Without deep knowledge in particular subject of interest, no one can write a review paper. I consider subject knowledge to be the primary factor.

Without deep knowledge in particular subject of interest, no one can write a review paper. I consider subject knowledge to be the primary factor.

I do believe that writing a review paper is the most hardest kind of publications. since this kind of work requires really the publisher to read and cover too much in that area and cover all previous works. I guess this is the hardest way, But review paper at the end the summary of previous works that we need during literature review.

As Selvarju and Faihan mentioned, writing a review paper is hard since you shloud have deep knowledge of subject and try to cover almost all the papers published in the field you are writing review on.

I also add that one of the most important things to consider is to determine who are the readers of your review paper. I believe review paper should be precise and do not wonder around different subjects. Then, you can decide on the journal that might give you the highest chance of attracting readers, ( Which means higher number of citations). Accordingly, you follow the format based on journal desire.

Moreover, you should be aware of other review papers previously published in the same area or close to it, so you can either keep your distance or use/improve them. Finally be patient if you want to publish a review paper since it normally takes more time to be reviewed and therefore published!

Thank you all

I agree but I will need to replace hard by experience in a specialised field and experience is not counted in hours or days. It is how much you indulge in it working, eating, drinking and dreaming. However, for advice there are two or three points below:

1. Go through almost all contributions from scratches to the last block of whole building of the concept/theory on which research of interest has been and being carried out even don't miss shortest reviews of book on the topic or collection of papers. By scratches I mean oblique and tangential references to the problem in some other related fields as these are very foundation to carry out research in that area or solve that problems.

2. Make notes of your readings with personal comments whether the work is spade work or contributes something new or opens new horizons or direction of research.Attach a tag of contribution for its contribution in the field.

3. When you have achieved it write the review paper of a specific contribution or whole research body in that field with critical evaluation pointing out pitfalls and new horizons or directions to carry out research so that the problems at least for the moment is solved theoretically or experimentally to the satisfactions of the scholars. But let me tell you from my experience in history and philosophy of science as well as philosophy, no problem is solved forever.

Now assess your expertise and potential, because you may be best judge of yourself and start writing a review paper.

Well... you might need, and after conducting research on the topic - establish an excel sheet through which you will identify the method used, the outcomes, the sample size, the country of investigation - and this would form the RAW MATERIAL for your write up of the paper - of course, you need to go back to the papers for more information, the list given here is not a full one!? Good luck - it is a hard work though!

Actually Hooshyar - writing a literature review paper is perhaps the least difficult way of writing an article. Sure - you need good background knowledge to construct a cohesive argument - but many established journals will now no longer accept or entertain review article unless they are discursive submissions that bring a new and critical perspective to an issue. If journals do accept literature reviews - then the ones that are most likely to be accepted are rigorous integrative reviews etc

Thanks Dean - and I would add those articles need to conclude with some suggestions for future research with some sort of hypothesis, or research questions or a conceptual model! Hard work!?

Theodora - I agree with that. So many literature reviews are 'self-contained'; a one-off exercise to state an issue and 'conclude it' - whereas, as you suggest, they should, go on to identify how they contribute to future developments of the issue

Read all top journals in your field, but also use databases like Scopus: you can search by keywords and also sort results by the number of citations: then you can be more certain that you did not skip any important papers. Also, if your main keyword has synonyms, do not forget to search by these. Do not forget to describe in your paper how you searched for the papers in your field: which databases and keywords you used, did you skip book chapters etc.

True Tiia - a very thorough review would detail those things and others - such as:

All databases used (if more than one - which should be the case) and, for each database used, a seperate detailing of 'keywords', Boolean conventions, Indicators (i.e. MeSH terms if a clinical study), use of any truncation and/or wildcards, limiters/filters used (i.e. year-range, English-language only) - and the use of any 'grey' literature and/or any further literature gained from the physical search of citation lists gathered. For each bibliographic database used - the 'number of hits', through each step of the process should be provided as well. In essence, thistype of 'comprehensive' process is the main 'audit trail' of a thorough search for review and provides the needed rigour for reviews. I also endorse the use of summary tables - whereby the main characteristics of the noted 'key' articles is tabulated - to compare and contrast them