Remember that when you send a paper out for publication, it will be reviewed by experts in your research area. If your write a long literature review that spends too much time covering basic issues, this will bore (and annoy) those reviewers. Instead, your literature review should have a specific goal: to justify your research question and put it into the context of previous work.

IT IS TYPE OF PAPER FACILITATE YOUR WORK IN LAB AND INCREASED YOUR KNOLWGMENTS ABOUT YOUR RESEARCH TOPIC

Remember that when you send a paper out for publication, it will be reviewed by experts in your research area. If your write a long literature review that spends too much time covering basic issues, this will bore (and annoy) those reviewers. Instead, your literature review should have a specific goal: to justify your research question and put it into the context of previous work.

Yes, as David L Morgan says, don't bore the reviewers with a long introduction lol. Remember, that's what it is, only an introduction, not a review :)

A literature review surveys, summarizes and links information about a given topic. It has its set rules and standards. A good review of literature assesses information and distills it for the reader. It should provide the context and background for your work. Make it an essay; a synthesis of information relevant to your work. A good literature review tells a story but do not bore reviewers with it. It clarifies understanding of the field, explains the rationale for your research, places your research within a broader context, evaluates the results of previous research, defines key concepts and ideas, identifies research in related areas that could be generalized and/or transferable to your topic. It identifies relevant methodological issues. See the attached outline.

Thanks everyone for your positive contributions

In regard to textbooks/papers that provide guidance on literature review process, the publications may further help:

• Cronin, P., Ryan, F. and Coughlan, M. (2008) Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach, British journal of nursing, 17, 1, pp. 38-43.
• Denney, A. S. and Tewksbury, R. (2013) How to write a literature review, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24, 2, pp. 218-234.
• Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2009) Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
• Galvan, J. L. (2017) Writing Literature Reviews : A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sixth edn. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hart, C. (2007) Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Knopf, J. W. (2006) Doing a literature review, Political Science and Politics, 39, 1, pp. 127-132.
• Maier, H. R. (2013) What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter?, Environmental Modelling and Software, 43, 1, pp. 3-4.
• Oxman, A. D. and Guyatt, G. H. (1988) Guidelines for reading literature reviews, Canadian Medical Association journal, 138, 8, pp. 697-703.
• Randolph, J. J. (2009) A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14, 13, pp. 1-12.

Thanks Kenneth Lui-ming Ngie for your lovely comments

Hello Alli,

The standard format of conceptual framework, theoretical framework and empirical framework would seem reasonable, but in reality many discoveries happen before there is any conceptual or theoretical framework in place. That is one of the reasons trying discover who first actually stumbled across an effect is hard to do. A literature search can be a highly nonlinear affair because the effect or concept you are tracing might not have even had a name when the first researcher discovered it. Let me give you an example.

The experimental discovery of quantum tunneling seems to depend strongly on who ask. But one of the earliest researchers to have seen the effect was Robert Francis Earhart circa 1901. You may never have heard his name mentioned with respect to quantum tunneling, but J. J. Thomson though Earhart's experiments were very important and that they pointed to a new phenomenon. The problem was that Earhart's experimental discovery predated modern quantum mechanics, circa 1920's, by more than 20 years and so there was no theoretical framework on which to hang his experimental results.

In writing a literature review paper, the introduction need not annoy or bore the reviewer, if it covers substantially new ground with respect to the history of the field. Practitioners are notoriously ignorant of the history of their own discipline since they are usually too busy trying to advance it.

Regards,

Tom Cuff