Literature Review Skill

Structures and writes literature reviews — from background sections of a dissertation through to standalone narrative reviews for publication.

Not quite this? Use literature-review-builder when you are a student building an argued review from a reading list.

Required Inputs

• Topic or research question
• Type of review (narrative / systematic / scoping / integrative / background section)
• Sources provided (paste references, abstracts, or key findings)
• Word count target
• Audience (academic journal / thesis / grant proposal / policy brief)
• Time period to cover

Output Structure

1. Search Strategy Summary (for systematic/scoping reviews)

Databases: [PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, etc.] Search terms: [Key terms and Boolean combinations] Inclusion criteria: Study types, population, date range, language Exclusion criteria: [List] Results: [n] identified → [n] after deduplication → [n] screened → [n] included

2. Literature Review Body

Organised thematically — not chronologically. Each theme = one section.

Structure per thematic section:

[Theme heading]

[Opening: state what this section covers and what evidence shows overall]

[Evidence synthesis: present what multiple studies found, compare and contrast. Do NOT summarise one paper then the next — synthesise across them: "Three studies found X (Smith, 2019; Jones, 2020; Lee, 2021), while two found Y, with the difference attributable to..."]

[Critical analysis: note methodological strengths and weaknesses — sample sizes, study designs, generalisability, risk of bias]

[Closing: transition to next theme]

3. Synthesis Table (systematic/scoping reviews)

4. Gap Analysis

Well-established: [What literature consistently shows] Contested: [Areas where evidence is mixed and why] Missing: [Gaps the field needs to address] How your study addresses the gap: [If this is for a research proposal]

5. Conclusion Paragraph

[3-5 sentences. Current state of knowledge and what is needed next]

Critical Analysis Framework

For each paper: internal validity, external validity, bias types, effect size significance vs clinical significance, funding conflicts.

Quality Checks

• [ ] Organised thematically (not as individual paper summaries)
• [ ] Evidence synthesised across papers (not summarised one by one)
• [ ] Critical analysis of methodology included for key studies
• [ ] Gaps identified — what the field still needs
• [ ] All claims cited

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not summarise papers one by one — evidence must be synthesised thematically across multiple studies, not presented as a sequence of abstracts
• [ ] Do not omit methodological critique — a literature review that only reports findings without assessing study quality is not a critical review
• [ ] Do not organise by chronology when thematic organisation is possible — chronological reviews bury the conceptual structure of the field
• [ ] Do not present contested findings as settled consensus — where evidence is mixed, name both sides and why the evidence diverges
• [ ] Do not skip the gap analysis — identifying what the field still needs is a core deliverable, not an optional addition

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Write a literature review on [topic]"
• "Synthesise the evidence on [topic] from these papers: [paste]"
• "Write the background section for my research proposal on [topic]"