Publications the beauty of good re eo it does the hard work of summarizing, critiquing, and synthesizing the research that has Pena neea ne eae ‘cessible and manageable the ever-growing body of scientific research and the publications that come out of it. Review papers appeal to the novice research- Pere aera eee ern Peres eet ea ee eee eee ing the literature searching and reading they do to support their research, and often decision- and policymakers looking oem Ecce! rg ee eee and Booth (2008) analyze 14 different review types. For ‘example, evidence-based management systems that have pee et oe ee ere eer ee) Pon eee LCR USA are highly comprehensive; follow a strict, objective meth- odology; and are often based on numbers. The review type Coreen eee ee en eee ey critical (Grant and Booth, 2009) or integrative (Torraco, 2008, PO eae A critical or integrative review “goes beyond mere de- Peed eee eee ed analysis and conceptual information... It] presents, analyzes, and synthesizes material from diverse sources” (Grant and Booth 2008, p. 93). In other words, it “reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated (Torraco, 2016, p. OT A ees een eee a og stock of what has already been done, consolidating con- Sec coerce Pe oe ead Ce a oC Sd arcs How to write a review paper Peete dy eens eereersee reeset eg ae Concur! Pea eres review and is thus less reliable. coer) arenas caer prerreneessg = Resend prertece erent Penmaes Achieving greater rigor involves “mitigating bias; increas- ing transparency, consistency, and procedural objectivity; and critically appraising the evidence” (p. 1599). fe eee ey reviews under the heading “Reviews and Analysis.” As this heading implies, the review papers we seck move beyond ‘a mere summary of research and are characterized by the rigor described above. Their purpose is to provide: Se ere eee Pec ea aed See! Se eee one ere ad ene essen gee eens literature that collectively add to our comprehension, ‘The reviews sought by JEQ are much more than a simple Pea one ee ec et eee heer a ce poate Cees a oat an ata eee but also what we don’t know and where the science should Peer ren ne eee ee erent sets only increases the readability and accessibility of the paperete ee ae Reeser eG east Mastering the skills needed to write a good sci- entific review also pays dividends when writing up the literature review featured in the introduction of primary-research papers. The same skills are needed by re- Peete nL es tsar ren the knowledge gaps and research needs brought to light by Peete ee eet etinenr tarot that their research design, methods, results, and conclusions follow logically from these objectives (Maier, 2013), There exist a number of papers devoted to instruction Oa os eure ct Ree eee eee ead ‘Torraco (2016, 2005) and Pautasso (2013). Many of the steps Pes Et ee teen ee oer er these papers. More detailed review-writing instructions eee einen ne caters eee te Pee ea tre cn eer tees ESOT ESS Svcs To) Beem Ne Bam ol-1e COR ECs RRS Kem Clearly define the topic. Typically, a review Ber tares ent nes tar Etre ty Pere roc st nr enters Phe nearer ne Center ‘material behind it to warrant a review but define rescuer eee re ree Poona enna ee eeeeg an sre eet atone eng ‘comprises researchers and other science-savvy readers who may themselves be experts on the topic or at least can bring their own expertise and experience to bear. A good rule of thumb is don’t Pee oe eee ee cee ead Se cee eS oer eee eas journals may have different requirements. For example, Socrates Eenat nn cnr that are merely historical and deseriptive. For this journal, 2 narrative (qualitative) style is acceptable if iis critical and, synthetic, and we also invite a systematic style that includes eee ae eee cs point) you follow, don’t stray. Determine the approach you will take in writing the Sate eee eren TRE EN Teer whether you intend to write neutrally or to take a certain position on the subject. January 2019 Cra Re Su cet aacUy Determine the breadth ofthe literature review you intend to conduct. A systematic review is comprehen- eee en ees ere gathers from a narrower range of sources thal represents the whole Determine which keywords and databases (e.g, een ons ae reer hy Science) you will use to conduct the literature search. Create matrix to organize which combinations of databases and. keywords produce usable sources, Use this information when writing up the method for your review. of Coals plat tar aarti abstracts and carry out a scoping exercise that helps you set the boundaries of the topic and the literature you intend, to review. Keeping notes as you go of key features of each source will help you later when you lay down the structure Brees Develop a rationale and system for keeping or discard- ing certain sources. In doing so, though, avoid research: ee ee gar) ee ca er Sree ery cee eke ener ete eee Leet Pee ee springboard for your own review, critiquing the earlier reviews, adding more recently published material, and pos- sibly exploring a different perspective. Exploit their refer- Paeenee rere eecer ne cea ts ee eee ee eee ag 1 Jobtararinnar odie aeeper pata Papers, or Mendeley, to organize, store, and retrieve pee eee arr eMart e eee tre et include it in your Reference list so you can keep track of it poeta CSA News 17ese C ee et ey sufficient number of primary-research papers of similar methodology and comparable datasets are available to en- able reliable analysis. Mae Rua ee ee td 2 logical structure for your paper, witha beginning, middle, and end. Use appropriate headings and sequencing of ideas to make the content flow and guide readers seam. Peet et eee teers rit ture the review around a guiding theory, a set of competing Penner ntact ath Stes er cette) ee eee anes you present in the review. This section is comparable to the Methods section of a scientific-esearch paper in that it should enable the reader to conduct the same kind of review, obtain similar results, and draw similar conclusions, Cee ane een nnn ca ere we ae eed involve “deconstruction” of the topic into its basic ele- pee ee ee ner een concepts, the key relationships through which the concepts interact, research methods, [and] applications of the topic” (Torraco, 2005). The final product of critical analysis is a eri Potent ine sere erat ements covered in the review terms of Seo eee * deficiencies, omissions, inaccuracies, and errors «© gaps (aspects that are missing, incomplete, or poorly peewee) See eS eae « conflicting findings or conclusions and controversies Peeters «= expanded understanding in view of new research devel- coo Beyond summarizing the literature you are using, set ‘out from the beginning to synthesize the knowledge in a way that offers new understanding of the topic, Torraco eo een eer teen cee cea eens literature reviews, and there are undoubtedly others: eet ene eee © taxonomy (or other conceptual classification of con- structs)—often used to classify previous research « alternative models or conceptual frameworks—olfers anew way of thinking about the topic, taken directly from the critical analysis presented in the review eee oat a eet ere ‘erated quantitatively through statistical analysis Se en een ea fener een eees ‘Stay focused and on point, This will make your paper Beer re wen te mci achieve this is to create a mind map, story board, or other eee es oa ace a ‘Create charts, graphs, or other visuals that synthesize in- ete Rte eT eee peter en ants 1a asrong foundation fr fture research by deserib- ing new developments, identifying factors that have shaped and continue to shape research in this field, and proposing an approach to resolve controversies. Se eee ese Per eent Sect Seck several reviewers and commentators to review the nie eee ree ere expose weaknesses in the structure of the paper and the writing style, invite additional content, and perhaps garner Panera Rete ence nest Outs Conny Ee eee tse cere analysis of 14 review types and associated methodolo- Poe an aero) eae eae eee eat 2015. Making literature reviews more reliable through See ed ee ener Pea me One ees eee eee See eee are hoes tea cane} Poets Noe een tcc aces Sa yoo eee arr Pautasso, M.2013. Ten simple rules for writing a literature zeview. PLOS Comput. Biol. 9(7):1-4, Torraco, RJ, 2005, Writing integrative literature reviews Preece sean eta OS aa Torraco, RJ. 2016. Writing integrative literature reviews: us- ee eetecr tert eat tara Freee rea UE enya eee eee err Manor) Tne