A systematic review starts with pre defined selection criteria for materials to be included. eg topic definition terms, age of study, peer reviewed or not, geographic region, clinical or cell level study. see example attached,

A literature review is done at the discretion of the reviewer and can include anything he/she thinks fit based on his/her knowledge/experience. It does not need an invitation from anyone.

Prof. Leigh has described it already. I would like to add 1-2 points.

1. In systematic review, we have to give all information in topic-wise, not year-wise. This kind or review we normally do get in the PhD. dissertation.

2. Literature is concise and is normally found in technical paper. The invited 'review' technical paper normally gives systematic review.

Under each topic, we can have year-wise description.

I would add that a systematic review is reproducible, time bound and has a defined search strategy (syntax), inclusion/exclusion criteria and screening process while literature review involve cherry picking of articles of cause 'at author's discretion'.

Literature review is part of a thesis while systematic review is a research of its own

The illustrations/clarifications/guidance as per the following papers may further help:

• Denney, A. S. and Tewksbury, R. (2013) How to write a literature review, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24, 2, pp. 218-234.
• Evans, D. and Kowanko, I. (2000) Literature reviews: Evolution of a research methodology, The Australian journal of advanced nursing, 18, 2, pp. 33-38.
• Hanley, T. and Cutts, L. (2013) Editorial: What is a systematic review?, Counselling Psychology Review, 28, 4, pp. 3-6.
• Kowalczyk, N. and Truluck, C. (2013) Literature reviews and systematic reviews: what is the difference?, Radiologic technology, 85, 2, pp. 219-222.
• Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015) Editorial: Literature reviews vs systematic reviews, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39, 2, pp. 103.