Hello, I would not see any problem in the merge of the two. In articles, it is good to follow the IMRAD structure, which actually suggests joining literature review with introduction.

A reviewer told me to insert in the introduction (section 1) only the limits / open problems that emerge from the state of the art (section 2) but which are not reported here, so as to avoid repetition

Yes, it is fine to do this only for journals that have restricted word count e.g. 3,000, 4,000 words

Yes it seems good

i think that it is okay. Sometimes you need to drive a point home in the introduction by making reference to existing literature.

I perceive it this way , combining this might have an effect on the target audience. If it's intended for a newbie he/she will see it arkwadly. But for articles lovers and the elites it would be a perfect blend.

In my opinion, it depends on the size and scope of your paper. If it's a large project (over10,000 words), then as a reader, I prefer having a separate intro. I feel that the writer is drawing me into their ideas and thought processes rather than dumping a bale of 'they said, but I say' on me from the outset. I like to know something about how a writer has arrived at their topic first. Were they inspired by 1 particular work or 1 particular author? Did they have an enlightening conversation on a bus that provided the stimulus? It's that bit of human connection that I'm after before the bench testing begins. It gives me context from which I can then go on to form opinions about the sources they're employing and the strength of argument. In shorter projects, it's common for the intro and lit review to combine but I still want a contextual element from the writer in there to lead me into hearing their voice, not just a load of material bounced off each other and their conclusion. I find this kind of 'once upon a time' narrative makes it easier to digest material that is outside my field, because it shares its terminology and technicalities via a structure that's familiar, and facilitates my wider understanding and the application of work existing in other fields that backs onto my work. In general, I work across multiple academic disciplines, so I see a lot of different stuff. What I want to feel (as much as what I get from the quality of analysis) is that there is a human being trying to communicate something they feel is special, not just another article they're pumping out to satisfy their career's trajectory.

نعم يبدو ذلك جيدا

This is a good way for establishing your points with valid sources . It also pushes your next chapters and hypotheses in correct directions giving more leverage to your own writing.

It's ok. If it is relevant and includes reflection over the same.

There is no single answer to this question, but personally I would not mix the introduction with the literature review. A reader expects to find out about the background information in the introduction section as well as some literature gaps whereas the literature review has the purpose of trying to find answers to those literature gaps. So, I do not think, as a reader of such mixed article would get a good impression from it.

It's in order to combine them. It flows well. But if you are under a supervisor it may depend on his/ her taste.

I think it is better to have it separate. The introduction is meant to give the background information about the research while the literature review will find answers to the literature gaps.

No, Introduction is different from Literature .Each one should be stated alone

Hello Nelson Bahati

My practice up to now is to do so (include literature review and in general, what others have done) into the introduction section. I find that gives a good overview of why I am aiming to answer this question. I particularly like your idea of describing current disagreements of literature, evidence (and I recall you used the term "thrashing").

I have only written research articles so the suggestion by Rebat Kumar Dhakal that it might be different for different types of document is an excellent point. The length - as Marion Todd mentions - might also be a good guide. Again, I have mainly focused on documents of about 4000-5000 length at most (journal articles) rather than longer like a postgraduate university thesis. What type of document did you have in mind?

Hello Nelson - I feel that you have received some excellent advice thus far, but especially from Reza and Marion.

Your introduction is doing a lot of work -

Justifying the topic;

Providing all important context;

Explaining the thinking processes behind your research question;

Identifying how your research aims to be making a distinctive contribution and (as has been noted);

Undertaking some personal positioning and contextualising.

Yes, you can be highlighting some seminal texts (which you can return to and develop in the Lit Review and yes - your intro should contain plenty of referencing, but you are providing that all important overview and rationale for how your project (and its communication) is organized.

THEN you can move on to your Lit Review and walk through the relevant literatures that are germane to your study (in an analytical rather than descriptive way).

Best wishes with your research!

Peter

It depends on how you structure your introduction section. Personally, I have never done it and would prefer to keep the literature review section away from the intro.

It all depends, on the supervisor in charge. Usually supervisors prefer the introduction to be separated from the literature review.

Hi Nelson, to answer your question, it would be important to know what kind of academic text genre you have in mind.

Basically, part of an explicitly argued introduction is to explain the research context, problem statement, and research hypothesis(es). In order to be able to explain this in a comprehensible way, the cardinal positions and discus lines of the object of investigation must be outlined in brief.

However, this presentation does not release one from the scientific necessity of critically reviewing the relevant state of research, which forms the basis of the scientific task.

It depends. If the objective of your article includes showing the landscape of current scholarship on the topic, then it's best to have a separate lit review section; otherwise, integrating some contextual review in the intro (to establish context, to identify and say where the discourse is on the problem, and to show the significance of the research) is enough. If you are writing an empirical research article, a separate lit review can seem unnecessary; just because "you" as the writer should have fully understood the scholarly context of the issue does NOT mean you should dump it on the reader. Does the reader need a review of the current knowledge on sickle cell anemia in order to understand a new dynamic you are reporting on the issue? Isn't it enough to just indicate in the intro and then in the discussion of findings what is known and how you are advancing the knowledge with new research/findings? Look at it from the perspective of the reader (and not add a Wikipedia entry in an article, as many writers do).

It's ok. If it is relevant and includes reflection over the same. There is no single answer to this question, but personally I would not mix the introduction with the literature review.

Thank you Chuck for the response.

Hopefully the guidance as per the following papers/source could help, namely:

“The Introduction section explains the rationale for undertaking the study and clearly describes the main purpose of conducting it. It should be focused, succinct and crisp. Providing an extensive and detailed literature review, not stating the hypothesis of the objectives with clarity and not providing focused information are some of the common mistakes that the authors should steer clear of.” (Bavdekar, 2015, p. 44).

“The introduction section usually presents the paper´s aim, the theoretical gaps it addresses and its research questions….” (Nakano and Muniz Jr, 2018, p. 5).

• If the literature review is merged in the introduction then the research will be logical or not?: https://www.quora.com/If-the-literature-review-is-merged-in-the-introduction-then-the-research-will-be-logical-or-not
• Bavdekar, S. B. (2015) Writing Introduction: Laying the Foundations of a Research Paper, The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63, 7, pp. 44-46.
• Nakano, D. and Muniz Jr, J. (2018) Writing the literature review for empirical papers, Production, 28, e20170086, pp. 1-9.
• Peh, W. C. G. and Ng, K. H. (2008) Writing the introduction, Singapore Medical Journal, 49, 10, pp. 756-758.