what is a critical review in research

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• Queen's University Library
• Research Guides

Introduction to Research: Humanities and Social Sciences

• Critical Reviews
• Choosing Your Research Topic
• Finding Background Information
• Choosing Relevant Keywords
• Connecting Keywords
• Citation Searching
• Articles (General)
• Scholarly Articles
• Films & Videos
• Scholarly vs. Popular Sources
• Scholarly vs. Non-Scholarly Periodicals
• Web Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Reflective Writing
• Citing Sources
• Off Campus?

Writing Critical Reviews

What is a Critical Review of a Journal Article?

A critical review of a journal article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an article's ideas and content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that allow readers to assess the article's value.

Before You Read the Article

• What does the title lead you to expect about the article?
• Study any sub-headings to understand how the author organized the content.
• Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments.
• Study the list of references to determine what research contributed to the author's arguments. Are the references recent? Do they represent important work in the field?
• If possible, read about the author to learn what authority he or she has to write about the subject.
• Consult Web of Science to see if other writers have cited the author's work. (Please see 'How to use E-Indexes'.) Has the author made an important contribution to the field of study?

Reading the Article: Points to Consider

Read the article carefully. Record your impressions and note sections suitable for quoting.

• Who is the intended audience?
• What is the author's purpose? To survey and summarize research on a topic? To present an argument that builds on past research? To refute another writer's argument?
• Does the author define important terms?
• Is the information in the article fact or opinion? (Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from interpretations of facts.) Does the information seem well-researched or is it unsupported?
• What are the author's central arguments or conclusions? Are they clearly stated? Are they supported by evidence and analysis?
• If the article reports on an experiment or study, does the author clearly outline methodology and the expected result?
• Is the article lacking information or argumentation that you expected to find?
• Is the article organized logically and easy to follow?
• Does the writer's style suit the intended audience? Is the style stilted or unnecessarily complicated?
• Is the author's language objective or charged with emotion and bias?
• If illustrations or charts are used, are they effective in presenting information?

Prepare an Outline

Read over your notes. Choose a statement that expresses the central purpose or thesis of your review. When thinking of a thesis, consider the author's intentions and whether or not you think those intentions were successfully realized. Eliminate all notes that do not relate to your thesis. Organize your remaining points into separate groups such as points about structure, style, or argument. Devise a logical sequence for presenting these ideas. Remember that all of your ideas must support your central thesis.

Write the First Draft

The review should begin with a complete citation of the article. For example:

Platt, Kevin M.F. "History and Despotism, or: Hayden White vs. Ivan the Terrible  and Peter the Great." Rethinking History 3:3 (1999) : 247-269.

NOTE: Use the same bibliographic citation format as you would for any bibliography, works cited or reference list. It will follow a standard documentation style such as MLA or APA.

Be sure to ask your instructor which citation style to use. For frequently used style guides consult Queen's University Library's Citing Sources guide.

The first paragraph may contain:

• a statement of your thesis
• the author's purpose in writing the article
• comments on how the article relates to other work on the same subject
• information about the author's reputation or authority in the field

The body of the review should:

• state your arguments in support of your thesis
• follow the logical development of ideas that you mapped out in your outline
• include quotations from the article which illustrate your main ideas

The concluding paragraph may:

• summarize your review
• restate your thesis

Revise the First Draft

Ideally, you should leave your first draft for a day or two before revising. This allows you to gain a more objective perspective on your ideas. Check for the following when revising:

• grammar and punctuation errors
• organization, logical development and solid support of your thesis
• errors in quotations or in references

You may make major revisions in the organization or content of your review during the revision process. Revising can even lead to a radical change in your central thesis.

NOTE: Prepared by University of Toronto Mississauga Library, Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre.

• << Previous: Writing Resources
• Next: Annotated Bibliography >>

Additional Resources

Writing a Critical Review (Allyson Skene, The Writing Centre, U of Toronto at Scarborough)

The Book Review or Article Critique (Margaret Procter, Writing Support, University of Toronto)

Critical Reviews of Journal Articles (Herbert Coutts, University of Alberta)

Writing a Critical Review (The Writing Centre, Queen's University)

• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 2:41 PM
• Subjects: Multidisciplinary

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example 

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

How to write a good literature review 

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review 

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:  

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:  

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, machine translation vs human translation: which is reliable..., how to make a graphical abstract, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic.

Which review is that? A guide to review types

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool

Critical Review

• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews
• Rapid Review
• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review
• Methodological Review
• Systematic Search and Review

"A critical review aims to demonstrate that the writer has extensively researched the literature and critically evaluated its quality. It goes beyond mere description of identified articles and includes a degree of analysis and conceptual innovation" and "an effective critical review presents, analyses and synthesizes material from diverse sources". "There is no formal requirement to present methods of the search, synthesis and analysis explicitly" (Grant & Booth 2009).

Further Reading/Resources  

Cooper, Harris M & Cooper, Harris M. Synthesizing research (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis : a step-by-step approach (Fifth edition). SAGE Publications, Los Angeles Catalogue Link  

Renate Kahlke , Mark Lee , Kevin W. Eva; Building Blocks for Critical Reviews in Health Professions Education. J Grad Med Educ 1 April 2023; 15 (2): 186–189. doi: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-23-00155.1

Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.  Full text

Younas, A., & Maddigan, J. (2019). Proposing a policy framework for nursing education for fostering compassion in nursing students: A critical review.  Journal of advanced nursing ,  75 (8), 1621–1636. Full Text Rew, L., Young, C. C., Monge, M., & Bogucka, R. (2021). Review: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth-a critical review of the literature.  Child and adolescent mental health ,  26 (1), 3–14. Full Text  

References Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal , 26 (2), 91-108. Full Text

• << Previous: Traditional review family
• Next: Integrative Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 1:08 PM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

PSY290 - Research Methods

• Identifying & Locating Empirical Research Articles
• Survey & Test Instruments

Writing a Critical Review

Sample summaries, verbs to help you write the summary, how to read a scholarly article.

• APA Citation Style Help

A critical review is an academic appraisal of an article that offers both a summary and critical comment. They are useful in evaluating the relevance of a source to your academic needs. They demonstrate that you have understood the text and that you can analyze the main arguments or findings. It is not just a summary; it is an evaluation of what the author has said on a topic. It’s critical in that you thoughtfully consider the validity and accuracy of the author’s claims and that you identify other valid points of view.

An effective critical review has three parts:

• APA citation of article
• Clearly summarizes the purpose for the article and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the research. (In your own words – no quotations.)
• Evaluates the contribution of the article to the discipline or broad subject area and how it relates to your own research.

Steps to Write a Critical Review:

• Create and APA style citation for the article you are reviewing.
• Skim the text: Read the title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
• Read the entire article in order to identify its main ideas and purpose.

Q. What were the authors investigating? What is their thesis? Q. What did the authors hope to discover?

        D. Pay close attention to the methods used by the authors to collection information.

Q. What are the characteristics of the participants? (e.g.) Age/gender/ethnicity

Q. What was the procedure or experimental method/surveys used?

Q. Are their any flaws in the design of their study?

  E. Review the main findings in the “Discussion” or “Conclusion” section. This will help you to evaluate the validity of their evidence, and the credibility of the authors.             Q.   Are their conclusions convincing?            Q.   Were their results significant? If so, describe how they were significant.  F. Evaluate the usefulness of the text to YOU in the context of your own research.

Q. How does this article assist you in your research?

Q. How does it enhance your understanding of this issue?

Q. What gaps in your research does it fill?

Good Summary:

Hock, S., & Rochford, R. A. (2010). A letter-writing campaign: linking academic success and civic engagement. Journal  of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3 (2), 76-82.

Hock & Rochford (2010) describe how two classes of developmental writing students were engaged in a service-learning project to support the preservation of an on-campus historical site. The goal of the assignment was to help students to see how they have influence in their community by acting as engaged citizens, and to improve their scores on the ACT Writing Sample Assessment (WSA) exam. The authors report that students in developmental classes often feel disempowered, especially when English is not their first language. This assignment not only assisted them in elevating their written communication skills, but it also gave real-life significance to the assignment, and by extension made them feel like empowered members of the community. The advancement in student scores serves as evidence to support my research that when students are given assignments which permit local advocacy and active participation, their academic performance also improves.

Bad Summary:

Two ELL classes complete a service-learning project and improve their writing scores. This article was good because it provided me with lots of information I can use. The students learned a lot in their service-learning project and they passed the ACT exam.  

Remember you're describing what someone else has said. Use verbal cues to make this clear to your reader.  Here are some suggested verbs to use: 

* Adapted from: http://www.laspositascollege.edu/raw/summaries.php

• << Previous: Survey & Test Instruments
• Next: APA Citation Style Help >>
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 6:52 PM
• URL: https://paradisevalley.libguides.com/PSY290

How to write a critical review

Our guide on what it means to think critically when assessing a piece of writing for a student assignment or a workplace project.

When an academic assignment asks you to “critically review” or include a “critical analysis” of the work of other people, it generally means that you’ll need to “think critically”. This means analysing and assessing the work in terms of what the author was trying to achieve, the approach they took, how they conducted the research, and whether the outcomes were valid and acceptable. 

A critical review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an item’s ideas and content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that assess the item’s value. It’s an exercise that can be carried out on many different types of writing, but is most often carried out on a report, a book or a journal article. 

Thousands of publications relevant to HR appear every year, via established journals, websites, management consultancy reports and universities all over the world. With so much information becoming available, many of which offer new ideas, new HR theories and approaches, it’s important that HR practitioners can evaluate whether what they read is valid, sound and unbiased. We can’t take everything we read at face value, and it’s an important skill, and a very important activity to conduct, if you’re going to base corporate change and your proposals to management on information from published sources. 

On this page

Selecting an item to review, the critical review process, writing the critical review, useful contacts and books, view our other study guides.

For study purposes, it's likely that you'll be asked to carry out a critical review of one or more journal articles. You may be directed to a specific journal article, or asked to select one based on your own research on a particular topic, or on a topic of your choice.  

If you're given options to make a choice, you're more likely to achieve the required outcome if you use well-known academic journals. These might be found in a library, on HR websites such as HR Focus, or via any online journal hosting service, such as EBSCO which is provided free to CIPD members.  

An article will only be useful for a critical review assignment if the author has stated what the question was, how the research was done and the outcomes or conclusions based on the facts and evidence listed.  

What is a journal?  

A journal (sometimes also called a “ periodical ” ) is a publication produced on a regular continuing basis – it may be weekly, monthly, quarterly (every three months) or annually.  

The titles of journals (for example The Journal of Occupational Psychology ) indicate the main topic focus of the articles contained in it.  

As they are published regularly, journals usually have volume and issue numbers, and sometimes months, to identify them.  

A volume usually covers a specific year – so, for example, volume 45 may be all the issues published in 2013.  

A n issue number refers to a specific instalment of the journal within that volume – they are often numbered issue or number 1, 2, 3, etc.  

A s well as, or instead of, a volume and issue number, some journals use the month of publication. This information is often crucial in finding specific articles.  

There are two main types of journal :  

Academic journal (also called scholarly journals) – T hese often contain research articles written by subject experts; they contain academic commentary and critical evaluation of issues by experts. The articles will be written in an academic style and they may be “ refereed ” or “ peer-reviewed ” – that is they articles are assessed, often by members of an editorial board who are experts in the field, before they are accepted for publication. Articles from this type of journal are usually suitable for a critical review exercise. The International Journal of Human Resource Management and Harvard Business Review are examples.  

Trade or professional journals – T hese usually contain news articles and comment on current issues. The articles often contain practical information and are written in everyday language. They also often have a “ jobs ” section and news of people in that profession. They are likely to be written by journalists rather than academics and don't usually have such rigorous publishing criteria. These articles may not be so suitable for a critical review exercise. People Management is an example.  

Take time to:  

Think about what content are you expecting, based on the title?  

Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments.  

Study the list of references to determine what research contributed to the author's arguments. Are the references recent? Do they represent important work in the field by accredited authors?  

Find out more about the author to learn what authority they have to write about the subject. Have they published other works which have been peer-assessed by other experts?  

Read the article carefully, but straight-through the first time to form an impression. You may find it useful to note down your initial reactions and questions. Then re-read it, either right-through or in sections, taking notes of the key ideas. Use these questions as a framework.  

Who was the article written for?  

Why has the author written the article? To survey and summarise research on a topic? Or to present an argument that builds on past research? Or to disagree with another writer’s stated argument?  

Does the author define important terms?  

Is the information in the article fact or opinion? Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from perceptions and interpretation.  

Is the article well-structured? Is it organised logically and easy to follow?  

Is the information well-researched, or is it largely unsupported?  

What are the author’s central arguments or conclusions? Are they supported by evidence and analysis?  

If the article reports on an experiment or study, does the author clearly outline methodology and the expected result?  

Is the article lacking any information or arguments that you expected to find?  

For more on effective reading and note-taking, see our guide on studying effectively.  

A key part of a critical review is assessing the author's “argument”. In this context, the argument is the line of reasoning or the approach or point of view of the author. It may be the author is defending a particular idea. They may be trying to make a case for something, perhaps a new idea, in which case there would then need to be evidence, examples and a clear set of conclusions coming from the research, or investigation done. To be academically acceptable, any outcomes stated should not be just the author's ideas alone, they must be backed up with valid, appropriate evidence.  

Questions to ask yourself about the item you're reviewing are:  

Is there a logical progression through the argument?  

Do you feel the argument is strong enough?  

Is there enough valid evidence?  

Does the author make any assumptions and, if so, are they reasonable?  

Are any surveys valid – for example, is the sample size representative and large enough for any conclusions to be valid?  

Would the findings and conclusions apply to other organisations, or are they too specific? Why?  

Do you think the author was biased? Why? For example, it can be useful to think about who funded the research and whether could that have influenced the findings.  

It's important to remember that you don't need to agree with the author's views – this would form part of your critical thinking.  

A key skill when thinking critically is to be objective in what you are reading or thinking through. Look at both sides of the argument, think of some tests you could do to establish if the ideas are sound. You might apply them to your own organisation for instance.  

The output from critical thinking in a professional context is usually a report – a critical review of the item(s) chosen for a given purpose (for example, as student assignment or, in a work setting, to a project team).  

The steps are to:  

Select your area for review, and the reason for choosing it.  

Identify the different information sources reviewed, naming type, when accessed, and through which online database or source.  

Explain why you chose these source(s) to review (unless they were given to you).  

Highlight and comment on the different research approaches and methods used by the author(s).  

Comment on the argument and conclusions, drawing where necessary on your wider research.  

If required, make recommendations to named stakeholders for sustaining or improving practice, based on the findings in your sources.

Open University – critical reading techniques  

Open University – critically processing what you read  

Palgrave Study Skills – critical thinking  

CAMERON, S. (2009) The business student's handbook: skills for study and employment . 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.  

COTTRELL, S. (2013) The study skills handbook . 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  

COTTRELL, S. (2011) Critical thinking skills . 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  

HORN. R. (2009) The business skills handbook . London: CIPD.  

NORTHEDGE, A. (2005) The good study guide . 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: Open University.  

OPEN UNIVERSITY. (2007) Develop effective study strategies . Milton Keynes: Open University

Our guide to helping you compile bibliographies based on the Harvard system.

There are a number of key considerations when developing an approach to studying to suit you. These study tips will help ensure you study effectively.

Practical advice on the report-writing process, with key steps to improve the quality of business reports

An academic essay is a formal piece of writing which presents an argument to the reader. Learn how to write persuasive and robust academic essays.

Our online Community

A place to learn, debate and connect with other HR and L&D professionals

More on this topic

Interactive career tools, including career assessments, personal development planner, elevator pitch builder, and interview simulator.

Supporting CIPD members in successful job search

Listen to our webinar to hear how our new qualifications could give you the skills and knowledge you need to excel in the people profession.

Latest guides

This guide explains in-work poverty, its effects and what employers can do to help

Guidance for HR practitioners and employers to support their employees’ financial wellbeing

Practical advice on adopting and responsibly investing in technology to optimise job quality and business outcomes

Practical advice on how people professionals can tackle workplace bullying and conflict

• Directories

Writing a critical review

During your studies, you may be asked to write a critical review of a book, a book chapter or a journal article. This form of assessment requires you to critically examine a piece of writing in the light of what you know about that field of research. Your critical review is written for a reader (your lecturer or tutor) who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the writing being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author.

Key steps in beginning your review

To begin the task, you need to read and critically analyse the article. When reading the text, have some questions in mind to guide your analysis and help you to focus on areas to critique. The following questions are some ideas on how to engage with the text and help you form your critical analysis:

• Objectives: what does the article set out to do?
• Theory: is there an explicit theoretical framework? If not, are there important theoretical assumptions?
• Concepts: what are the central concepts? Are they clearly defined?
• Argument: what is the central argument? Are there specific hypotheses?
• Method: what methods are employed to test these?
• Evidence: is evidence provided? How adequate is it?
• Values: are value positions clear or are they implicit?
• Literature: how does the work fit into the wider literature?
• Contribution: how well does the work advance our knowledge of the subject?
• Style: how clear is the author's language/style/expression?
• Conclusion: a brief overall assessment.

When critically analysing the text, consider how it relates to your course materials, to the other articles or books that you have been reading and the lecture material. This can help you find supporting evidence or alternative theoretical models or interpretations of data.

Structuring the review

The following is a suggested structure for your review.

Introduction

Initially, identify the text (author, title, date of publication and other details that seem important), indicate the main points you will be discussing and state your overall message regarding the text.

Briefly summarise the range, contents, and argument of the text. Occasionally you may summarise the entire text, but in a short review (1000-1500 words) you usually pick up the main themes only. This section should not normally take up more than a third of the total review.

Critically discuss 2-3 key issues raised in the text. This section is the core of your review. Make clear the author's own argument before you criticise and evaluate it. Support your criticisms with evidence from the text or from other writings. You may also want to indicate gaps in the author's treatment of a topic, but it is seldom useful to criticise a writer for not doing something they never intended to do.

Evaluate the overall contribution that the text has made to your understanding of the topic (and maybe its importance to the development of knowledge in this particular area or discipline, setting it in the context of other writings in the field).

Compare and contrast critical review

Sometimes you will be asked to compare and contrast two or more journal articles in a critical review. The process is the same as above, however you will need to think about the following questions:

• What do the authors agree and disagree about?
• Which author's argument do you agree with the most, and why?

Keep these questions in mind as you read your journal articles and start to compare and contrast them. They will also help guide you in structuring your critical/analytical response. Your structure might look like this:

Initially, identify both the texts (author, title, date of publication and other details that seem important), indicate your answer to the questions posed above (or any specific question you have been given by your lecturer) and the main points you will be discussing about the texts.

Briefly summarise the range, contents, and arguments of both the texts picking up the main themes only. This section should not normally take up more than a third of the total review.

Critically discuss 2-3 key issues raised in the texts. This section is the core of your review. As you are comparing and contrasting, at this point you need to show how the author's agree and/or disagree around your chosen issues. Use evidence from the texts to illustrate and support your views.

Evaluate the overall contribution that the texts have made to your understanding of the topic and how they agree or disagree with each other.

Other assessments

Writing a creative piece

Writing a policy brief

Writing an abstract

Writing an annotated bibliography

Writing in Law

Writing in Psychology

• ANU Library Academic Skills
• +61 2 6125 2972

Research Methods: A Student's Comprehensive Guide: Literature Reviews

• Research Approaches
• Types of Sources
• Accessing Resources
• Evaluating Sources
• Question Crafting
• Search Strategies
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Reviews
• Citations This link opens in a new window

Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?  A literature review is a critical analysis of existing research related to a specific topic or research question. Rather than simply summarizing the sources, a literature review evaluates, compares, and synthesizes the literature to highlight trends, gaps, and insights that inform your research.

Purpose and Importance:  Literature reviews serve multiple key functions:

• Contextualization:  They provide background on your research topic, helping to situate your work within the broader field.
• Identification of Gaps:  A thorough review highlights areas where further research is needed, guiding your own contributions.
• Critical Evaluation:  By comparing and contrasting sources, you develop a deeper understanding of the subject and establish the credibility of your research.
• Foundation for Research:  A literature review demonstrates your knowledge of the field, forming a strong basis for your methodology and research approach.

Difference Between a Literature Review and an Annotated Bibliography:  While both a literature review and an annotated bibliography involve analyzing sources, they serve different purposes. An annotated bibliography focuses on summarizing and evaluating individual sources in isolation. In contrast, a literature review synthesizes multiple sources to form a cohesive narrative, identifying patterns, themes, and debates within the literature. The literature review also typically organizes the information thematically or methodologically rather than listing sources one by one.

Q: What is the main difference between a literature review and a systematic review? A: A literature review provides a broad overview of existing research on a topic, while a systematic review follows a structured methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific question.

Q: How do I choose the best type of literature review for my research? A: Consider your research question and objectives. A narrative review is suitable for broad overviews, while a systematic review is best for comprehensive analyses. A scoping review helps map out the existing literature, and a meta-analysis combines quantitative results from multiple studies.

Q: How many sources should I include in my literature review? A: The number of sources depends on your topic and the scope of your review. Generally, aim to include a comprehensive selection that represents the current state of research. Ensure sources are relevant and contribute to answering your research question.

Q: Can I include unpublished sources in my literature review? A:  Yes, including unpublished sources such as dissertations, theses, or reports can provide valuable insights and fill gaps in the published literature. Ensure these sources are credible and relevant.

Q: How do I ensure my literature review is critical and not just descriptive? A: Focus on evaluating and synthesizing the sources rather than just summarizing them. Analyze the strengths, weaknesses, and contributions of each study. Highlight trends, debates, and gaps in the literature.

Scribbr: How to Write a Literature Review

Gain valuable insights on how to write an impactful literature review with this comprehensive guide!

Scribbr: Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Explore practical tips and strategies for structuring a literature review in this detailed tutorial.

• Common Mistakes

Types of Literature Reviews

• Overview:  Provides a comprehensive summary of the research on a specific topic. It offers a broad overview of the field, summarizing the key findings and trends without a strict methodological approach.
• Purpose:  Useful for providing a general understanding of a topic, identifying major themes, and outlining the historical development of research.
• Overview:  Follows a structured and transparent methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It aims to minimize bias and provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence.
• Purpose:  Ideal for answering specific research questions by systematically collecting and analyzing data from multiple studies. It often includes a meta-analysis component to quantitatively summarize the results.
• Overview:  Maps the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying key concepts, gaps, and areas for further research. It is less focused on synthesizing results and more on exploring the extent and nature of the research.
• Purpose:  Useful for understanding the breadth of research on a topic, especially when the area is complex or emerging. It helps to clarify the scope of existing evidence and inform future research directions.
• Overview:  Uses statistical techniques to combine and analyze the results of multiple studies, providing a quantitative summary of the evidence. It aims to identify patterns and determine the overall effect size.
• Purpose:  Ideal for drawing general conclusions from a body of research, especially when individual studies have varying results. It provides a higher level of statistical power and precision.

Crafting a Literature Review

• Clarify Your Research Question:  Start by articulating the specific research question or objective that your literature review will address. This will help guide your search and ensure that the review remains focused.
• Set Boundaries:  Determine the scope of your review by defining parameters such as time frame, geographical area, or specific subtopics. This helps in managing the breadth of your review and maintaining relevance.
• Utilize Academic Databases:  Access scholarly articles, books, and other research materials using databases like JSTOR, PubMed, or Google Scholar.
• Expand Your Search:  Explore references in key studies, look for gray literature, and consult library catalogs to ensure a comprehensive search.
• Categorize Sources:  Group your sources by themes, methodologies, or chronological order. This organization helps in synthesizing information and presenting a coherent review.
• Use Reference Management Tools:  Tools such as Zotero or EndNote can assist in managing and sorting your sources effectively.
• Identify Patterns and Themes:  Look for recurring themes, trends, and debates within the literature. Analyze how different studies relate to one another.
• Compare and Contrast:  Evaluate the methodologies, findings, and perspectives of different sources. Highlight agreements and disagreements to provide a balanced view.
• Choose an Organizational Method:  Decide on a structure that best fits your review’s purpose:
• Chronological:  Organize by the timeline of research developments.
• Thematic:  Group by themes or topics.
• Methodological:  Arrange based on research methods used.
• Create an Outline:  Develop a clear outline based on your chosen structure to guide your writing and ensure logical flow.
• Analyze, Don’t Just Summarize:  Go beyond summarizing each source. Critically analyze how each piece of literature contributes to your understanding of the topic.
• Provide Context:  Explain how the literature connects to your research question or hypothesis. Show how your work builds on or challenges existing knowledge.
• Seek Feedback:  Share your draft with peers or mentors to obtain constructive feedback.
• Edit for Clarity:  Review your work for clarity, coherence, and completeness. Ensure that your review is logically organized and free of errors.

Example of a Literature Review

To illustrate how a literature review is structured and written, here's a simplified example based on a hypothetical research topic:  The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Mental Health.

Introduction: The introduction provides an overview of the research topic and its significance.

Social media has become an integral part of adolescents' lives, raising concerns about its impact on mental health. This literature review examines existing research on how social media use affects adolescent well-being, focusing on both positive and negative outcomes.

Body: The body of the review is organized thematically or methodologically.

Positive Impacts of Social Media:

• Social Connectivity:  Studies highlight that social media platforms enable adolescents to maintain and strengthen social connections, providing emotional support and reducing feelings of isolation (Smith, 2021; Lee & Johnson, 2022).
• Educational Benefits:  Research indicates that social media can facilitate educational opportunities and learning through online communities and resources (Adams, 2020).

Negative Impacts of Social Media:

• Mental Health Issues:  Several studies link excessive social media use with increased levels of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among adolescents (Brown et al., 2019; Thompson & Miller, 2021).
• Cyberbullying:  Evidence shows that social media platforms can be a breeding ground for cyberbullying, leading to significant psychological distress (Green & Taylor, 2022).

Mixed Findings:

• Variability in Effects:  Some research finds that the impact of social media on mental health varies depending on individual factors such as frequency of use, type of content consumed, and pre-existing mental health conditions (Davis, 2021; Wilson, 2022).

Discussion:   The discussion synthesizes the findings, identifies trends, and highlights gaps:

The reviewed literature reveals a complex relationship between social media and adolescent mental health. While social media can offer support and educational benefits, its negative impacts—particularly related to mental health issues and cyberbullying—are significant. Further research is needed to understand how different variables affect these outcomes and to develop strategies for mitigating negative effects.

Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the key findings and suggests areas for future research:

In summary, social media has both positive and negative effects on adolescent mental health. Addressing these impacts requires a nuanced understanding of the various factors involved and targeted interventions to support healthy social media use. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to better assess the long-term effects of social media on mental health.

• References:  Ensure to include a list of all sources cited in the example. In a real review, this would be formatted according to the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).
• Formatting:  Use headings and subheadings to clearly organize each section of the review.

This example provides a framework for how a literature review should be structured and the type of content that should be included. It demonstrates the synthesis of various sources to present a cohesive narrative on the research topic.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Tip:  Ensure every source and discussion point directly relates to your research question or objective. Maintain a clear focus throughout the review.
• Tip:  Prioritize primary sources and original studies to provide a robust foundation. Use secondary sources sparingly for context or background.
• Tip:  Critically assess each study’s methodology, findings, and impact on the field. Highlight strengths and weaknesses for a balanced view.
• Tip:  Use clear headings and subheadings. Choose a logical structure (e.g., thematic, chronological) and ensure smooth transitions between sections.
• Tip:  Discuss gaps in the literature to strengthen your review and position your research within the broader field.
• Tip:  Follow the appropriate citation style meticulously. Ensure all sources are cited correctly and consistently.
• Tip:  Base conclusions on a comprehensive review of the literature. Avoid generalizations unless supported by substantial evidence from multiple sources.
• Tip:  Stay updated with recent publications and incorporate the most current research to ensure relevance and accuracy.

Literature Review Matrix

A  Literature Review Matrix  is a powerful tool that helps you organize and evaluate the sources you've gathered for your literature review. Think of it as a structured table that allows you to visually track key details from each source, helping you compare and contrast research findings, methods, and relevance to your work.

The primary goal of a Literature Review Matrix is to provide a clear and organized way to view your sources side-by-side. This makes it easier to spot patterns, identify gaps in the literature, and see how different studies connect or diverge. By using this matrix, you can:

• Summarize key information from each source.
• See the progression of research on a topic.
• Track how each source contributes to your own research goals.

When crafting your literature review, the matrix becomes a valuable reference. It offers a concise summary of each source, facilitating the synthesis of information and revealing connections between works. This organized approach helps ensure you cover all important themes and insights.

Key Components

A typical Literature Review Matrix includes:

• Author(s) & Date:  For tracking contributions and publication dates.
• Theoretical/Conceptual Framework:  Outlines the theories or concepts guiding the study.
• Research Question(s)/Hypotheses:  Identifies the focus and aims of the research.
• Methodology:  Describes the study design and methods used.
• Analysis & Results:  Summarizes the data analysis and key findings.
• Conclusions:  Highlights the main conclusions drawn from the research.
• Implications for Future Research:  Suggests areas for further investigation.
• Implications for Practice:  Discusses practical applications of the findings.

A Literature Review Matrix establishes a solid foundation for a well-organized literature review, ensuring you capture all critical insights and connections between sources. 

How to Use the Matrix

To make the most of your Literature Review Matrix, follow these steps to complete each category:

Author(s) & Date : Record the author(s) of the study and the publication date. This helps track contributions and the relevance of the research over time.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework : Note the theories or concepts guiding the study. This provides insight into the foundation of the research and its theoretical background.

Research Question(s)/Hypotheses : Summarize the main research questions or hypotheses the study addresses. This clarifies the focus and objectives of the research.

Methodology : Describe the research design and methods used. This includes the type of study, data collection methods, and analysis techniques.

Analysis & Results : Outline the main findings and how the data was analyzed. This section highlights the key discoveries of the research.

Conclusions : Record the study’s conclusions and implications. This provides a summary of the research outcomes and their significance.

Implications for Future Research : Identify suggestions for further research proposed by the study. This helps in understanding how the research contributes to ongoing scholarly conversation.

Implications for Practice : Note any practical applications or recommendations made. This connects the research findings to real-world applications.

Accurately filling in each category of the Literature Review Matrix ensures a comprehensive and organized overview of your sources, making it easier to synthesize and integrate information into your literature review.

Why Use a Literature Review Matrix?

A Literature Review Matrix is not just a tool but a strategic aid in organizing and synthesizing your research. Here’s why it’s invaluable:

Enhanced Clarity : By laying out your sources in a matrix format, you gain a clear, visual representation of the key components of each study. This clarity helps in quickly identifying patterns, contradictions, and gaps in the literature.

Streamlined Synthesis : The matrix allows you to compare and contrast findings across multiple sources efficiently. This makes synthesizing information from different studies simpler, leading to a more cohesive and comprehensive literature review.

Efficient Writing : With all essential information organized in one place, writing your literature review becomes more straightforward. The matrix provides a structured reference that helps in drafting sections and ensuring that all relevant points are addressed.

Identification of Trends and Gaps : The matrix helps in spotting trends in research and identifying areas where further investigation is needed. This insight is crucial for framing your research questions and shaping your own study.

Improved Organization : It facilitates a systematic approach to managing your sources, reducing the risk of overlooking important details and ensuring that your review is well-organized and thorough.

Using a Literature Review Matrix enhances the efficiency and quality of your literature review process. It’s a powerful tool that supports clarity, synthesis, and effective writing, ultimately contributing to a more insightful and organized review.

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Structure >>
• Last Updated: Sep 20, 2024 3:27 PM
• URL: https://tsu.libguides.com/researchmethods

• Geoffrey R. Weller Library

View complete hours

• Subject Guides

Knowledge Synthesis Guide

• Critical Appraisal
• What is Knowledge Synthesis?
• Developing your question
• Consider Eligibility Criteria
• Grey Literature
• Create Search Terms for Each Concept
• Identify Controlled Vocabulary for Each Concept
• Building Your Search
• Translating a Search Strategy
• Run Your Searches
• Reporting Your Results with PRISMA
• Utilize a Screening Tool
• Data Extraction
• Information About Publishing This link opens in a new window

Tools for Critical Appraisal

Critical appraisal is the careful analysis of a study to assess trustworthiness, relevance and results of published research. Here are some tools to guide you. 

• JBI Critical Appraisal
• CASP Checklists
• The AACODS checklist

Appraisal Resources - Grey Literature

Appraising Grey Literature:

• Guide to Appraising Grey Literature ( Public Health Ontario)
• << Previous: Utilize a Screening Tool
• Next: Data Extraction >>
• Last Updated: Sep 20, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unbc.ca/KnowledgeSynthesis

Geoffrey R. Weller Library University of Northern British Columbia 3333 University Way Prince George, B.C. V2N 4Z9

Circulation: (250) 960-6613 Reference: (250) 960-6475 Regional Services: 1-888-440-3440 (toll free within 250 area code)

• Suggestions Form
• Planning & Policies
• Staff Directory
• Frequently Called Numbers
• Citation Management
• Course Reserves
• Faculty Services
• Interlibrary Loans
• Open Access
• Data & Statistics
• Maps & Photos
• Research Help

Physical Review Research

• Collections
• Editorial Team
• Open Access

Kardar-Parisi-Zhang fluctuations in the synchronization dynamics of limit-cycle oscillators

Ricardo gutiérrez and rodolfo cuerno, phys. rev. research 6 , 033324 – published 23 september 2024.

• No Citing Articles
• INTRODUCTION
• STUART-LANDAU OSCILLATORS
• VAN DER POL OSCILLATORS
• CONCLUSIONS
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The time-dependent process whereby one-dimensional systems of self-sustained oscillators synchronize is shown to display scale invariance in space and time, akin to that found in the dynamics of equilibrium critical phenomena. Remarkably, the process is largely independent of system details, sharing with a class of nonequilibrium surface kinetic roughening the universal scaling behavior of the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation with columnar noise, and featuring phase fluctuations that follow a Tracy-Widom probability distribution. This is revealed by a numerical exploration of rings of Stuart-Landau oscillators (the universal representation of an oscillating system close to a Hopf bifurcation) and rings of van der Pol oscillators, both paradigmatically supporting self-sustained oscillations. The critical behavior is very well-defined for limit-cycle oscillations near bifurcation, and still dominates comparatively far from it. In particular, the Tracy-Widom fluctuation distribution seems to be an extremely robust feature of the synchronization process. The nonequilibrium criticality here described appears to transcend the details of the coupled dynamical systems that synchronize, making plausible its experimental observation.

• Received 14 November 2023
• Revised 8 February 2024
• Accepted 28 August 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033324

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

• Research Areas
• Physical Systems

Authors & Affiliations

• Grupo Interdisciplinar de Sistemas Complejos (GISC), Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid , 28911 Leganés, Madrid, Spain

Article Text

Vol. 6, Iss. 3 — September - November 2024

Subject Areas

• Nonlinear Dynamics

Authorization Required

Other options.

• Buy Article »
• Find an Institution with the Article »

Download & Share

Phases ϕ j ( t ) extracted from the states of oscillators form an interface above an oscillator substrate, where the subindex j identifies an oscillator by its position along the lattice. The limit cycle shown is for a single vdP oscillator with μ = 1 , Eq. ( 7 ), K = 0 , and the green interface is a snapshot of simulations of the same equation for K ≠ 0 .

(a) Roughness normalized with respect to its value at t = 500 , W ( L , t ) / W ( L , 500 ) , as a function of time for different sizes L in rings of SL oscillators and rings of vdP oscillators. Two choices of the parameter μ are displayed (see legend). The dashed line represents a power-law growth t β . (b), (c) Structure factor S ( k , t ) at times as in the legend for rings of L = 1000 SL oscillators [(b), main panel] and of vdP oscillators [(c), main panel]. In both panels the insets show the rescaling of the S ( k , t ) data of the main panel following Eq. ( 4 ). Results are for μ = 0.5 , 1 , and 2.0, the last two values shown after an upward vertical displacement, so larger values of μ appear above, for visibility purposes. In all three panels, the exponent values used are α = 1.07 , z = 1.37 , and α s = 1.40 ( β = α / z ≈ 0.78 ). Results based on 1000 realizations.

Main panel: Histogram of phase fluctuations, Eq. ( 5 ), in rings of L = 1000 SL oscillators and vdP oscillators for μ = 0.5 , 1 , and 2, normalized to zero mean and unit variance. Top-left inset: Same data in linear scale, centered around the peak of the distribution. The dotted (solid) line represents a Gaussian (GOE-TW) PDF. Data for the histograms are based on 10000 realizations, for t = 300 , 500 , 700 , 1000 , 1500 , and 2000 ( t 0 = 100 , and Δ t = 200 , 400 , ... , 1900 ), in the growth regime. Bottom-center inset: Rescaled phase covariance, Eq. ( 6 ), for rings of SL and vdP oscillators with parameter values as in (a), for t = 500 , 550 , 600 , ... , 800 . The dotted (solid) line represents the covariance of the Airy 1 process (Larkin model). The exponent values are α = 1.07 and z = 1.37 ( β = α / z ≈ 0.78 ).

Two-point correlations for rings of (a) SL and (b) vdP oscillators with (inset) and without (main panel) rescaling as given by Eq. ( C2 ). Results shown for μ = 1 , L = 1000 , and 1000 realizations. Exponent values: α = 1.07 , z = 1.37 and α loc = 0.97 ( β = α / z ≈ 0.78 ).

Representative phase profiles across time for a ring of (a) SL and (b) vdP oscillators. Results shown for μ = 1 and L = 1000 . Color code as in Fig.  4 . An arbitrary vertical displacement has been applied for visibility purposes.

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

• Forgot your username/password?
• Create an account

Article Lookup

Paste a citation or doi, enter a citation.