiry assessment but also sophisticated technology and its corresponding infrastructures. For example, simulation tasks addressing complex real-world problems, such as climate change, water shortages, and global food security, necessitate the collaboration of various relevant stakeholders. It is crucial for research and educational technology institutions to play supportive roles for science teachers. More robust and published research on scientist-led K-12 outreach is essential for enhancing comprehension among scientists and K-12 stakeholders regarding the optimal practices and challenges associated with outreach initiatives (Abramowitz et al., 2024 ).

Science teachers were encouraged to integrate both pure science content and science-in-context applications into their teaching and assessment (Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). This will involve teachers’ designing inquiry-based activities that apply scientific principles to real-world problems, helping students develop higher-order critical thinking skills and preparing them for future interdisciplinary challenges. Emphasizing real-world applications of scientific inquiry can help to make science education more relevant and engaging for students.

Moreover, the adoption of combined approaches to the literature review, integrating bibliometric and ENA analyses with systematic review PRISMA guidelines, demonstrates a meticulous and systematic approach to data synthesis. Beyond its immediate application here, this research design may serve as a model for future research endeavours, contributing to the advancement of novel methodologies.

Limitation of the Review

The review conducted here was limited to 63 empirical studies published in SCOPUS/WoS data between 2000 and 2024 and in English. It may not cover the full range of academic documents that are made available in other academic databases, potentially missing significant studies published in different languages or within other research repositories.

The nature of psychological issues is often controversial, and our suggested framework for assessing scientific inquiry competence is merely one of several approaches presented in the literature. Different scholars proposed various models, each with its own strengths and limitations, reflecting the ongoing debate and complexity within this field. Furthermore, the selection of articles was conducted and scored by the authors, which introduces the possibility of certain biases. These biases may stem from subjective interpretations, or unintentional preferences, potentially influencing the overall findings.

The application of advanced technology is sophisticated and diverse; we have highlighted only a few features without covering all aspects of digital-based assessment. Therefore, generalizations from the study need to be approached with caution. However, the study provides valuable insights into the fast-globalizing landscape of assessing scientific inquiry and will be of interest to researchers, educators, teachers in science education and those with an interest in grappling with similar problems of assessment.

Abramowitz, B., Ennes, M., Kester, B., & Antonenko, P. (2024). Scientist-school STEM partnerships through outreach in the USA: A systematic review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10445-7

American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . American Psychological Association. https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/1999Standards_revised.pdf

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Arnold, J. C., Boone, W. J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Assessment of competencies in scientific inquiry through the application of Rasch measurement techniques. Education Sciences , 8 (4), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040184

Baker, R. S., Clarke-Midura, J., & Ocumpaugh, J. (2016). Towards general models of effective science inquiry in virtual performance assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 32 (3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12128

Baur, A., Baumgartner-hirscher, N., Lehtinen, A., Neudecker, C., Nieminen, P., Papaevripidou, M., Rohrmann, S., Schiffl, I., Schuknecht, M., Virtbauer, L., & Xenofontos, N. (Eds.). (2022). Differentiation in inquiry-based learning: A differentiation tool with a focus on experimentation . Heidelberg, University of Education.

Google Scholar  

Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students’ performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education , 19 (2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120087687

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),  Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century skills (pp.17–66). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bónus, L., Antal, E., & Korom, E. (2024). Digital game-based inquiry learning to improve eighth graders’ inquiry skills in Biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 33 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10096-x

Brown, N. J. S., & Wilson, M. (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9161-z

Chang, W., Cheng, J., Allaire, J., Sievert, C., Schloerke, B., Xie, Y., Allen, J., McPherson, J., Dipert, A., & Borges, B. (2023). shiny: Web application framework for R (R package version 1.8.0). https://cran.r-project.org/package=shiny

Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2019). Investigating disciplinary context effect on student scientific inquiry competence. International Journal of Science Education , 41 (18), 2736–2764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1697837

Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning: From theory to practice . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2481-8

Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of Education , 189 (1–2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-210

Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42 (3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20053

Diodato, V. P., & Gellatly, P. (2013). Dictionary of bibliometrics . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dogan, O. K., Han-Tosunoglu, C., Arslan, N., Cakir, M., & Irez, S. (2024). Middle school graduates’ understandings of scientific inquiry and its relation to academic achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22 (1), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10365-y

Dori, Y. J., Zohar, A., Fischer-Shachor, D., Kohan-Mass, J., & Carmi, M. (2018). Gender-fair assessment of young gifted students’ scientific thinking skills. International Journal of Science Education , 40 (6), 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1431419

Emden, M., & Sumfleth, E. (2016). Assessing students’ experimentation processes in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 14 (1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9564-7

Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond nature of science: The case for reconceptualising Science for science education. Science Education International , 25 (1), 95–111. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022972

European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship: Report to the European Commission of the expert group on science education . Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2777/12626

Feyzíoglu, B. (2012). Developing a science process skills test for secondary students: Validity and reliability study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practices , 12 , 1899–1906. https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C8RP00071A

Fukuda, M., Hajian, S., Jain, M., Liu, A. L., Obaid, T., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2022). Scientific inquiry learning with a simulation: Providing within-task guidance tailored to learners’ understanding and inquiry skill. International Journal of Science Education , 44 (6), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2062799

Gobert, J. D., Pedro, S., Raziuddin, M., J., & Baker, R. S. (2013). From log files to assessment metrics: Measuring students’ science inquiry skills using educational data mining. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 22 (4), 521–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.837391

Gobert, J. D., Kim, Y. J., Sao Pedro, M. A., Kennedy, M., & Betts, C. G. (2015). Using educational data mining to assess students’ skills at designing and conducting experiments within a complex systems microworld. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 18 , 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.008

Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012).  Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills . Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research , 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hickey, D. T., Ingram-Goble, A. A., & Jameson, E. M. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 18 (2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9143-1

Intasoi, S., Junpeng, P., Tang, K. N., Ketchatturat, J., Zhang, Y., & Wilson, M. (2020). Developing an assessment framework of multidimensional scientific competencies. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) , 9 (4), 963–970. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20542

Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of Chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 7 (3), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9118-3

Kazeni, M., Baloyi, E., & Gaigher, E. (2018). Effectiveness of individual and group investigations in developing integrated science inquiry skills. South African Journal of Education , 38 (3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n3a1549

Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., Schifter, C., & Kim, Y. (2013). Improving science assessments by situating them in a virtual environment. Education Sciences , 3 (2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3020172

Kind, P. M. (2013). Establishing assessment scales using a novel disciplinary rationale for scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 50 (5), 530–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21086

Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 6 (3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y

Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Assessing students’ ability in performing scientific inquiry: Instruments for measuring science skills in primary education. Research in Science and Technological Education , 36 (4), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1421530

Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education , 37 (14), 2326–2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521

Lin, S. F., & Shie, W. C. (2024). A cooperative model of development and validation of a curriculum-based scientific competence test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 22 (3), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10366-x

Lin, S. W., Liu, Y., Chen, S. F., Wang, J. R., & Kao, H. L. (2015). Development of a computer-based measure of listening comprehension of science talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 13 (6), 1469–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9559-4

Lin, S. W., Liu, Y., Chen, S. F., Wang, J. R., & Kao, H. L. (2016). Elementary school students’ science talk ability in inquiry-oriented settings in Taiwan: Test development, verification, and performance benchmarks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 14 (7), 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9663-0

Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment , 13 (1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224

Liu, O. L., Rios, J. A., Heilman, M., Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Validation of automated scoring of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 (2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21299

Lou, Y., Blanchard, P., & Kennedy, E. (2015). Development and validation of a science inquiry skills assessment. Journal of Geoscience Education , 63 (1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-028.1

Marquart, C. L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Epistemic network analysis (Version 1.7.0) [Software] .

Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B., & Alston, D. M. (2017). Inquiry-based instruction: A possible solution to improving student learning of both science concepts and scientific practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 15 (5), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x

McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (7), 745–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20423

Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education , 28 (13), 1499–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718344

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 62 (10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

Mutlu, A. (2020). Evaluation of students’ scientific process skills through reflective worksheets in the inquiry-based learning environments. Reflective Practice , 21 (2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1736999

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA]. (2015). Junior cycle science: Curriculum specification. Author.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science education standards. National committee for science education standards and assessment . National Academies.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning . National Academies.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . National Academies. https://smile.oregonstate.edu/sites/smile.oregonstate.edu/files/a_framework_for_k-12_science_education.pdf

Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education , 33 (10), 1373–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.511297

Nowak, K. H., Nehring, A., Tiemann, R., & Upmeier, A. (2013). Assessing students’ abilities in processes of scientific inquiry in biology using a paper-and-pencil test. Journal of Biological Education , 47 (3), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.822747

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework . Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2015). Try PISA 2015 test questions . Author. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/pisa2015/#d.en.537240

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review , 14 , 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Pedaste, M., Baucal, A., & Reisenbuk, E. (2021). Towards a science inquiry test in primary education: Development of items and scales. International Journal of STEM Education , 8 (1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00278-z

Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., Phelps, S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 43 (5), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20140

Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 (3), 363–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21005

Quellmalz, E. S., Davenport, J. L., Timms, M. J., DeBoer, G. E., Jordan, K. A., Huang, C. W., & Buckley, B. C. (2013). Next-generation environments for assessing and promoting complex science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 105 (4), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032220

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/

Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers ’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, township and rural high schools : The context-speci fi city of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education , 38 , 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.003

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Routledge.

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 559–572). Routledge.

Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education , 52 (2), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351

Ruis, A. R., & Lee, S. B. (Eds.). (2021). Advances in quantitative ethnography (Vol. 1312). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 (5), 583–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20356

Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., Patrick, H., & French, B. (2009). The development and validation of the science learning assessment (SLA): A measure of kindergarten science learning. Journal of Advanced Academics , 20 (3), 502–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000306

Sarıoğlu, S. (2023). Development of Online science process skills test for 8th grade pupils. Journal of Turkish Science Education , 20 (3), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.024

Scalise, K., & Clarke-Midura, J. (2018). The many faces of scientific inquiry: Effectively measuring what students do and not only what they say. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 55 (10), 1469–1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21464

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, J. S., & Enderle, P. J. (2023). Scientific inquiry literacy: The missing link on the continuum from science literacy to scientific literacy. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 749–782). Routledge.

Schwichow, M., Christoph, S., Boone, W. J., & Härtig, H. (2016). The impact of sub-skills and item content on students’ skills with regard to the control-of-variables strategy. International Journal of Science Education , 38 (2), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1137651

Seeratan, K. L., McElhaney, K. W., Mislevy, J., McGhee, R., Conger, D., & Long, M. C. (2020). Measuring students’ ability to engage in scientific inquiry: A new instrument to assess data analysis, explanation, and argumentation. Educational Assessment , 25 (2), 112–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1756253

Shaffer, D., williamson, Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, cocial, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics , 3 (3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3

Shahali, E. H. M., & Halim, L. (2010). Development and validation of a test of integrated science process skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 9 , 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.127

Šmida, D., Čipková, E., & Fuchs, M. (2024). Developing the test of inquiry skills: Measuring the level of inquiry skills among pupils in Slovakia. International Journal of Science Education , 46 (1), 73–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2219811

Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education , 40 (15), 1812–1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346

Sui, C., Hsiao, S., Yeh, S., Zhao, P., Chang, C., & Lin, J. (2024). Do they have inquiry skill profiles? Exploring high school students’ scientific inquiry in an animation-based activity. Science Education, 108 (2), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21844

Teig, N. (2024). Uncovering student strategies for solving scientific snquiry tasks: Insights from student process data in PISA. Research in Science Education , 54 , 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10134-5

Teig, N., Scherer, R., & Kjærnsli, M. (2020). Identifying patterns of students’ performance on simulated inquiry tasks using PISA 2015 log-file data. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 57 (9), 1400–1429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21657

Temiz, B. K., Taşar, M. F., & Tan, M. (2006). Development and validation of a test of integrated science process skills. International Education Journal , 7 (7), 1007–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.127

Tosun, C. (2019). Scientific process skills test development within the topic Matter and its nature and the predictive effect of different variables on 7th and 8th grade students’ scientific process skill levels. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 20 (1), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00071A

Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education , 86 (2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004

Turkan, S., & Liu, O. L. (2012). Differential performance by English language learners on an inquiry-based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education , 34 (15), 2343–2369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.705046

Turner, R. C., Keiffer, E. A., & Salamo, G. J. (2018). Observing inquiry-based learning environments using the scholastic inquiry observation instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 16 (8), 1455–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9843-1

Van Vo, D., & Csapó, B. (2021). Development of scientific reasoning test measuring control of variables strategy in physics for high school students: evidence of validity and latent predictors of item difficulty. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (13), 2185–2205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1957515

Vo, D. V., & Csapó, B. (2023). Exploring inductive reasoning, scientific reasoning and science motivation, and their role in predicting STEM achievement across grade levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21 (8), 2375–2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10349-4

Vo, D. V., Csapó, B., & Greiff, S. (2023). Development of the control of variables strategy in physics among secondary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101371. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2023.101371

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21stcentury competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 44 (3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

Wallace, M. F. G., Bazzul, J., Higgins, M., & Tolbert, S. (Eds.). (2022). Reimagining science education in the Anthropocene . Palgrave Macmillan.

Wenning, C. J. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online , 4 (2), 21–24.

Wu, P. H., & Wu, H. K. (2020). Constructing a model of engagement in scientific inquiry: Investigating relationships between inquiry-related curiosity, dimensions of engagement, and inquiry abilities. Instructional Science , 48 (1), 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09503-8

Wu, P. H., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). Establishing the criterion-related, construct, and content validities of a simulation-based sssessment of inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education , 36 (10), 1630–1650. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.871660

Wu, H. K., Kuo, C. Y., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). What makes an item more difficult? Effects of modality and type of visual information in a computer-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. Computers & Education , 85 , 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.007

Yang, K. K., Lin, S. F., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. (2016). Exploring the assessment of and relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and science inquiry. Creativity Research Journal , 28 (1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125270

Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 (9), 938–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<938::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Yang, X., Zheng, S., & Ping, X. (2022). Research on performance assessment of students’ inquiry skills in China’s elementary schools: A video analysis of Beijing discovering science around us. Research in Science & Technological Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2126973

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27 (2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001

Download references

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. This research was supported by the Irish Research Council under grant number: GOIPD/2023/148.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

EPI•STEM National Research Centre for STEM Education, School of Education, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

De Van Vo & Geraldine Mooney Simmie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to De Van Vo .

Ethics declarations

Declarations of originality.

This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.

Conflict of interest

The authors have stated no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vo, D.V., Simmie, G. Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques. Int J of Sci and Math Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8

Download citation

Received : 28 February 2024

Accepted : 17 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scientific Inquiry
• Science Education
• Systematic Literature Review
• Epistemic Network Analysis
• Bibliometrix
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Cyclodextrin complexes for the treatment of chagas disease: a literature review.

1. Introduction

2. flowchart of this study.

3. Brief Review

3.1. cyclodextrin, 3.2. industrial applications, 3.3. complexation mechanism, 3.4. chagas disease, 3.5. biological cycle, 3.6. nifurtimox and benznidazole, 3.7. studies conducted on the treatment of t. cruzi, 4. impact of cyclodextrins on the optimization of drug solubility and efficacy, 5. impact of cyclodextrins with benznidazole in the treatment of chagas disease, 6. impact of cyclodextrins with natural products in the treatment of chagas disease, 7. discussion, 8. final considerations, 9. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Crini, G. Review: A History of Cyclodextrins. Chem. Rev. 2014 , 114 , 10940–10975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schijman, A.G.; Alonso-Padilla, J.; Britto, C.; Herrera Bernal, C.P. Retrospect, advances and challenges in Chagas disease diagnosis: A comprehensive review. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 2024 , 36 , 100821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pérez-Molina, J.A.; Molina, I. Chagas disease. Lancet 2018 , 391 , 82–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Goldenberg, S. Chagas disease treatment: A 120-year-old challenge to public health. Memórias Do Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2022 , 117 , e210501chgsa. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garibyan, A.; Terekhova, I. Complex formation with modified cyclodextrins for improving biopharmaceutical properties of baricitinib, a novel immunomodulatory drug. J. Mol. Liq. 2024 , 406 , 125016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paiva-Santos, A.C.; Ferreira, L.; Peixoto, D.; Silva, F.; Soares, M.J.; Zeinali, M.; Zafar, H.; Mascarenhas-Melo, F.; Raza, F.; Mazzola, P.G.; et al. Cyclodextrins as an encapsulation molecular strategy for volatile organic compounds—Pharmaceutical applications. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2022 , 218 , 112758. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pandey, R.P.; Nascimento, M.S.; Moore, C.E.; Raj, V.S.; Kalil, J.; Cunha-Neto, E. New Approaches for the Treatment of Chagas Disease. Curr. Drug Targets 2021 , 22 , 835–841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sguassero, Y.; Cuesta, C.B.; Roberts, K.N.; Hicks, E.; Comandé, D.; Ciapponi, A.; Sosa-Estani, S. Course of Chronic Trypanosoma cruzi Infection after Treatment Based on Parasitological and Serological Tests: A Systematic Review of Follow-Up Studies. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0139363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dias, L.C.; Dessoy, M.A.; Silva, J.J.N.; Thiemann, O.H.; Oliva, G.; Andricopulo, A.D. Quimioterapia da doença de Chagas: Estado da arte e perspectivas no desenvolvimento de novos fármacos. Química Nova 2009 , 32 , 2444–2457. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zanetti, I.; do Nascimento Oliveira, L.; de Azevedo Maia, F.L.; de Santiago-Silva, K.M.; Pereira, P.M.L.; Albuquerque, M.G.; Gonçalves, R.S.B.; de Lima Ferreira Bispo, M.; Yamada-Ogatta, S.F.; Magalhães, A.; et al. Cyclodextrin-encapsulated new drug with promising anti- Trypanosoma cruzi activity. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2023 , 148 , 10821–10834. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bedogni, G.; Arrúa, E.; Seremeta, K.; Okulik, N.; Salomon, C. Elucidating the complexation of nifurtimox with cyclodextrins. J. Mol. Liq. 2023 , 382 , 121852. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nicoletti, C.D.; dos Santos Galvão, R.M.; de Sá Haddad Queiroz, M.; Barboclher, L.; Faria, A.F.M.; Teixeira, G.P.; Souza, A.L.A.; de Carvalho da Silva, F.; Ferreira, V.F.; da Silva Lima, C.H.; et al. Inclusion complex of O-allyl-lawsone with 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin: Preparation, physical characterization, antiparasitic and antifungal activity. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 2023 , 55 , 233–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Barbosa, J.M.C.; Nicoletti, C.D.; da Silva, P.B.; Melo, T.G.; Futuro, D.O.; Ferreira, V.F.; Salomão, K. Characterization and trypanocidal activity of a β-lapachone-containing drug carrier. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , e0246811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nicoletti, C.D.; Faria, A.F.M.; de Sá Haddad Queiroz, M.; dos Santos Galvão, R.M.; Souza, A.L.A.; Futuro, D.O.; Faria, R.X.; Ferreira, V.F. Synthesis and biological evaluation of β-lapachone and nor-β-lapachone complexes with 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin as trypanocidal agents. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 2020 , 52 , 185–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pozo-Martínez, J.; Salgado, F.; Liempi, A.; Kemmerling, U.; Mera-Adasme, R.; Olea-Azar, C.; Moncada-Basualto, M.; Borges, F.; Uriarte, E.; Matos, M.J. Synthesis and study of the trypanocidal activity of catechol-containing 3-arylcoumarins, inclusion in β-cyclodextrin complexes and combination with benznidazole. Arab. J. Chem. 2022 , 15 , 103641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Ferraz, L.R.M.; Alves, A.É.G.; da Nascimento, D.D.S.S.; Amariz, I.A.; Ferreira, A.S.; Costa, S.P.M.; Rolim, L.A.; Lima, Á.A.N.; Rolim Neto, P.J. Technological innovation strategies for the specific treatment of Chagas disease based on Benznidazole. Acta Trop. 2018 , 185 , 127–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vinuesa, T.; Herráez, R.; Oliver, L.; Elizondo, E.; Acarregui, A.; Esquisabel, A.; Pedraz, J.L.; Ventosa, N.; Veciana, J.; Viñas, M. Benznidazole Nanoformulates: A Chance to Improve Therapeutics for Chagas Disease. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017 , 97 , 1469–1476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lopes, M.S.; Sales Júnior, P.A.; Lopes, A.G.F.; Yoshida, M.I.; Silva, T.H.A.; Romanha, A.J.; Alves, R.J.; Oliveira, R.B. The activity of a metronidazole analogue and its β-cyclodextrin complex against. Trypanos. Cruzi. Memórias Do Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2011 , 106 , 1055–1057. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sá-Barreto, L.C.L.; Gustmann, P.C.; Garcia, F.S.; Maximiano, F.P.; Novack, K.M.; Cunha-Filho, M.S.S. Modulated dissolution rate from the inclusion complex of antichagasic benznidazole and cyclodextrin using hydrophilic polymer. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 2013 , 18 , 1035–1041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Soares-Sobrinho, J.L.; Santos, F.L.A.; Lyra, M.A.M.; Alves, L.D.S.; Rolim, L.A.; Lima, A.A.N.; Nunes, L.C.C.; Soares, M.F.R.; Rolim-Neto, P.J.; Torres-Labandeira, J.J. Benznidazole drug delivery by binary and multicomponent inclusion complexes using cyclodextrins and polymers. Carbohydr. Polym. 2012 , 89 , 323–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grillo, R.; Melo, N.F.S.; Moraes, C.M.; de Lima, R.; Menezes, C.M.S.; Ferreira, E.I.; Rosa, A.H.; Fraceto, L.F. Study of the interaction between hydroxymethylnitrofurazone and 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2008 , 47 , 295–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grillo, R.; Melo, N.F.S.; Fraceto, L.F.; Brito, C.L.; Trossini, G.H.G.; Menezes, C.M.S.; Ferreira, E.I.; Moraes, C.M. Physicochemical characterization of the inclusion complex between hydroxymethylnitrofurazone and hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin. Química Nova 2008 , 31 , 290–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carneiro, S.; Costa Duarte, F.; Heimfarth, L.; Siqueira Quintans, J.; Quintans-Júnior, L.; Veiga Júnior, V.; Neves de Lima, Á. Cyclodextrin–Drug Inclusion Complexes: In Vivo and In Vitro Approaches. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 , 20 , 642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santos, C.R. da S.; Silva, É.A. Cyclodextrins: Possible therapeutic agents in neurodegenerative diseases. Res. Soc. Dev. 2022 , 11 , e400111335610. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, M.E.; Brewster, M.E. Cyclodextrin-based pharmaceutics: Past, present and future. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004 , 3 , 1023–1035. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Del Valle, E.M.M. Cyclodextrins and their uses: A review. Process Biochem. 2004 , 39 , 1033–1046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cid-Samamed, A.; Rakmai, J.; Mejuto, J.C.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Astray, G. Cyclodextrins inclusion complex: Preparation methods, analytical techniques and food industry applications. Food Chem. 2022 , 384 , 132467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fenyvesi, É.; Vikmon, M.; Szente, L. Cyclodextrins in Food Technology and Human Nutrition: Benefits and Limitations. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016 , 56 , 1981–2004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Y.; Qiu, C.; Qin, Y.; Xu, X.; Fan, L.; Wang, J.; Jin, Z. Cyclodextrin–phytochemical inclusion complexes: Promising food materials with targeted nutrition and functionality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 109 , 398–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yildiz, Z.I.; Celebioglu, A.; Kilic, M.E.; Durgun, E.; Uyar, T. Menthol/cyclodextrin inclusion complex nanofibers: Enhanced water-solubility and high-temperature stability of menthol. J. Food Eng. 2018 , 224 , 27–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jansook, P.; Ogawa, N.; Loftsson, T. Cyclodextrins: Structure, physicochemical properties and pharmaceutical applications. Int. J. Pharm. 2018 , 535 , 272–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lima, P.S.S.; Lucchese, A.M.; Araújo-Filho, H.G.; Menezes, P.P.; Araújo, A.A.S.; Quintans-Júnior, L.J.; Quintans, J.S.S. Inclusion of terpenes in cyclodextrins: Preparation, characterization and pharmacological approaches. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016 , 151 , 965–987. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ryzhakov, A.; do Thi, T.; Stappaerts, J.; Bertoletti, L.; Kimpe, K.; Sá Couto, A.R.; Saokham, P.; van den Mooter, G.; Augustijns, P.; Somsen, G.W.; et al. Self-Assembly of Cyclodextrins and Their Complexes in Aqueous Solutions. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016 , 105 , 2556–2569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Noël, S.; Léger, B.; Ponchel, A.; Sadjadi, S.; Monflier, E. Cyclodextrins as multitask agents for metal nano-heterogeneous catalysis: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021 , 19 , 4327–4348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, W.; Zou, C.; Da, C.; Cao, Y.; Peng, H. A review on the recent development of cyclodextrin-based materials used in oilfield applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020 , 240 , 116321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Verma, M.; Lee, I.; Hong, Y.; Kumar, V.; Kim, H. Multifunctional β-Cyclodextrin-EDTA-Chitosan polymer adsorbent synthesis for simultaneous removal of heavy metals and organic dyes from wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 2022 , 292 , 118447. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Ye, L.; Xi, J.; Wang, J.; Feng, Z. Cyclodextrin polymers: Structure, synthesis, and use as drug carriers. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2021 , 118 , 101408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loftsson, T.; Duchene, D. Cyclodextrins and their pharmaceutical applications. Int. J. Pharm. 2007 , 329 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szejtli, J. Introduction and General Overview of Cyclodextrin Chemistry. Chem. Rev. 1998 , 98 , 1743–1754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, R.M.; de Araújo, M.P.; Piauilino, C.A.; Rocha, M.S.; Silva, I.S.; da Silva, F.I.; Lima, F.C.A.; Almeida, F.R. de C.; Meneses, A.K.S.; de Sousa, S.A.A.; et al. Inclusion complex of 2-phenylethanol in β-cyclodextrin: Preparation, characterization, computational study and evaluation of antinociceptive activity. J. Mol. Struct. 2024 , 1318 , 139236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francis, S.M.; Xavier, E.N. Solubility Enhancement of Lawsone by Complexation with Beta Cyclodextrin. Indian J. Pharm. Educ. Res. 2022 , 56 , 706–715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manolikar, M.K.; Sawant, M.R. Study of solubility of isoproturon by its complexation with β-cyclodextrin. Chemosphere 2003 , 51 , 811–816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rudrangi, S.R.S.; Bhomia, R.; Trivedi, V.; Vine, G.J.; Mitchell, J.C.; Alexander, B.D.; Wicks, S.R. Influence of the preparation method on the physicochemical properties of indomethacin and methyl-β-cyclodextrin complexes. Int. J. Pharm. 2015 , 479 , 381–390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Scalia, S.; Molinari, A.; Casolari, A.; Maldotti, A. Complexation of the sunscreen agent, phenylbenzimidazole sulphonic acid with cyclodextrins: Effect on stability and photo-induced free radical formation. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2004 , 22 , 241–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alghaith, A.F.; Mahrous, G.M.; Alenazi, A.S.; ALMufarrij, S.M.; Alhazzaa, M.S.; Radwan, A.A.; Alhamed, A.S.; bin Salamah, M.S.; Alshehri, S. Dissolution enhancement of Gefitinib by solid dispersion and complexation with β-cyclodextrins: In vitro testing, cytotoxic activity, and tablet formulation. Saudi Pharm. J. 2024 , 32 , 102070. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jagdale, S.C.; Gawali, V.U.; Kuchekar, B.S.; Chabukswar, A.R. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of taste-masked oro-dispersible dosage form of diltiazem hydrochloride. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011 , 47 , 907–916. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Da Silva Pires, Y.M.; Almeida, L.R.; Araújo Meirelles, L.M. Tenoxicam dissolution profile in the beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex. Rev. Eletrônica De Farmácia 2016 , 13 , 64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassan, H.A.; Al-Marzouqi, A.H.; Jobe, B.; Hamza, A.A.; Ramadan, G.A. Enhancement of dissolution amount and in vivo bioavailability of itraconazole by complexation with β-cyclodextrin using supercritical carbon dioxide. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2007 , 45 , 243–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klein, N.; Hurwitz, I.; Durvasula, R. Globalization of Chagas Disease: A Growing Concern in Nonendemic Countries. Epidemiol. Res. Int. 2012 , 2012 , 136793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Echavarría, N.G.; Echeverría, L.E.; Stewart, M.; Gallego, C.; Saldarriaga, C. Chagas Disease: Chronic Chagas Cardiomyopathy. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2021 , 46 , 100507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gascon, J.; Bern, C.; Pinazo, M.-J. Chagas disease in Spain, the United States and other non-endemic countries. Acta Trop. 2010 , 115 , 22–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Posada, E.; Pell, C.; Angulo, N.; Pinazo, M.J.; Gimeno, F.; Elizalde, I.; Gysels, M.; Muñoz, J.; Pool, R.; Gascón, J. Bolivian migrants with Chagas disease in Barcelona, Spain: A qualitative study of dietary changes and digestive problems. Int. Health 2011 , 3 , 289–294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strasen, J.; Williams, T.; Ertl, G.; Zoller, T.; Stich, A.; Ritter, O. Epidemiology of Chagas disease in Europe: Many calculations, little knowledge. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2014 , 103 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chagas, C. New human trypanozomiasis: Studies on the morphology and evolutionary cycle of Schizotrypanum cruzi n. gen., n. sp., etiological agent of a new morbid entity in man. Memórias Do Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 1909 , 1 , 159–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• da Pita, S.S.R.; Pascutti, P.G. Therapeutic Targets in Chagas’ Disease: A Focus on Trypanothione Reductase. Rev. Virtual De Química 2011 , 3 , 307–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costa, M.; Tavares, V.; Aquino, M.V.; Moreira, D. Chagas disease: A bibliographical review. Rev. Eletrônica Da Fac. De Ceres 2013 , 2 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scariot, D.B.; Staneviciute, A.; Zhu, J.; Li, X.; Scott, E.A.; Engman, D.M. Leishmaniasis and Chagas disease: Is there hope in nanotechnology to fight neglected tropical diseases? Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022 , 12 , 1000972. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rassi, A., Jr.; Rassi, A.; Marin-Neto, J.A. Chagas disease. Lancet 2010 , 375 , 1388–1402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Oliveira, M.F.; Nagao-Dias, A.T.; de Oliveira Pontes, V.M.; Souza Júnior, A.S.; Luna Coelho, H.L.; Branco Coelho, I.C. Etiological treatment of Chagas disease in Brazil. Rev. De Patol. Trop. 2008 , 37 , 209–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dias, J.C.P.; Coura, J.R. Chagas Disease Clinic and Therapy: A Practical Approach for the General Practitioner ; Editora FIOCRUZ: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guedes, P.M.M.; Veloso, V.M.; Afonso, L.C.C.; Caliari, M.V.; Carneiro, C.M.; Diniz, L.F.; Marques-da-Silva, E.A.; Caldas, I.S.; do Valle Matta, M.A.; Souza, S.M.; et al. Development of chronic cardiomyopathy in canine Chagas disease correlates with high IFN-γ, TNF-α, and low IL-10 production during the acute infection phase. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2009 , 130 , 43–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carlos Pinto Dias, J.; del Grande Cláudio, L.; Maia Lima, M.; Albajar-Viñas, P.; Albuquerque e Silva, R.; Vieira Alves, R.; Maia da Costa, V. Changes in the paradigm of clinical and therapeutic management of Chagas disease: Advances and perspectives in the search for comprehensive health. Epidemiol. E Serviços De Saúde 2016 , 25 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Esteso, M.A.; Romero, C.M. Cyclodextrins: Properties and Applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024 , 25 , 4547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rincón-López, J.; Almanza-Arjona, Y.C.; Riascos, A.P.; Rojas-Aguirre, Y. Technological evolution of cyclodextrins in the pharmaceutical field. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021 , 61 , 102156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aiassa, V.; Garnero, C.; Zoppi, A.; Longhi, M.R. Cyclodextrins and Their Derivatives as Drug Stability Modifiers. Pharmaceuticals 2023 , 16 , 1074. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Venturini, C.d.G.; Nicolini, J.; Machado, C.; Machado, V.G. Properties and recent applications of cyclodextrins. Química Nova 2008 , 31 , 360–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies, C.; Cardozo, R.M.; Negrette, O.S.; Mora, M.C.; Chung, M.C.; Basombrío, M.A. Hydroxymethylnitrofurazone Is Active in a Murine Model of Chagas’ Disease. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010 , 5 , 3584–3589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferreira, S.B.; Gonzaga, D.T.G.; Santos, W.C.; de Araújo, K.G.L.; Ferreira, V.F. ß-Lapachone: Medicinal chemistry significance and structural modifications. Rev. Virtual De Química 2010 , 2 , 140–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dos Anjos, D.O.; Sobral Alves, E.S.; Gonçalves, V.T.; Fontes, S.S.; Nogueira, M.L.; Suarez-Fontes, A.M.; Neves da Costa, J.B.; Rios-Santos, F.; Vannier-Santos, M.A. Effects of a novel β-lapachone derivative on Trypanosoma cruzi : Parasite death involving apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2016 , 6 , 207–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fraceto, L.F.; Gonçalves, M.M.; Moraes, C.M.; Araújo, D.R.; Zanella, L.; Paula, E.; Pertinhez, T.A. Characterization of the ropivacaine:beta-cyclodextrin inclusion complex. Química Nova 2007 , 30 , 1203–1207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kerdpol, K.; Kicuntod, J.; Wolschann, P.; Mori, S.; Rungnim, C.; Kunaseth, M.; Okumura, H.; Kungwan, N.; Rungrotmongkol, T. Cavity Closure of 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-Cyclodextrin: Replica Exchange Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Polymers 2019 , 11 , 145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ignaczak, A.; Orszański, Ł.; Adamiak, M.; Olejniczak, A. B Comparative DFT study of inclusion complexes of thymidine-carborane conjugate with β-cyclodextrin and heptakis(2,6-O-dimethyl)-β-cyclodextrin in water. J. Mol. Liq. 2020 , 315 , 113767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hancu, G.; Papp, L.A.; Tóth, G.; Kelemen, H. The Use of Dual Cyclodextrin Chiral Selector Systems in the Enantioseparation of Pharmaceuticals by Capillary Electrophoresis: An Overview. Molecules 2021 , 26 , 2261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Monteiro, L.M.; Tavares, G.D.; Ferreira, E.I.; Consiglieri, V.O.; Bou-Chacra, N.A.; Löbenberg, R. Reverse phase high-performance liquid chromatography for quantification of hydroxymethylnitrofurazone in polymeric nanoparticles. Brazilian J. Pharm. Sci. 2015 , 51 , 561–567. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, P.; Singh, M. An ongoing journey of chalcone analogues as single and multi-target ligands in the field of Alzheimer’s disease: A review with structural aspects. Life Sci. 2023 , 320 , 121568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cruz, J.N.; Silva, L.B.; Sousa Filho, J.S.; Vale, J.K.L. Development of New Inhibitors of the Enzyme Dihydroorotate Dehydrogenase (DHODH) from Leishmania sp. Res. Soc. Dev. 2021 , 10 , e18101623087. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonçalves-Santos, E.; Caldas, I.S.; Fernandes, V.Â.; Franco, L.L.; Pelozo, M.F.; Feltrim, F.; Maciel, J.S.; Machado, J.V.C.; Gonçalves, R.V.; Novaes, R.D. Pharmacological potential of new metronidazole/eugenol/dihydroeugenol hybrids against Trypanosoma cruzi in vitro and in vivo. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2023 , 121 , 110416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomes, C.L.; de Albuquerque Wanderley Sales, V.; Gomes de Melo, C.; Ferreira da Silva, R.M.; Vicente Nishimura, R.H.; Rolim, L.A.; Rolim Neto, P.J. Beta-lapachone: Natural occurrence, physicochemical properties, biological activities, toxicity and synthesis. Phytochemistry 2021 , 186 , 112713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Foulkes, M.J.; Tolliday, F.H.; Henry, K.M.; Renshaw, S.A.; Jones, S. Evaluation of the anti-inflammatory effects of synthesised tanshinone I and isotanshinone I analogues in zebrafish. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0240231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Freitas, C.A.B.; Araújo, R.C.S.; Paz, S.P.A.; Silva, J.R.A.; Alves, C.N.; Lameira, J. Obtaining and Characterizing B-Cyclodextrin and Eugenol Inclusion Complex/Preparation and Characterization of Eugenol B-Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complex. Braz. J. Dev. 2021 , 7 , 33056–33070. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nagoor Meeran, M.F.; Javed, H.; al Taee, H.; Azimullah, S.; Ojha, S.K. Pharmacological Properties and Molecular Mechanisms of Thymol: Prospects for Its Therapeutic Potential and Pharmaceutical Development. Front. Pharmacol. 2017 , 8 , 380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Tan, Y.; OuYang, Q.; Duan, B.; Wang, Z.; Meng, K.; Tan, X.; Tao, N. γ-Cyclodextrin encapsulated thymol for citrus preservation and its possible mechanism against Penicillium digitatum. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2023 , 194 , 105501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Serna-Escolano, V.; Serrano, M.; Valero, D.; Isabel Rodríguez-López, M.; Gabaldón, J.A.; Castillo, S.; Valverde, J.M.; Zapata, P.J.; Guillén, F.; Martínez-Romero, D. Thymol Encapsulated into HP-β-Cyclodextrin as an Alternative to Synthetic Fungicides to Induce Lemon Resistance against Sour Rot Decay. Molecules 2020 , 25 , 4348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Franco, C.F.J.; Jordão, A.K.; Ferreira, V.F.; Pinto, A.C.; Souza, M.C.B.V.; Resende, J.A.L.C.; Cunha, A.C. Synthesis of new 2-aminocarbohydrate-1,4-naphthoquinone derivatives promoted by ultrasonic irradiation. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2011 , 22 , 187–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dantas, E.; de Souza, F.; Nogueira, W.; Silva, C.; de Azevedo, P.; Soares Aragão, C.; Almeida, P.; Cardoso, M.; da Silva, F.; de Azevedo, E.; et al. Characterization and Trypanocidal Activity of a Novel Pyranaphthoquinone. Molecules 2017 , 22 , 1631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• da Oliveira, V.S.; Silva, C.C.; de Freitas Oliveira, J.W.; da Silva, M.S.; Ferreira, P.G.; da Siva, F.C.; Ferreira, V.F.; Barbosa, E.G.; Barbosa, C.G.; Moraes, C.B.; et al. The evaluation of in vitro antichagasic and anti-SARS-CoV-2 potential of inclusion complexes of β- and methyl-β-cyclodextrin with naphthoquinone. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2023 , 81 , 104229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Q.; McGillivray, D.; Wen, J.; Zhong, F.; Quek, S.Y. Co-encapsulation of fish oil with phytosterol esters and limonene by milk proteins. J. Food Eng. 2013 , 117 , 505–512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Răileanu, M.; Todan, L.; Voicescu, M.; Ciuculescu, C.; Maganu, M. A way for improving the stability of the essential oils in an environmental friendly formulation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2013 , 33 , 3281–3288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moghimi, R.; Ghaderi, L.; Rafati, H.; Aliahmadi, A.; McClements, D.J. Superior antibacterial activity of nanoemulsion of Thymus daenensis essential oil against E. coli . Food Chem. 2016 , 194 , 410–415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tobouti, P.L.; de Andrade Martins, T.C.; Pereira, T.J.; Mussi, M.C.M. Antimicrobial activity of copaiba oil: A review and a call for further research. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2017 , 94 , 93–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ziech, R.E.; Farias, L.D.; Balzan, C.; Ziech, M.F.; Heinzmann, B.M.; Lameira, O.A.; Vargas, A.C. Antimicrobial activity of copaiba oleoresin ( Copaifera reticulata ) against coagulase-positive Staphylococcus isolated from cases of otitis in dogs. Pesqui. Veterinária Bras. 2013 , 33 , 909–913. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Menezes, A.C.S.; Alves, L.D.B.; Goldemberg, D.C.; de Melo, A.C.; Antunes, H.S. Anti-inflammatory and wound healing effect of Copaiba oleoresin on the oral cavity: A systematic review. Heliyon 2022 , 8 , e08993. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carvalho, J.C.T.; Cascon, V.; Possebon, L.S.; Morimoto, M.S.S.; Cardoso, L.G.V.; Kaplan, M.A.C.; Gilbert, B. Topical antiinflammatory and analgesic activities of Copaifera duckei dwyer . Phytother. Res. 2005 , 19 , 946–950. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lima, S.R.M.; Junior, V.F.V.; Christo, H.B.; Pinto, A.C.; Fernandes, P.D. In vivo and in vitro studies on the anticancer activity of Copaifera multijuga hayne and its fractions. Phytother. Res. 2003 , 17 , 1048–1053. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pinheiro, J.; Tavares, E.; Silva, S.; Félix Silva, J.; Carvalho, Y.; Ferreira, M.; Araújo, A.; Barbosa, E.; Fernandes Pedrosa, M.; Soares, L.; et al. Inclusion Complexes of Copaiba ( Copaifera multijuga Hayne ) Oleoresin and Cyclodextrins: Physicochemical Characterization and Anti-Inflammatory Activity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017 , 18 , 2388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kian, D.; Lancheros, C.A.C.; Assolini, J.P.; Arakawa, N.S.; Veiga-Júnior, V.F.; Nakamura, C.V.; Pinge-Filho, P.; Conchon-Costa, I.; Pavanelli, W.R.; Yamada-Ogatta, S.F.; et al. Trypanocidal activity of copaiba oil and kaurenoic acid does not depend on macrophage killing machinery. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018 , 103 , 1294–1301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lou, J.; Teng, Z.; Zhang, L.; Yang, J.; Ma, L.; Wang, F.; Tian, X.; An, R.; Yang, M.; Zhang, Q.; et al. β-Caryophyllene/Hydroxypropyl-β-Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complex Improves Cognitive Deficits in Rats with Vascular Dementia through the Cannabinoid Receptor Type 2 -Mediated Pathway. Front. Pharmacol. 2017 , 8 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurkov, S.V.; Loftsson, T. Cyclodextrins. Int. J. Pharm. 2013 , 453 , 167–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yao, Y.; Xie, Y.; Hong, C.; Li, G.; Shen, H.; Ji, G. Development of a myricetin/hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin inclusion complex: Preparation, characterization, and evaluation. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014 , 110 , 329–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, F.L.O.; Marques, M.B.F.; Yoshida, M.I.; Mussel, W.N.; Silveira, J.V.W.; Barroso, P.R.; Kato, K.C.; Martins, H.R.; Carneiro, G. Encapsulation of benznidazole in nanostructured lipid carriers and increased trypanocidal activity in a resistant Trypanosoma cruzi strain. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2023 , 59 , e22111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomes, D.C.; Medeiros, T.S.; Alves Pereira, E.L.; da Silva, J.F.O.; de Freitas Oliveira, J.W.; Fernandes-Pedrosa, M.F.; de Sousa da Silva, M.; da Silva-Júnior, A.A. From Benznidazole to New Drugs: Nanotechnology Contribution in Chagas Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 , 24 , 13778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morilla, M.J.; Ghosal, K.; Romero, E.L. Nanomedicines against Chagas disease: A critical review. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2024 , 15 , 333–349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gonzaga, B.M.S.; Nisimura, L.M.; Coelho, L.L.; Ferreira, R.R.; Horita, S.I.M.; Beghini, D.G.; Estato, V.; Araújo-Jorge, T.C.; Garzoni, L.R. Unveiling Lovastatin’s Anti-Inflammatory Potential in Mouse’s Brain during Acute Trypanosoma cruzi Infection. Biology 2024 , 13 , 301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Narwal, S.; Dhanda, T.; Sharma, P.; Sharma, V.; Dhankhar, S.; Garg, N.; Ghosh, N.S.; Rani, N. Current Therapeutic Strategies for Chagas Disease. Anti-Infect. Agents 2024 , 22 , 20–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• García-Huertas, P.; Cardona-Castro, N. Advances in the treatment of Chagas disease: Promising new drugs, plants and targets. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021 , 142 , 112020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Taio, F.; Converti, A.; Lima, Á.A.N.d. Cyclodextrin Complexes for the Treatment of Chagas Disease: A Literature Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024 , 25 , 9511. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25179511

Taio F, Converti A, Lima ÁANd. Cyclodextrin Complexes for the Treatment of Chagas Disease: A Literature Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences . 2024; 25(17):9511. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25179511

Taio, Fabrice, Attilio Converti, and Ádley Antonini Neves de Lima. 2024. "Cyclodextrin Complexes for the Treatment of Chagas Disease: A Literature Review" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, no. 17: 9511. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25179511

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Book Review: Matt Haig extols the magic of Ibiza in ‘The Life Impossible’

This cover image released by Viking shows “The Life Impossible” by Matt Haig. (Viking via AP)

• Copy Link copied

“Reality is not always probable, or likely.” That’s the quote from the late Argentine poet Jorge Luis Borges that prefaces Matt Haig’s new novel, “The Life Impossible.” If you fundamentally take issue with it, don’t bother turning the page.

But if you’re willing to suspend disbelief when reading fiction, this is an engaging story. Some readers, like my teenage daughter who devoured Haig’s bestselling book, “The Midnight Library,” may not vibe as well with the septuagenarian narrator recovering from varicose vein surgery, but the book’s plot takes care of her physical deterioration soon enough.

The action is set in Ibiza, the Spanish island famous for its nightclubs. When the narrator, Grace Winters, suddenly inherits a rundown house there, she leaves behind her tragic life as a childless and widowed mathematics teacher in England for an adventure. And, oh, what an adventure! As Grace pieces together the fate of a collegiate acquaintance, Christina, who gifted her the house, she meets Alberto Ribas, a “once respected marine biologist” who now gives diving tours in the Mediterranean and who Grace describes as “not so much of a pirate but a castaway, with the unkempt hair and the beard escaping his face in every direction.” On one of those dives, Grace’s life is forever altered by a blue phosphorescent light she swims toward under the water. “La Presencia,” or “The Presence,” imbues her with actual superpowers, the details of which are too much fun to spoil here.

And while at this point the plot proudly strays from reality, it’s not embarrassed by it. Grace is a reliable narrator and the structure of the novel is her telling her story to a former student. “Mathematics is… as mysterious and enigmatic as the whole of life, and expecting it — or anything — to confirm to what I wanted it to be was a mistake,” she writes. Grace’s reawakening to the wonders of the natural world forms the second half of the story, as she and a cast of characters work to save parts of Ibiza from development.

The entire book will take an average reader just a few hours to read. Really short chapters — some just a sentence long — help the pages fly. And while some may finish the last sentence shaking their head at the implausibility of it all, Grace’s realization that everything on Earth is worthy of admiration and preservation is a message the whole world can get behind.

AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews