literature review do's and don'ts

Writing A Literature Review  

7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid ☠️.

By: David Phair (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Crafting a high-quality literature review is critical to earning marks and developing a strong dissertation, thesis or research project. But, it’s no simple task. Here at Grad Coach, we’ve reviewed thousands of literature reviews and seen a recurring set of mistakes and issues that drag students down.

In this post, we’ll unpack 7 common literature review mistakes , so that you can avoid these pitfalls and submit a literature review that impresses.

Overview: 7 Literature Review Killers

• Over-reliance on low-quality sources
• A lack of landmark/seminal literature
• A lack of current literature
• Description instead of integration and synthesis
• Irrelevant or unfocused content
• Poor chapter structure and layout
• Plagiarism and poor referencing

Mistake #1: Over-reliance on low-quality sources

One of the most common issues we see in literature reviews is an over-reliance on low-quality sources . This includes a broad collection of non-academic sources like blog posts, opinion pieces, publications by advocacy groups and daily news articles.

Of course, just because a piece of content takes the form of a blog post doesn’t automatically mean it is low-quality . However, it’s (generally) unlikely to be as academically sound (i.e., well-researched, objective and scientific) as a journal article, so you need to be a lot more sceptical when considering this content and make sure that it has a strong, well-reasoned foundation. As a rule of thumb, your literature review shouldn’t rely heavily on these types of content – they should be used sparingly.

Ideally, your literature review should be built on a strong base of journal articles , ideally from well-recognised, peer-reviewed journals with a high H index . You can also draw on books written by well-established subject matter experts. When considering books, try to focus on those that are published by academic publishers , for example, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Routledge. You can also draw on government websites, provided they have a strong reputation for objectivity and data quality. As with any other source, be wary of any government website that seems to be pushing an agenda.

Source: UCCS

As I mentioned, this doesn’t mean that your literature review can’t include the occasional blog post or news article. These types of content have their place , especially when setting the context for your study. For example, you may want to cite a collection of newspaper articles to demonstrate the emergence of a recent trend. However, your core arguments and theoretical foundations shouldn’t rely on these. Build your foundation on credible academic literature to ensure that your study stands on the proverbial shoulders of giants.

Mistake #2: A lack of landmark/seminal literature

Another issue we see in weaker literature reviews is an absence of landmark literature for the research topic . Landmark literature (sometimes also referred to as seminal or pivotal work) refers to the articles that initially presented an idea of great importance or influence within a particular discipline. In other words, the articles that put the specific area of research “on the map”, so to speak.

The reason for the absence of landmark literature in poor literature reviews is most commonly that either the student isn’t aware of the literature (because they haven’t sufficiently immersed themselves in the existing research), or that they feel that they should only present the most up to date studies. Whatever the cause, it’s a problem, as a good literature review should always acknowledge the seminal writing in the field.

But, how do you find landmark literature?

Well, you can usually spot these by searching for the topic in Google Scholar and identifying the handful of articles with high citation counts. They’ll also be the studies most commonly cited in textbooks and, of course, Wikipedia (but please don’t use Wikipedia as a source!).

So, when you’re piecing your literature review together, remember to pay homage to the classics , even if only briefly. Seminal works are the theoretical foundation of a strong literature review.

Mistake #3: A lack of current literature

As I mentioned, it’s incredibly important to acknowledge the landmark studies and research in your literature review. However, a strong literature review should also incorporate the current literature . It should, ideally, compare and contrast the “classics” with the more up to date research, and briefly comment on the evolution.

Of course, you don’t want to burn precious word count providing an in-depth history lesson regarding the evolution of the topic (unless that’s one of your research aims, of course), but you should at least acknowledge any key differences between the old and the new.

But, how do you find current literature?

To find current literature in your research area, you can once again use Google Scholar by simply selecting the “Since…” link on the left-hand side. Depending on your area of study, recent may mean the last year or two, or a fair deal longer.

So, as you develop your catalogue of literature, remember to incorporate both the classics and the more up to date research. By doing this, you’ll achieve a comprehensive literature base that is both well-rooted in tried and tested theory and current.

Mistake #4: Description instead of integration and synthesis

This one is a big one. And, unfortunately, it’s a very common one. In fact, it’s probably the most common issue we encounter in literature reviews.

All too often, students think that a literature review is simply a summary of what each researcher has said. A lengthy, detailed “he said, she said”. This is incorrect . A good literature review needs to go beyond just describing all the relevant literature. It needs to integrate the existing research to show how it all fits together.

A good literature review should also highlight what areas don’t fit together , and which pieces are missing . In other words, what do researchers disagree on and why might that be. It’s seldom the case that everyone agrees on everything because the “truth” is typically very nuanced and intricate in reality. A strong literature review is a balanced one , with a mix of different perspectives and findings that give the reader a clear view of the current state of knowledge.

A good analogy is that of a jigsaw puzzle. The various findings and arguments from each piece of literature form the individual puzzle pieces, and you then put these together to develop a picture of the current state of knowledge . Importantly, that puzzle will in all likelihood have pieces that don’t fit well together, and pieces that are missing. It’s seldom a pretty puzzle!

By the end of this process of critical review and synthesis of the existing literature , it should be clear what’s missing – in other words, the gaps that exist in the current research . These gaps then form the foundation for your proposed study. In other words, your study will attempt to contribute a missing puzzle piece (or get two pieces to fit together).

So, when you’re crafting your literature review chapter, remember that this chapter needs to go well beyond a basic description of the existing research – it needs to synthesise it (bring it all together) and form the foundation for your study.

Mistake #5: Irrelevant or unfocused content

Another common mistake we see in literature review chapters is quite simply the inclusion of irrelevant content . Some chapters can waffle on for pages and pages and leave the reader thinking, “so what?”

So, how do you decide what’s relevant?

Well, to ensure you stay on-topic and focus, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions . Remember, the purpose of the literature review is to build the theoretical foundation that will help you achieve your research aims and objectives, and answer your research questions . Therefore, relevant content is the relatively narrow body of content that relates directly to those three components .

Let’s look at an example.

If your research aims to identify factors that cultivate employee loyalty and commitment, your literature review needs to focus on existing research that identifies such factors. Simple enough, right? Well, during your review process, you will invariably come across plenty of research relating to employee loyalty and commitment, including things like:

• The benefits of high employee commitment
• The different types of commitment
• The impact of commitment on corporate culture
• The links between commitment and productivity

While all of these relate to employee commitment, they’re not focused on the research aims , objectives and questions, as they’re not identifying factors that foster employee commitment. Of course, they may still be useful in helping you justify your topic, so they’ll likely have a place somewhere in your dissertation or thesis. However, for your literature review, you need to keep things focused.

So, as you work through your literature review, always circle back to your research aims, objective and research questions and use them as a litmus test for article relevance.

Need a helping hand?

Mistake #6: Poor chapter structure and layout

Even the best content can fail to earn marks when the literature review chapter is poorly structured . Unfortunately, this is a fairly common issue, resulting in disjointed, poorly-flowing arguments that are difficult for the reader (the marker…) to follow.

The most common reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature review chapter without a plan or structure . Of course, as we’ve discussed before, writing is a form of thinking , so you don’t need to plan out every detail before you start writing. However, you should at least have an outline structure penned down before you hit the keyboard.

So, how should you structure your literature review?

We’ve covered literature review structure in detail previously , so I won’t go into it here. However, as a quick overview, your literature review should consist of three core sections :

• The introduction section – where you outline your topic, introduce any definitions and jargon and define the scope of your literature review.
• The body section – where you sink your teeth into the existing research. This can be arranged in various ways (e.g. thematically, chronologically or methodologically).
• The conclusion section – where you present the key takeaways and highlight the research gap (or gaps), which lays the foundation for your study.

Another reason that students land up with a poor structure is that they start writing their literature chapter prematurely . In other words, they start writing before they’ve finished digesting the literature. This is a costly mistake, as it always results in extensive rewriting , which takes a lot longer than just doing it one step at a time. Again, it’s completely natural to do a little extra reading as thoughts crop up during the writing process, but you should complete your core reading before you start writing.

Long story short – don’t start writing your literature review without some sort of structural plan. This structure can (and likely will) evolve as you write, but you need some sort of outline as a starting point. Pro tip – check out our free literature review template to fast-track your structural outline.

Mistake #7: Plagiarism and poor referencing

This one is by far the most unforgivable literature review mistake, as it carries one of the heaviest penalties , while it is so easily avoidable .

All too often, we encounter literature reviews that, at first glance, look pretty good. However, a quick run through a plagiarism checker and it quickly becomes apparent that the student has failed to fully digest the literature they’ve reviewed and put it into their own words.

“But, the original author said it perfectly…”

I get it – sometimes the way an author phrased something is “just perfect” and you can’t find a better way to say it. In those (pretty rare) cases, you can use direct quotes (and a citation, of course). However, for the vast majority of your literature review, you need to put things into your own words .

The good news is that if you focus on integrating and synthesising the literature (as I mentioned in point 3), you shouldn’t run into this issue too often, as you’ll naturally be writing about the relationships between studies , not just about the studies themselves. Remember, if you can’t explain something simply (in your own words), you don’t really understand it.

A related issue that we see quite often is plain old-fashioned poor referencing . This can include citation and reference formatting issues (for example, Harvard or APA style errors), or just a straight out lack of references . In academic writing, if you fail to reference a source, you are effectively claiming the work as your own, which equates to plagiarism. This might seem harmless, but plagiarism is a serious form of academic misconduct and could cost you a lot more than just a few marks.

So, when you’re writing up your literature review, remember that you need to digest the content and put everything into your own words. You also need to reference the sources of any and all ideas, theories, frameworks and models you draw on.

Recap: 7 Literature Review Mistakes

We’ve covered a lot of ground in this post. Let’s quickly recap on the 7 most common literature review mistakes.

Now that you’re aware of these common mistakes, be sure to also check out our literature review walkthrough video , where to dissect an actual literature review chapter . This will give you a clear picture of what a high-quality literature review looks like and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own.

If you have any questions about these literature review mistakes, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer. If you’re interested in private coaching, book an initial consultation with a friendly coach to discuss how we can move you forward.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

Dear GradCoach,

Thank you for making our uni student lives better. Could you kindly do a video on how to use your literature review excel template? I am sure a lot of students would appreciate that.

Thank you so much for this inlightment concerning the mistakes that should be avoided while writing a literature review chapter. It is concise and precise. You have mentioned that this chapter include three main parts; introduction, body, and conclusion. Is the theoritical frameworke considered a part of the literature review chapter, or it should be written in a seperate chapter? If it is included in the literature review, should it take place at the beginning, the middle or at the end of the chapter? Thank you one again for “unpacking” things for us.

Hi I would enjoy the video on lit review. You mentioned cataloging references, I would like the template for excel. Would you please sent me this template.

on the plagiarism and referencing what is the correct way to cite the words said by the author . What are the different methods you can use

its clear, precise and understandable many thanks affectionately yours’ Godfrey

Thanks for this wonderful resource! I am final year student and will be commencing my dissertation work soon. This course has significantly improved my understanding of dissertation and has greater value in terms of its practical applicability compared to other literature works and articles out there on the internet. I will advice my colleague students more especially first time thesis writers to make good use of this course. It’s explained in simple, plain grammar and you will greatly appreciate it.

Thanks. A lot. This was excellent. I really enjoyed it. Again thank you.

The information in this article is very useful for students and very interesting I really like your article thanks for sharing this post!

Thank you for putting more knowledge in us. Thank you for using simple you’re bless.

This article is really useful. Thanks a lot for sharing this knowledge. Please continue the journey of sharing and facilitating the young researchers.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Reply to Danette - Allessaysexpert - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]
• Reply to Danette - Academia Essays - […] Jansen, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/ […]

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

5 Literature Review Dos and Don’ts: A Guide for All Students

by  Antony W

December 6, 2022

In this guide, you’ll learn about the most common literature reviews dos and don’ts to stay on the right track as you work on the assignment.

Up until now, we’ve written guides on 

• How to write comprehensive literature reviews
• The role literature reviews play in research writing
• The elements of a literature review

Plus, there’s a lot more.

With the help of these posts, you can come up with the best study of already existing literature, which is singlehandedly significant in writing a research paper or dissertation project.

Problem is:

Not all students get their literature review right 100% of the time, and that’s because they make some LR mistakes that they should avoid in the first place.

So in this guide, you’ll learn about the dos and don’ts of literature review, so you can write what makes sense and earn the A-grade level marks for the entire paper.

5 Literature Review Dos and Don’ts

As a college or university student, you wish is to score the best grade for your literature review, either as a standalone assignment or as a part of a research paper or dissertation.

So here are the writing rules to observe to get that A for the assignment: 

1. Write Relevant and Focused Content

One of the reasons why students fail to score top marks for their literature review chapters because they fill the assignment with irrelevant content.

If after reading your review the reader asks the “so what?” question, there’s a high chance your work isn’t as focused as it should be in the first place.

Make sure you stay on topic from the very beginning.

The right approach to ensure your content is on point is to take another closer look at your research question, aims, and objectives, and then re-evaluate your theoretical framework to see if it related to these components.

Reevaluation may demand extra time, but spending more time on the assignment is the only way to make sure your work actually focuses on existing research that addresses the topic under investigation. Often, it helps to circle back to your research question, aims, and objectives to ascertain that your study of existing literature is on point.

2. Do Make Sure Your Literature is Current

Many students don’t feature current literature in their work, and that’s just a wrong way to get the work done by modern standards. While it’s significant to acknowledge landmark research and studies in your writing, your work should also include current literature.

Including current literature in your work gives you the opportunity to compare and contrast old and recent research data and share your thoughts on the evolution.

Finding and incorporating current literature in your work doesn’t have to be difficult at all.

• Google to Google Scholar and search your topic.
• Select one of the “Since…” links on the top left to filter the result based on a given date.

Keep in mind that what’s current won’t mean the same thing to all students. In fact, depending on your area of study, you might filter the results to show you research literature that are a year older, two years older, or more.

There’s a reward to doing this.

More often than not, a mix of class and recent research enables you to write a more comprehensive literature review.

3. Don’t Give Descriptions, Integrate and Synthesize Instead

Giving descriptions is one of the biggest problems in literature review writing. Quite too often, students focus on outlining what researchers said and end up making their literature review less comprehensive.

You need to do a lot more than just describing.

Your literature review needs to feature an integration of multiple existing research and show exactly how all the pieces fit together.

Don’t hesitate to go the extra mile to mention the missing pieces and the areas that simply don’t fit together, not to mention give reasons why you believe researchers have conflicting opinions on those areas.

Identifying conflicts in existing literature is a great way to find gaps that current and future research should address. By including a mix of perspectives in your work, you demonstrate that you did enough research that not only offers balanced review but also provides a clear perspective of the current knowledge on the topic.

4. Don’t Rely on Low-quality Sources

One of the most common mistakes students make is relying on low-quality sources, such as daily news articles, opinion pieces, and regular blog posts, to write literature review . In doing so, professors often end up rating their work as either incomplete or academically unsound.

Even if you think a recent news article or an interesting blog post you read recently can make a good fit for your literature review project, it most often unlikely to be as significant. So, you need to be more skeptical when it comes to picking your sources.

The most important rule here is that you refrain from using daily news articles, opinion pieces, and regular blog posts as your source of information. If you must use them, then do so only sparingly.

In fact, the right sources for reference are those that help you to build a strong theoretical framework because they’re academically sound. If anything, we can’t stress enough how important it is to consider peer-reviewed articles for your research.

You also have the liberty to explore books written by established and academically recognized authors who are experts in the area you’re investigating. And although your professor won’t mind if you draw information from government websites, you need to make sure those sites have a good reputation for being objective with what they publish. 

5. Don’t Make These Stylistic and Writing Mistakes

There are stylistic and writing mistakes that you must avoid when working on a literature review. You should:

• Never use emotional phrases in your work. Your goal with this project is to present classic and current research on your research topic. Given that you’re relying on information that already exists, you don’t have the room to include subjective and emotional words in your writing.
• Avoid writing your personal opinion in the review. Literature reviews have to be objective and based on facts drawn from already exiting research around your topic.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

The do’s and don’ts of writing review articles

If you (or a global pandemic) take the bench away from the scientist, what do they do? They write reviews of course!

As many of us are now far too familiar with, crafting a review article presents a series of unique challenges. Unlike a manuscript, in which the nature of your data inherently shapes the narrative of the article, a review requires synthesizing one largely from scratch. Reviews are often initiated without a well-defined scope going in, which can often leave us feeling overwhelmed, like we’re faced with covering an entire field.

With these challenges in mind, here are a few tips and tricks to make review writing as painless as possible, for the next time you lose your pipette:

• Defining this viewpoint can be extremely helpful in limiting the scope of your literature search, preventing the overwhelming feeling of having to read every paper ever — focus your time and energy on deep-dives into those papers most important to this motivating viewpoint.
• Ask yourself: Who do you want reading your review? What could you cover that would be most helpful to them?
• This will be an iterative process — the focus of your review will likely change significantly over the writing process, as you read more papers and start organizing your thoughts.
• For each review, ask: What are their take-home messages? How can you differentiate your own from each of these?
• As a member of the field, look out for things you wish they had covered: “I wish they had a figure on this, I wish they discussed this, I wish they clarified this…”
• Are there key papers that they missed?
• Are there key papers that have been published since these reviews have been published?
• Cite other reviews to save yourself some writing! If a tangentially related topic is outside of the scope of your review, it’s commonplace to reference other reviews for the sake of brevity, and to recognize their hard work: “X is outside of the scope of this review, but is covered in-depth here [Ref]”).
• For each paper, ask: What was known before this paper, what did this paper show, and what are its limitations?
• It’s important to accept the fact that it is impossible to read, let alone discuss in-depth, hundreds and hundreds of papers.
• Depending on how each paper will fit into your article’s narrative, it may only be necessary to review specific sections or figures. [ I don’t have to read every word of every paper?! ]
• Given the unstructured nature of a non-data-driven article, this is a hugely important step in the process that will make writing infinitely less painful.
• Which key papers are you going to discuss in which sections?
• Outline subsections and transitions under each major section.
• Engage with your PI early and often in the process of crafting your outline, and try to get explicit approval of the finished product before you start writing — this can save you from a lot of painful backtracking later!
• Writing and structuring your review should be iterative as you continue to refine, read more papers, and start to actually get words down on the page
• The most helpful reviews synthesize the findings of multiple papers into a cohesive take-home message.
• Think about how specific findings relate to your overarching motivation for this article
• Think about how different papers relate to each other — do different studies align, or do they contradict each other?
• Keep in mind how people generally skim articles, by skimming the figures — reviews are no different
• Figures should be included in your structural outline
• For example, many people pull schematics from their own reviews to use directly in background slides of future presentations
• While you cannot avoid citing and discussing major, high impact papers from larger journals, consider that these have likely already been discussed in great depth by other reviews given their high visibility. Good research exists in smaller journals, and you can do your part to cast a light on this work.
• You can provide a fresh perspective by looking outside your field for analogous research, provided you can find a creative way to fit it into the scope of your review’s narrative.

Blog post written by Caleb Perez , with input from Tyler Toth, Viraat Goel , and Prerna Bhargava .

Reviews versus Perspectives- It’s important to draw the distinction between reviews and perspectives here. Although we believe that both should review the field in the context of some overarching scientific viewpoint, perspective articles allow the author much more freedom to craft a more opinionated argument and are generally more forward-thinking. If you have that freedom, definitely use it!

Belonging to a group- Of course, the extent to which you can do this may be limited, depending on how familiar you are with the field. First-year graduate students getting into a new field, for example, may not have as great of a grasp on the gaps in the field — you may have to lean on the advice of your PI and colleagues to help guide you here, especially in the early stages of the process before you start your in-depth literature search.

How to read a paper- There are many situations in which a narrower, targeted paper review is warranted. As one example, imagine a section of a review in which you are comparing different technologies for application X. In this context, you may only need to do a detailed review of the methods sections and any figures they have that benchmark their method for your particular application of interest. The rest of the paper is less relevant, so there’s no need to waste your valuable time and energy. 

The Dos and Don'ts of Literature Review in Scientific Writing

The literature review stands as a critical pillar in the edifice of scientific writing, serving as the gateway to informed research by surveying and synthesizing existing knowledge. It is a nuanced art that requires precision and careful execution, demanding an understanding of both what to do and what to avoid. This article delves into the intricacies of mastering the literature review process, shedding light on the dos that enhance the effectiveness of this scholarly endeavor while elucidating the don'ts that can hinder its impact. A well-crafted literature review not only establishes the foundation of a research project but also demonstrates the researcher's ability to navigate the scholarly landscape with discernment and finesse.

The Dos of a Literature Review

A well-executed literature review is an integral part of scholarly research, providing a foundation for your study and contributing to the advancement of knowledge. To ensure the effectiveness and quality of your literature review, consider these key "dos" as you navigate the process:

1. Clearly Define Your Scope: Clearly outline the boundaries of your literature review. Define the specific topic, research question, or theme you're addressing to maintain focus.

2. Conduct Thorough Searches: Use multiple reputable databases and sources to gather a comprehensive array of relevant literature. Explore various keywords and synonyms to capture a wide range of perspectives.

3. Organize Your Review: Structure your review logically. Consider organizing it chronologically, thematically, or methodologically based on your research objectives.

4. Synthesize and Analyze: Rather than merely summarizing sources, synthesize and analyze the findings, methodologies, and key arguments. Identify trends, patterns, and gaps in the existing literature.

5. Identify Key Concepts and Theories: Highlight the fundamental concepts, theories, and models that underpin the topic. This showcases your understanding of the field's foundational knowledge.

6. Address Differing Perspectives: Address conflicting viewpoints and contradictory findings in the literature. Discussing opposing views demonstrates your critical thinking.

7. Establish a Context: Situate your study within the broader academic landscape. Show how your research fits into the existing body of knowledge and contributes to the field.

8. Evaluate Source Credibility: Assess the credibility of each source. Consider factors like author credentials, publication venue, and methodology to determine the reliability of the information.

9. Present a Balanced View: Present a balanced overview of the literature. Highlight both the strengths and limitations of each study to offer a fair assessment.

10. Create Logical Transitions: Ensure smooth transitions between different sections and sources. A well-organized flow enhances the readability and coherence of your review.

11. Address Research Gaps: Identify gaps in the existing literature that your research aims to fill. Articulate how your study addresses these gaps and contributes to the field.

12. Use Appropriate Citations: Properly cite all sources using the required citation style. Accurate citations give credit to the original authors and support the credibility of your review.

13. Provide Visual Aids: Consider incorporating tables, graphs, or diagrams to illustrate key trends or relationships in the literature. Visual aids can enhance the clarity of your review.

14. Proofread and Edit: Thoroughly review your literature review for grammatical errors, typos, and formatting issues. A polished presentation reflects your professionalism.

15. Stay Current: Keep up-to-date with the latest research even after completing your initial literature review. Emerging studies can influence the direction of your research.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

The don'ts of a literature review.

A literature review is a critical component of scholarly research, offering an overview of existing knowledge on a specific topic. While there are guidelines for what to include, it's equally important to be aware of the pitfalls to avoid. Steering clear of these common missteps can enhance the effectiveness and credibility of your literature review:

1. Don't Simply Summarize: A literature review is more than a summary of each source. Avoid turning it into a laundry list of article summaries. Instead, focus on synthesizing and analyzing the information.

2. Don't Be Unfocused: Define a clear scope and purpose for your literature review. Avoid wandering into unrelated areas or discussing irrelevant studies.

3. Don't Rely on a Single Source: A literature review requires a comprehensive approach. Relying solely on one or a few sources can lead to biased or incomplete conclusions.

4. Don't Ignore Contradictory Findings: Acknowledge conflicting findings in the literature. Ignoring opposing viewpoints weakens the credibility of your review.

5. Don't Use Outdated Sources: Outdated sources can undermine the relevance and accuracy of your literature review. Prioritize recent, credible publications.

6. Don't Overuse Direct Quotes: While quotes can support your points, overusing them clutters your review. Summarize and paraphrase to demonstrate your understanding.

7. Don't Cherry-Pick Evidence: Present a balanced view of the literature. Avoid cherry-picking studies that only support your viewpoint.

8. Don't Oversimplify Complex Topics: If the topic is intricate, avoid oversimplification. Summarize complex concepts accurately, even if they require more space.

9. Don't Neglect Methodology and Quality: Assess the methodology and quality of each source. Consider factors like sample size, research design, and methodology when evaluating credibility.

10. Don't Use Biased Language: Maintain a neutral tone. Avoid overly enthusiastic or biased language that may signal a lack of objectivity.

11. Don't Forget to Cite Properly: Properly cite all sources using the required citation style. Failing to give credit can lead to plagiarism.

12. Don't Sacrifice Clarity for Length: While comprehensive, a literature review should be concise and organized. Avoid including excessive details that detract from the main points.

13. Don't Neglect Synthesis: Connect the dots between different sources. Highlight patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research.

14. Don't Overwhelm with Citations: While citations are crucial, excessive citations in a short span can disrupt the flow. Balance the text with citations.

15. Don't Rush the Process: A well-constructed literature review takes time. Rushing through it can result in errors, omissions, and a lack of depth.

Impactful Literature Review

The culmination of adhering to the dos and avoiding the don'ts of a literature review results in a narrative that extends beyond the confines of a mere summary. An impactful literature review serves as a guiding beacon, illuminating the path for both the researcher and the audience. By meticulously adhering to the guidelines for effective literature review construction, researchers forge a bridge between the past and the present, anchoring their research in a comprehensive understanding of the existing landscape. Through critical analysis, synthesis, and contextualization, the literature review becomes more than a mere preamble; it becomes a testament to the researcher's prowess in navigating the complexities of scholarly discourse. This section showcases the evolution from the art of information assimilation to that of information integration, with a profound effect on the subsequent research. The literature review thus emerges as a compass, directing the researcher toward underexplored territories, guiding the formulation of research questions, and setting the stage for informed methodology and robust findings. As science thrives on cumulative knowledge, an impactful literature review not only fulfills an academic requirement but also contributes to the broader tapestry of human understanding, underscoring the significance of meticulous review construction.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, an end-to-end process of writing and publishing influential literature review articles: do’s and don’ts.

Management Decision

ISSN : 0025-1747

Article publication date: 25 June 2018

Issue publication date: 23 October 2018

Literature reviews are essential tools for uncovering prevalent knowledge gaps, unifying fragmented bodies of scholarship, and taking stock of the cumulative evidence in a field of inquiry. Yet, successfully producing rigorous, coherent, thought-provoking, and practically relevant review articles represents an extremely complex and challenging endeavor. The purpose of this paper is to uncover the key requirements for expanding literature reviews’ reach within and across study domains and provide useful guidelines to prospective authors interested in generating this type of scientific output.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing upon the authors’ own experience of producing literature reviews and a scrutiny of review papers in major management journals, the authors develop an end-to-end process of writing and publishing review articles of high potential impact.

The advanced process is broken down into two phases and seven sequential steps, each of them being described in terms of key actions, required skill sets, best practices, metrics of assessment and expected outcomes.

Originality/value

By tapping into the inherent complexity of review articles and demystifying the intricacies associated with pursuing this type of scientific research, the authors seek to inspire a wealth of new influential surveys of specialized literature.

• Literature review
• Best practice guidelines
• Future research agenda
• High-impact review article
• Research synthesis
• Writing and publishing

Acknowledgements

This paper forms part of a special section Special Review Issue.

Bodolica, V. and Spraggon, M. (2018), "An end-to-end process of writing and publishing influential literature review articles: Do’s and don’ts", Management Decision , Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 2472-2486. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2018-0253

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Do’s and Don’ts in writing a scientific literature review for health care research

Advancement in block chain technology for data sharing in biomedical research – the key factors in writing a literature review

Cancer research writing: how to plan and write a research proposal

• Healthcare research is a rapidly growing hey field necessitating the need to do an adequate and comprehensive review of existing literature on the subject.
• Clinical literature review services are in the know-how of writing an effective literature review article.

Purpose of literature review in healthcare research  

The whole purpose of research is to increase the collective understanding on the topic and contribute productively.To achieve this, one must begin by understanding the context of the ‘conversation’. And this important task is done by writing a literature review article.

  The number of publications, research, and journalsare increasing by the day with an increasing need for dedicated medical writing or literature review services with domain-related expertise. Proportionally the number of rejections is also on the rise. Literature review writing is the first step towards any research and making a clear case for the research study at hand is achieved by a well-done review. Clinical literature review services are providing immense support to busy clinicians and researchers on how to write a literature review. The purpose of a proper literature review can be summarized as below: –

• Literature review help explore previous research conducted in the field of interest, the limitations and conflict areas identified and the need for further research. This justifies the relevance and originality of the research work.
• It also helps one in understanding and formulating one’s area of research in a better manner and justifies the methodology used.
• Literature review article helps connect the statistical findings of the research with prior research statistics.
• It also conveys that the researcher is serious and dedicated about the research and intends to complete the project.
• Literature review writing help is needed in preventing duplication of research and avoiding redundant fields and is needed for good quality research paper.
• Literature review is the preliminary step in any dissertation as part of an academic requirement. How to write a literature review is also an important part of the curriculum.

In short, literature review writing is done to place our research within the context of the topic-related existing research and justifies the need for proposed research.

Context of literature review writing

There are various circumstances under which one must do a literature review.

• Introduction to a primary research topic – This sets the context for the research article or dissertation by analysing previously published literature and clearly defining the place of the current research and its contribution to the advancement in the understanding of the topic in question.
• Systematic review –It is related to meta-analysis and provide a quantitative or less often qualitative statistic summarizing several papers.
• Secondary data analysis projects- It is a research project on its own and begins with a clear research question. The project aims at analysing available data in answering the question.

Do’s and don’ts in literature review

Do’s                                        .

• The research question should beclear and crisp, preferably one thatcan be analysedquantitatively.
• Picking up the right articles is an art and one should have clear inclusion and exclusion criteria to perform a relevant review.
• Citations should be recent and relevant in the current context.
• Citations should include not only those studies with clear-cut outcomes or inferences, it should also include those that are inconclusive or require further research. This is required for 360 degree understanding, avoiding bias, and defining further scope for research.
• Critical appraisal of the studies cited with an analytical review of the same is to be done.
• Adequate number of citations is often defined by the journal and that needs to be followed.
• Organise and document the data in a format that best suits and justifies the research study.
• Research question should not be ambiguous as it will result in a haphazard start to the research study.
• Deviations or inconsistency in following the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria make the findings unreliable.
• Citations that are old and outdated in the current context are to be avoided.
• Bias in citations that intentionally quote only those that are congruent in their conclusions to the current study should be avoided.
• Not weighing the studies under consideration for the quality of research result in inclusion of poor-quality literature that make the outcomes unreliable.
• Too few or too many citations fail to convey the crux in the correct proportions.
• Data organised in a haphazard manner becomes inconclusive and does not interest the reader and sends a wrong message about the quality of the study.

Basically, depending on the requirement of the topic of literature research , whether it is recent or been around for several years, whether most facts are clear or unclear, whether researchers agree or disagree on most matters and what is the outcome needed out of the literature search in context of the objective of the current study.In short, the review should be well-structured and should have some form to the flow of information.

Some broad guidelines are provided by PRISMA that gives a checklist of 27 items along with flowcharts to help in a comprehensive search.

          Setting the factual context of the current research study is the first stepto participate in the ongoing ‘dialogue’ on the subject and contribute positively to that area of research. Literature review services help the busy researcher and how to write a literature review article.

• Lingard L. Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ. 2015 Oct; 4(5):252-3.
• Maggio, L. A., Sewell, J. L., &Artino, A. R., Jr (2016). The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research. Journal of graduate medical education, 8(3), 297–303.
• Baker, J.D. (2016), The Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review. AORN Journal, 103: 265-269.
• Christine Susan Bruce (1994) Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review, Studies in Higher Education, 19:2, 217-229.
• Efron, S. E., &Ravid, R. (2019).  Writing the literature review: A practical guide.  The Guilford Press
• Bollacker, K., Lawrence, S., and Giles, C. L. Discovering relevant scientific literature on the web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(2), 42–47, 2000
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21; 6(7):e1000097.

pubrica-academy

Related posts.

Making Sense of Effect Size in Meta-Analysis based for Medical Research

Copy of PUB-Evidence-based analyses to look at cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit information & clinical data from RT-Device Manufacturers

The Role of Packaging Design In Drug Development

PUB - Selecting material for drug development

Selecting materials for medical device industry

Comments are closed.

Write Abstracts, Literature Reviews, and Annotated Bibliographies: Literature Reviews

• Abstract Guides & Examples
• Literature Reviews
• Annotated Bibliographies & Examples
• Student Research

What is a Literature Review?

According to the Writing Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , "A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period."

Although a literature review may summarize research on a given topic, it generally synthesizes and summarizes a subject. The purpose of a literature review therefore is to present summaries and analysis of current research not contribute new ideas on the topic (making it different from a research paper).

Search for Literature Reviews

How to Write a Literature Review

• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature (The University of Wisconsin)
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It (University of Totonto)
• Write a Literature Review (UC Santa Cruz)
• Teaching the Literature Review Details strategies on how to teach students about literature reviews and how to create their own reviews.

Dos and Don'ts of a Literature Review

Make a clear statement of the research problem. Keep it in discussion style. Give a critical assessment of your chosen literature topic, try to state the weaknesses and gaps in previous studies, try to raise questions and give suggestions for improvement.

List your ideas or theories in an unrepeated and sensible sequence. Write a complete bibliography that provides the resources from where you had collected the data in this literature review.

Use unfamiliar technical terms or too many abbreviations. Use passive voice in your text. Repeat same ideas in your text. Include any ideas that you read in the article without citing them (author's name, publication date) as a reference source. Include punctuation and grammatical errors.

• << Previous: Abstract Guides & Examples
• Next: Annotated Bibliographies & Examples >>
• Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 4:00 PM
• URL: https://library.geneseo.edu/abstracts

Fraser Hall Library | SUNY Geneseo

Fraser Hall 203

Milne Building Renovation Updates

Connect With Us!

Geneseo Authors Hall preserves over 90 years of scholarly works.

KnightScholar Services facilitates creation of works by the SUNY Geneseo community.

IDS Project is a resource-sharing cooperative.

CIT HelpDesk

Writing learning center (wlc).

Fraser Hall 208

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Literature: A Research Guide for Graduate Students

Research dos & don'ts.

• Get Started
• Find a Database

DON'T reinvent the wheel

Many scholars have spent their entire careers in your field, watching its developments in print and in person. Learn from them! The library is full of specialized guides, companions, encyclopedias, dictionaries, bibliographies, histories and other "reference" sources that will help orient you to a new area of research. Similarly, every works cited list can be a gold mine of useful readings.

• Techniques for finding where a particular publication is cited (reverse footnote-mining) [Harvard Library FAQ]
• Top resources and search tips for locating scholarly companions and guides [general topic guide for literary research]
• The literature section of the Loker Reading Room reference collection [HOLLIS browse]
• James Harner's Literary Research Guide: an Annotated Listing of Reference Sources in English Literary Studies [HOLLIS record with ONLINE ACCESS]

DO get to know your field

Know Your Field , a module from Unabridged On Demand, offers tips, thought prompts, and links to resources for quickly learning about and staying current with an area of scholarly study.

DON'T treat every search box like Google or ChatGPT

Break free of the search habits that Google and generative AI have taught you! Learn to pay attention to how a search system operates and what is in it, and to adjust your search inputs accordingly.

Google and generative AI interfaces train you to type in your question as you would say it to another person. They give you the illusion of a search box that can read your thoughts and that access the entire internet. That's not what's actually happening, of course! Google is giving you the results others have clicked on most while generative AI is giving you the output that is most probable based on your input. Other search systems, like the library catalog, might be matching your search inputs to highly structured, human-curated data. They give the best results when you select specific keywords and make use of the database's specialized search tools. 

Learn more about searching:

• Database Search Tips from MIT: a great, concise introduction to Booleans, keywords v. subjects, and search fields
• Improve Your Search , a module from our library research intensive, Unabridged On Demand

Search technique handouts

• "Search Smarter" Bookmark Simple steps to improve your searching, plus a quick guide to the search commands HOLLIS uses
• Decoding a database A two-page guide to the most effective ways to quickly familiarize yourself with a new system.
• Optimize Your Search A 3-column review of the basic search-strategy differences between Google and systems like JSTOR or HOLLIS.

DO adjust your language

Searching often means thinking in someone else's language, whether it's the librarians who created HOLLIS's subject vocabularies, or the scholars whose works you want to find in JSTOR, or the people of another era whose ideas you're trying to find in historical newspapers. The Search Vocabulary page on the general topic guide for literary studies is a great place to start for subject vocabularies.

DON'T search in just one place

Judicious triangulation is the key to success. No search has everything. There's always one more site you could  search. Strike a balance by always searching at least 3-4 ways.

DO SEARCH A VARIETY OF RESOURCES:

• Your library catalog ,  HOLLIS
• A subject-specific scholarly index , such as the MLA International Bibliography , LION (Literature Online) , or the IMB (International Medieval Bibliography)
• A full-text collection of scholarship,  such as JSTOR or ProjectMuse
• One of Google's full-text searches,   Google Scholar or Google Books

DO look beyond the library's collections

The library purchases and licenses materials for your use. There's plenty of other material that's freely available or that you would need to travel to see---please let me help you find it!

• << Previous: Find a Database

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

Do’s and Don’ts for Research Writing

In the thick of doing research, it’s easy to forget about the ultimate goal of writing and publishing. Thankfully, about once a month, the Princeton University Laser Sensing Lab holds what we call a “literature review”: Everyone brings in papers they’ve come across for their own research, and shares techniques that could be useful for the group at large.

At our last meeting, someone changed things up. Instead of bringing in a paper that contained interesting ideas, he brought one that he declared “the worst paper I’ve ever read”.

We all had a good laugh as the paper was passed around. He was right. The paper had numerous grammatical mistakes and many passages were indecipherable. But my adviser suggested that we not take it lightly. After all, this paper had somehow been published (though if he had any say in it, he would have it retracted). It served as a good example of what not to do—especially as the writing season falls upon us (hello to senior theses and final papers!).

As you write, here are other do’s and dont’s to keep in mind:

1. Don’t blow off grammar. Grammar mistakes look very unprofessional and immediately sink your standing in the eyes of your readers. The most common example? Its vs. it’s. Not only is this typo rampant in papers, but also in emails and online articles. Other examples I’ve come across: “development activities are currently been carried out ”, “in motion along our line of site ”… the list goes on. Don’t worry—we all make these typos when writing, and they’re easy to miss. I often don’t find my mistakes until I ask someone else to read over my work. But correcting grammar is a very simple fix, and can go a long way to help clean up your writing.

2. Don’t make excuses for poor writing. “Scientists aren’t known for being good writers, so it’s ok if my writing isn’t good either.” “This paper doesn’t count for much anyway, so it’s ok if it doesn’t make sense.” Yes, it’s tempting. But you don’t want to get into a habit of poor writing. And would you really want to be the TA or professor on the other end, reading a nonsensical paper?

3. Write something you would want to read. It sounds obvious, but it’s one of the most often ignored adages. Do you really need all that jargon up front? Are you giving your target audience, whether it’s fellow students or scientists, enough information to understand your writing? After you write your piece, the last thing you might feel like doing is reading it over again. But if you’re really aiming for a good paper, you should finish your draft with enough time—at least a day if possible—  before re-reading, to make sure your logical progressions are natural. And another round of proofreading is a great way to catch those rogue typos!

4. Have others check over your writing. If you can’t bring yourself to read your own writing, or can’t distance yourself enough to think about what may or may not make sense, have someone proofread for you. Even if you’ve read over your own paper, you might not be able to catch confusing or illogical wording — after all, you’re the one who wrote it. But having another person’s eyes on your paper can provide an important sanity check. The Writing Center is great for this, but if you want more tailored feedback, asking for help from a graduate student in your lab is not a bad idea, either!

And finally, do your research! Take note of papers you’ve found helpful in your literature review. What kind of language do they use? Is there anything confusing they’ve done that you think you can do better? Do try and actually read some of the papers you’re citing. After all, reading good writing will make you a better writer yourself.

–Stacey Huang, Engineering Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Writing a review—the do’s and don’ts

Proceedings b senior editor dr maurine neiman discusses the value of peer review and highlights the different elements to consider when writing a review report..

Preprint and Senior Editor of Proceedings of the Royal Society B , Dr Maurine Neiman , from the University of Iowa, shared her thoughts on peer review and what makes a good review in scientific scholarly publishing.

Why is peer review important for scientists and scientific research?

Peer review is important because scientific peers have the expertise and contextual knowledge that is needed to rigorously and fairly evaluate the extent to which a new scientific paper makes a valid and useful (i.e., publishable) scientific contribution. The process isn’t perfect: humans can never be truly objective, for example, and not all reviewers provide useful or fair reviews. This is where my role as an editor can be especially important: it’s my responsibility to select high-quality reviewers, decide when particular reviews are especially useful or should be taken with a grain of salt, and provide my own independent assessment of the utility and quality of the paper.

As an Editor, what do you think makes a good review of a scientific paper?

There are multiple elements of a high-quality peer review. First , the review should be reasonably objective. Second , the review should be thorough, with the caveat that it can be difficult to find individual reviewers that can rigorously evaluate interdisciplinary studies and papers that feature multiple methodology types (e.g., theory and empirical data). Third , the review should provide a combination of appropriately positive and critical components, and constructive suggestions accompanying the critiques. With respect to the importance of positivity, the editor needs the expertise of the peer reviewers to evaluate the extent to which the paper has strengths as well as weaknesses. Fourth , the review should acknowledge components of the manuscript that the reviewer might not be able to objectively or rigorously evaluate. Finally , the review should provide a realistic perspective on what constitutes a useful contribution to scientific literature, in general, and with respect to the focal journal.

What should reviewers avoid when writing their reviews?

As I mentioned above, reviewers should avoid presenting criticism in the absence of constructive suggestions. As an author and as an editor, it can be very difficult to know how to respond to criticism in the absence of specific suggestions for improvement. As a related point, I think that reviewers should take some care to ensure that their review will come across to the authors as respectful and not overly harsh. No one benefits from an antagonistic review process.

What advice do you have for early career researchers starting out in peer review?

I think that early-career researchers should make an effort to engage in peer review early and often because reviewing is the best way to learn how the peer-review process works and provides valuable insight in how best to craft a scientific manuscript. The best way for junior researchers to start reviewing is often to team up with a graduate or postdoc advisor or other senior mentors. This type of co-review provides a direct but supervised means of gaining experience with review and will help make the junior researcher more visible to their peers, leading to more review invitations in the future. More and more journals are explicitly encouraging peer reviewers to involve students in this way, which I think is a really positive development. I do think that scientists who are new to the peer review process, perhaps as a function of graduate seminar courses focused on ‘paper bashing’, often believe that their main role as a reviewer is to be extremely critical. While this type of review can be useful, new reviewers should remember the importance of speaking to the positive elements of a paper and providing constructive suggestions alongside their critiques.

What are your thoughts on transparency in peer review?

Transparency in peer review is such a complicated issue. While I believe that transparency in science is generally a positive (and important) step forward, I think that our human challenges with objectivity mean that it is important to maintain opacity with respect to the identities of the people reviewing the papers. In other words, anonymous peer review (and, perhaps, in many/most cases, a double-blind peer review process) seems important to implement as a mechanism to maximise objectivity and minimise the negative consequences of implicit and explicit bias. This perspective doesn’t exclude the possibility that the anonymised peer reviews are published alongside the papers (an idea that I like, at least in principle), or that peer reviewers can choose to make their identities public.

If you are interested in reviewing for Proceedings B or any other Royal Society journal, find out about the benefits of reviewing for our journals on our website .

Image credit: Dr Maurine Neiman, University of Iowa

Shalene Singh-Shepherd

Senior Publishing Editor, Proceedings B

Related blogs

Buchi Okereafor

In publishing

AI and the future of scholarly publishing (part 1)

The focus for this year's Peer Review Week is 'Peer Review and the Future of Publishing'. We speak…

AI and the future of scholarly publishing (part 2)

Matt Hodgkinson, Research Integrity Manager at the UK Research Integrity Office, gives us an…

Callum Shoosmith

The future of peer review in the 17th Century

For Peer Review Week 2023 we explore the Royal Society’s collection of centuries-old referee…

Email updates

We promote excellence in science so that, together, we can benefit humanity and tackle the biggest challenges of our time.

Subscribe to our newsletters to be updated with the latest news on innovation, events, articles and reports.

What subscription are you interested in receiving? (Choose at least one subject)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 19 February 2019

The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics

• Kathryn Oliver   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5258 1 &
• Paul Cairney 2  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  21 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

86k Accesses

140 Citations

892 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Science, technology and society

A Correction to this article was published on 17 March 2020

This article has been updated

Many academics have strong incentives to influence policymaking, but may not know where to start. We searched systematically for, and synthesised, the ‘how to’ advice in the academic peer-reviewed and grey literatures. We condense this advice into eight main recommendations: (1) Do high quality research; (2) make your research relevant and readable; (3) understand policy processes; (4) be accessible to policymakers: engage routinely, flexible, and humbly; (5) decide if you want to be an issue advocate or honest broker; (6) build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers; (7) be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is; and (8) reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working? This advice seems like common sense. However, it masks major inconsistencies, regarding different beliefs about the nature of the problem to be solved when using this advice. Furthermore, if not accompanied by critical analysis and insights from the peer-reviewed literature, it could provide misleading guidance for people new to this field.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Identity and inequality misperceptions, demographic determinants and efficacy of corrective measures

Introduction.

Many academics have strong incentives to influence policymaking, as extrinsic motivation to show the ‘impact’ of their work to funding bodies, or intrinsic motivation to make a difference to policy. However, they may not know where to start (Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ). Although many academics have personal experience, or have attended impact training, there is a limited empirical evidence base to inform academics wishing to create impact. Although there is a significant amount of commentary about the processes and contexts affecting evidence use in policy and practice (Head, 2010 ; Whitty, 2015 ), the relative importance of different factors on achieving ‘impact’ has not been established (Haynes et al., 2011 ; Douglas, 2012 ; Wilkinson, 2017 ). Nor have common understandings of the concepts of ‘use’ or ‘impact’ themselves been developed. As pointed out by one of our reviewers, even empirical and conceptual papers often routinely fail to define or unpack these terms—with some exceptions (Weiss, 1979 ; Nutley et al., 2007 ; Parkhurst, 2017 ). Perhaps because of this theoretical paucity, there are few empirical evaluations of strategies to increase the uptake of evidence in policy and practice (Boaz et al., 2011 ), and those that exist tend not to offer advice for the individual academic. How then, should academics engage with policy?

There are substantial numbers of blogs, editorials, commentaries, which provide tips and suggestions for academics on how best to increase their impact, how to engage most effectively, or similar topics. We condense this advice into 8 main tips, to: produce high quality research, make it relevant, understand the policy processes in which you engage, be accessible to policymakers, decide if you want to offer policy advice, build networks, be ‘entrepreneurial’, and reflect on your activities.

Taken at face value, much of this advice is common sense, perhaps because it is inevitably bland and generic. When we interrogate it in more detail, we identify major inconsistencies in advice regarding: (a) what counts as good evidence, (b) how best to communicate it, (c) what policy engagement is for, (d) if engagement is to frame problems or simply measure them according to an existing frame, (e) how far to go to be useful and influential, (f) if you need and can produce ground rules or trust (g) what entrepreneurial means, and (h) how much choice researchers should have to engage in policymaking or not.

These inconsistencies reflect different beliefs about the nature of the problem to be solved when using this advice, which derive from unresolved debates about the nature and role of science and policy. We focus on three dilemmas that arise from engagement—for example, should you ‘co-produce’ research and policy and give policy recommendations?—and reflect on wider systemic issues, such as the causes of unequal rewards and punishments for engagement. Perhaps the biggest dilemma reflects the fact that engagement is a career choice, not an event: how far should you go to encourage the use of evidence in policy if you began your career as a researcher? These debates are rehearsed more fully and regularly in the peer-reviewed literature (Hammersley, 2013 ; de Leeuw et al., 2008 ; Fafard, 2015 ; Smith and Stewart, 2015 ; Smith and Stewart, 2017 ; Oliver and Faul, 2018 ), which have spawned narrative reviews of policy theory and systematic reviews of the literature on the ‘barriers and facilitators’ to the use of evidence in policy. For example, we know from policy studies that policymakers seek ways to act decisively, not produce more evidence until it speaks for itself; and, there is no simple way to link the supply of evidence to its demand in a policymaking system (see Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). We draw on this literature to highlight inconsistencies and weaknesses in the advice offered to academics.

We assess how useful the ‘how to’ advice is for academics, to what extent the advice reflects the reality of policymaking and evidence use (based on our knowledge of the empirical and theoretical literatures, described more fully in Cairney and Oliver, 2018 ) and explore the implications of any mismatch between the two. We map and interrogate the ‘how to’ advice, by comparing it with the empirical and theoretical literature on creating impact, and on the policymaking context more broadly. We use these literatures to highlight key choices and tensions in engaging with policymakers, and signpost more useful, informed advice for academics on when, how, and if to engage with policymakers.

Methods: a systematic review of the ‘how to’ literature

Systematic review is a method to synthesise diverse evidence types on a clear defined problem (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008 ). Although most commonly associated with statistical methods to aggregate effect sizes (more accurately called meta-analyses), systematic reviews can be conducted on any body of written evidence, including grey or unpublished literature (Tyndall, 2008 ). All systematic reviews take steps to be transparent about the decisions made, the methods used to identify relevant evidence, and how this was synthesised to be transparent, replicable and exhaustive (resources allowing) (Gough et al., 2012 ). Primarily they involve clearly defined searches, inclusion and exclusion processes, and a quality assessment/synthesis process.

We searched three major electronic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and selected websites (e.g., ODI, Research Fortnight, Wonkhe) and journals (including Evidence and Policy, Policy and Politics, Research Policy), using a combination of terms. Terms such as evidence and impact were tested to search for articles explaining how to better ‘use’ evidence, or how to create policy ‘impact’. After testing, the search was conducted by combining the following terms, tailored to each database: ((evidence or science or scientist or researchers or impact), (help or advi* or tip* or "how to" or relevan*)) policy* OR practic* OR government* OR parliament*). We checked studies on full text where available and added them to a database for data-extraction. We conducted searches between June 30th and August 3rd 2018. We identified studies for data extraction when they covered these areas: Tips for researchers, tips for policymakers, types of useful research / characteristics of useful research, and other factors.

We included academic, policy and grey publications which offered advice to academics or policymakers on how to engage better with each other. We did not include: studies which explored the factors leading to evidence use, general commentaries on the roles of academics, or empirical analyses of the various initiatives, interventions, structures and roles of academics and researchers in policy (unless they offered primary data and tips on how to improve); book reviews; or, news reports. However, we use some of these publications to reflect more broadly on the historical changes to the academic-policy relationship.

We included 86 academic and non-academic publications in this review (see Table 1 for an overview). Although we found reports dating back to the 1950s on how governments and presidents (predominantly UK/US) do or do not use scientific advisors (Marshall, 1980 ; Bondi, 1982 ; Mayer, 1982 ; Lepkowski, 1984 ; Koshland Jr. et al., 1988 ; Sy, 1989 ; Krige, 1990 ; Srinivasan, 2000 ) and committees (Sapolsky, 1968 ; Wolfle, 1968 ; Editorial, 1972 ; Walsh, 1973 ; Nichols, 1988 ; Young and Jones, 1994 ; Lawler, 1997 ; Masood, 1999 ; Morgan et al., 2001 ; Oakley et al., 2003 ; Allen et al. 2012 ). The earliest publication included was from 1971 (Aurum, 1971 ). Thirty-four were published in the last two years, reflecting ever increasing interest in how academics can increase their impact on policy. Although some academic publications are included, we mainly found blogs, letters, and editorials, often in high-impact publications such as Cell, Science, Nature and the Lancet. Many were opinion pieces by people moving between policy officials and academic roles, or blogs by and for early career researchers on how to establish impactful careers.

The advice is very consistent over the last 80 years; and between disciplines as diverse as gerontology, ecology, and economics. As noted in an earlier systematic review, previous studies have identified hundreds of factors which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence in policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ), albeit unsupported by empirical evidence. Many of the advisory pieces address these barriers, assuming rather than demonstrating that their simple advice will help ease the flow of evidence into policy. The pieces also often cite each other, even to the extent of using the exact phrasing. Therefore, the combination of previous academic reviews with our survey of ‘how to’ advice reinforces our sense of ‘saturation’, in which we have identified all of the most relevant advice (available in written form). In our synthesis, using thematic analysis, we condense these tips into 8 main themes. Then, we analyse these tips critically, with reference to wider discussions in the peer-reviewed literature.

Eight key tips on ‘how to influence policy’

Do high quality research.

Researchers are advised to conduct high-quality, robust research (Boyd, 2013 ; Whitty, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Eisenstein, 2017 ) and provide it in a way that is timely, policy relevant, and easy to understand, but not at the expense of accuracy (Havens, 1992 ; Norse, 2005 ; Simera et al., 2010 ; Bilotta et al., 2015 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Olander et al. 2017 ; POST, 2017 ). Specific research methods, metrics and/or models should be used (Aguinis et al. 2010 ), with systematic reviews/evidence synthesis considered particularly useful for policymakers (Lavis et al., 2003 ; Sutherland, 2013 ; Caird et al., 2015 ; Andermann et al., 2016 ; Donnelly et al., 2018 ; Topp et al., 2018 ), and often also randomised controlled trials, properly piloted and evaluated (Walley et al., 2018 ). Truly interdisciplinary research is required to identify new perspectives (Chapman et al., 2015 ; Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ) and explore the “practical significance” of research for policy and practice (Aguinis et al. 2010 ). Academics must communicate scientific uncertainty and the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of research (Norse, 2005 ; Aguinis et al., 2010 ; Tyler, 2013 ; Game et al., 2015 ; Sutherland and Burgman, 2015 ), and be trained to “estimate probabilities of events, quantities or model parameters” (Sutherland and Burgman, 2015 ). Be ‘policy-relevant’ (NCCPE, 2018 ; Maddox, 1996 ; Green et al., 2009 ; Farmer, 2010 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ; Tesar et al., 2016 ; Echt, 2017b ; Fleming and Pyenson, 2017 ; Olander et al., 2017 ; POST, 2017 ) (although this is rarely defined). Two exceptions include the advice for research programmes to be embedded within national and regional governmental programmes (Walley et al., 2018 ) and for researchers to provide policymakers with models estimating the harms and benefits of different policy options (Basbøll, 2018 ) (Topp et al., 2018 ).

Communicate well: make your research relevant and readable

Academics should engage in more effective dissemination, (NCCPE, 2018 ; Maddox, 1996 ; Green et al., 2009 ; Farmer, 2010 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ; Tesar et al., 2016 ; Echt, 2017b ; Fleming and Pyenson, 2017 ; Olander et al. 2017 ; POST, 2017 ), make data public, (Malakoff, 2017 ), and provide clear summaries and syntheses of problems and solutions (Maybin, 2016 ). Use a range of outputs (social media, blogs, policy briefs), to make sure that policy actors can contact you with follow up questions (POST, 2017 ) (Parry-Davies and Newell, 2014 ), and to write for generalist, but not ignorant readers (Hillman, 2016 ). Avoid jargon but don’t over-simplify (Farmer, 2010 ; Goodwin, 2013 ); make simple and definitive statements (Brumley, 2014 ), and communicate complexity (Fischoff, 2015 ; Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ) (Whitty, 2015 ).

Some blogs advise academics to use established storytelling techniques to persuade policymakers of a course of action or better communicate scientific ideas. Produce good stories based on emotional appeals or humour to expand and engage your audience (Evans, 2013 ; Fischoff, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). Jones and Crow develop a point-by-point guide to creating a narrative through scene-setting, casting characters, establishing a plot, and equating the moral with a ‘solution to the policy problem’ (Jones and Crow, 2017 ; Jones and Crow, 2018 ).

Understand policy processes, policymaking context, and key actors

Academics are advised to get to know how policy works, and in particular to accept that the normative technocratic ideal of ‘evidence-based’ policymaking does not reflect the political nature of decision-making (Tyler, 2013 ; Echt, 2017a ). Policy decisions are ultimately taken by politicians on behalf of constituents, and technological proposals are only ever going to be part of a solution (Eisenstein, 2017 ). Some feel that science should hold a privileged position in policy (Gluckman, 2014 ; Reed and Evely, 2016 ) but many recognise that research is unlikely to translate directly into an off-the-shelf ready-to-wear policy proposal (Tyler, 2013 ; Gluckman, 2014 ; Prehn, 2018 ), and that policy rarely changes overnight (Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ). Being pragmatic and managing one’s expectations about the likely impact of research on policy—which bears little resemblance to the ‘policy cycle’—is advised (Sutherland and Burgman, 2015 ; Tyler, 2013 ).

Second, learn the basics, such as the difference between the role of government and parliament, and between other types of policymakers (Tyler, 2013 ). Note that your policy audience is likely to change on a yearly basis if not more frequently (Hillman, 2016 ); that they have busy and constrained lives (Lloyd, 2016 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Prehn, 2018 ) and their own career concerns and pathways (Lloyd, 2016 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Prehn, 2018 ). Do not guess what might work; take the time to listen and learn from policy colleagues (Datta, 2018 ).

Third, learn to recognise broader policymaking dynamics, paying particular attention to changing policy priorities (Fischoff, 2015 ; Cairney, 2017 ). Academics are good at placing their work in the context of the academic literature, but also need to situate it in the “political landscape” (Himmrich, 2016 ). To do so means taking the time to learn what, when, where and who to influence (NCCPE, 2018 ; Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ) and getting to know audiences (Jones and Crow, 2018 ); learning about, and maximising use of established ways to engage, such as in advisory committees and expert panels (Gluckman, 2014 ; Pain, 2014 ; Malakoff, 2017 ; Hayes and Wilson, 2018 ) (Pain, 2014 ). Persistance and patience is advised—sticking at it, and changing strategy if it is not working (Graffy, 1999 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ).

Be ‘accessible’ to policymakers: engage routinely, flexibly, and humbly

Prehn uses the phrase ‘professional friends’, which encapsulates vague but popular concepts such as ‘build trust’ and ‘develop good relationships’ (Farmer, 2010 ; Kerr et al., 2015 ; Prehn, 2018 ). Building and maintaining long-term relationships takes effort, time and commitment (Goodwin, 2013 ; Maybin, 2016 ), can be easily damaged. It can take time to become established as a “trusted voice” (Goodwin, 2013 ) and may require a commitment to remaining non-partisan (Morgan et al. 2001 ). Therefore, build routine engagement on authentic relationships, developing a genuine rapport by listening and responding (Goodwin, 2013 ; Jo Clift Consulting, 2016 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). Some suggest developing leadership and communication skills, but with reference to listening and learning (Petes and Meyer, 2018 ; Topp et al., 2018 ); Adopting a respectful, helpful, and humble demeanour, recognising that while academics are authorities on the evidence, we may not be the appropriate people to describe or design policy options (Nichols, 1972 ; Knottnerus and Tugwell, 2017 ) (although many disagree (Morgan et al., 2001 ; Morandi, 2009 )). Behave courteously by acting professionally (asking for feedback; responding promptly; following up meetings and conversations swiftly) (NCCPE, 2018 ; Goodwin, 2013 ; Jo Clift Consulting, 2016 ). Several commentators also reference the idea of ‘two cultures’ of policy and research (Shergold, 2011 ), which have their own language, practices and values (Goodwin, 2013 ). Learning to speak this language would enable researchers to better understand all that is said and unsaid in interactions (Jo Clift Consulting, 2016 ).

Decide if you want to be an ‘issue advocate’ or ‘honest broker’

Reflecting on accessibility should prompt researchers to consider how to draw the line between providing information or recommendations. One possibility is for researchers to simply disseminate their research honestly, clearly, and in a timely fashion, acting as an ‘honest broker’ of the evidence base (Pielke, 2007 ). In this mode, other actors may pick up and use evidence to influence policy in a number of ways—shaping the debate, framing issues, problematizing the construction of solutions and issues, explaining the options (Nichols, 1972 ; Knottnerus and Tugwell, 2017 )—while researchers seek to remain ‘neutral’. Another option is to recommend specific policy options or describe the implications for policy based on their research (Morgan et al., 2001 ; Morandi, 2009 ), perhaps by storytelling to indicate a preferred course of action (Evans, 2013 ; Fischoff, 2015 ; Docquier, 2017 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). However, the boundary between these two options is very difficult to negotiate or identify in practice, particularly since policymakers often value candid judgements and opinions from people they trust, rather than new research (Maybin, 2016 ).

Build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers

Getting to know policymakers better and building longer term networks (Chapman et al., 2015 ; Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ) could give researchers better access to opportunities to shape policy agendas (Colglazier, 2016 ; Lucey et al., 2017 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ), give themselves more credibility within the policy arena (Prehn, 2018 ), help researchers to identify the correct policy actors or champions to work with (Echt, 2017a ), and provide better insight into policy problems (Chapman et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ; Lucey et al., 2017 ; Tilley et al., 2017 ). Working with policymakers as early as possible in the process helps develop shared interpretations of the policy problem (Echt, 2017b ; Tyler, 2017 ) and agreement on the purpose of research (Shergold, 2011 ). Co-designing, or otherwise doing research-for-policy together is widely held to be morally, ethically, and practically one of the best ways to achieve the elusive goal of getting evidence into policy (Sebba, 2011 ; Green, 2016 ; Eisenstein, 2017 ). Engaging publics more generally is also promoted (Chapman et al., 2015 ). Relationship-building activities require major investment and skills, and often go unrecognised (Prehn, 2018 ), but may offer the most likely route to get evidence into policy (Sebba, 2011 ; Green, 2016 ; Eisenstein, 2017 ). Initially, researchers can use blogs and social media (Brumley, 2014 ; POST, 2017 ) to increase their visibility to the policy community, combined with networking and direct approaches to policy actors (Tyler, 2013 ).

One of the few pieces built on a case study of impact argued that academics should build coalitions of allies, but also engage political opponents, and learn how to fight for their ideas (Coffait, 2017 ). However, collaboration can also lead to conflict and reputational damage (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ). Therefore, when possible, academics should produce ground rules acceptable to academics and policymakers. They should be honest and thoughtful about how, when, and why to engage; and recognise the labour and resources required for successful engagement (Boaz et al., 2018 ). Successful engagement may require all parties to agree about processes , including ethics, consent, and confidentiality, and outputs , including data, intellectual property (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ; Game et al., 2015 ; Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ). The organic development of these networks and contacts takes time and effort, and should be recognised as assets, particularly when offered new contacts by colleagues (Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ; Boaz et al., 2018 )

Be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is

Much of the ‘how to’ advice projects an image of a daring, persuasive scientist, comfortable in policy environments and always available when needed (Datta, 2018 ), by using mentors to build networks, or through ‘cold calling’ (Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018 ). Some ideas and values need to be fought for if they are to achieve dominance (Coffait, 2017 ; Docquier, 2017 ), and multiple strategies may be required, from leveraging trust in academics to advocating more generally for evidence based policy (Garrett, 2018 ). Academics are advised to develop “media-savvy” skills (Sebba, 2011 ), learn how to “sell the sizzle”(Farmer, 2010 ), become able to “convince people who think differently that shared action is possible,” (Fischoff, 2015 ), but also be pragmatic, by identifying real, tangible impacts and delivering them (Reed and Evely, 2016 ). Such a range of requirements may imply that being constantly available, and becoming part of the scenery, makes it more likely for a researcher to be the person to hand in an hour of need (Goodwin, 2013 ). Or, it could prompt a researcher to recognise their relative inability to be persuasive, and to hire a ‘knowledge broker’ to act on their behalf (Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ; Quarmby, 2018 ).

Reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working?

Academics may be a good fit in the policy arena if they ‘want to be in real world’, ‘enjoy finding solutions to complex problems’ (Echt, 2017a ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ), or are driven ‘by a passion greater than simply adding another item to your CV’ (Burgess, 2005 ). They should be genuinely motivated to take part in policy engagement, seeing it as a valuable exercise in its own right, as opposed to something instrumental to merely improve the stated impact of research (Goodwin, 2013 ). For example, scientists can “engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy” (Rose, 2015 ). They can converse with policymakers about how science and scientific careers are affected by science policy, as a means of promoting more useful support within government (Pain, 2014 ). Or, they can use teaching to get students involved at an early stage in their careers, to train a new generation of impact-ready entrepreneurs (Hayes and Wilson, 2018 ). Such a profound requirement of one’s time should prompt constant reflection and refinement of practice. It is hard to know what our impact may be or how to sustain it (Reed and Evely, 2016 ). Therefore, academics who wish to engage must learn and reflect on the consequences of their actions (Datta, 2018 ; Topp et al., 2018 ).

The wider literature on the wider policymaking context

Our observation of this advice is that it is rather vague, very broad, and each theme contains a diversity of opinions. We also argue that much of this advice is based on misunderstandings about policy processes, and the roles of researchers and policymakers. We summarise these misunderstandings below (see Table 2 for an overview), by drawing a wider range of sources such as policy studies literature (Cairney, 2016 ) and a systematic review of factors influencing evidence use in policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ), to identify the wider context in which to understand and use these tips. We also contextualise these discussions in the broader evidence and policy/practice literature.

Firstly, there is no consensus over what counts as good evidence for policy (Oliver and de Vocht, 2015 ), and therefore how best to communicate good evidence . While we can probably agree what constitutes high quality research within each field, the criteria we use to assess it in many disciplines (such as generalisability and methodological rigour) have far lower salience for policymakers (Hammersley, 2013 ; Locock and Boaz, 2004 ). They do not adhere to the scientific idea of a ‘knowledge deficit’ in which our main collective aim is to reduce policymaker uncertainty by producing more of the best scientific evidence (Crow and Jones, 2018 ). Rather, evidence garners credibility, legitimacy and usefulness through its connections to individuals, networks and topical issues (Cash et al., 2003 ; Boaz et al., 2015 ; Oliver and Faul, 2018 ).

One way in which to understand the practical outcome of this distinction is to consider the profound consequences arising from the ways in which policymakers address their ‘bounded rationality’ (Simon, 1976 ; Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). Individuals seek cognitive shortcuts to avoid decision-making ‘paralysis’—when faced with an overwhelming amount of possibly-relevant information—and allow them to process information efficiently enough to make choices (Gigerenzer and Selten, 2001 ). They combine ‘rational’ shortcuts, including trust in expertise and scientific sources, and ‘irrational’ shortcuts, to use their beliefs, emotions, habits, and familiarity with issues to identify policy problems and solutions (see Haidt, 2001 ; Kahneman, 2011 ; Lewis, 2013 ; Baumgartner, 2017 ; Jones and Thomas, 2017 ; Sloman and Fernbach, 2017 ). Therefore, we need to understand how they use such shortcuts to interpret their world, pay attention to issues, define issues as policy problems, and become more or less receptive to proposed solutions. In this scenario, effective policy actors—including advocates of research evidence—frame evidence to address the many ways to interpret policy problems (Cairney, 2016 ; Wellstead et al. 2018 ) and compete to draw attention to one ‘image’ of a problem and one feasible solution at the expense of the competition (Kingdon and Thurber, 1984 ; Majone, 1989 ; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993 ; Zahariadis, 2007 ). This debate determines the demand for evidence.

Secondly, there is little empirical guidance on how to gain the wide range of skills that researchers and policymakers need, to act collectively to address policymaking complexity, including to: produce evidence syntheses, manage expert communities, ‘co-produce’ research and policy with a wide range of stakeholders, and be prepared to offer policy recommendations as well as scientific advice (Topp et al., 2018 ). The list of skills includes the need to understand the policy processes in which you engage, such as by understanding the constituent parts of policymaking environments (John, 2003 , p. 488; (Cairney and Heikkila, 2014 ), p. 364–366) and their implications for the use of evidence:

Many actors make and influence policy in many ‘venues’ across many levels and types of government. Therefore, it is difficult to know where the ‘action’ is.

Each venue has its own ‘institutions’, or rules and norms maintained by many policymaking organisations. These rules can be formal and well understood, or informal, unwritten, and difficult to grasp (Ostrom, 2007a , 2007b ). Therefore, it takes time to learn the rules before being able to use them effectively.

These ‘rules of the game’ extend to policy networks, or the relationships between policymakers and influencers, many of which develop in ‘subsystems’ and contain relatively small groups of specialists. One can be a privileged insider in one venue but excluded from another, and the outcome may relate minimally to evidence.

Networks often reproduce dominant ‘ideas’ regarding the nature of the policy problem, the language we use to describe it, and the political feasibility of potential solutions (Kingdon and Thurber, 1984 ). Therefore, framing can make the difference between being listened to or ignored.

Policy conditions and events can reinforce or destabilise institutions. Evidence presented during crises or ‘focusing events’ (Birkland, 1997 ) can prompt lurches of attention from one issue to another, but this outcome is rare, and policy can remain unchanged for decades.

A one-size fits-all model is unlikely to help researchers navigate this environment where different audiences and institutions have different cultures, preferences and networks. Gaining knowledge of the complex policy context can be extremely challenging, yet the implications are profoundly important. In that context, theory-informed studies recommend investing your time over the long term, to build up alliances, trust in the messenger, knowledge of the system, and exploit ‘windows of opportunity’ for policy change (Cairney, 2016 , p.124). However, they also suggest that this investment of time may pay off only after years or decades—or not at all (Cairney and Oliver, 2018 ).

This context could have a profound impact on the way in which we interpret the eight tips. For example, it may:

tip the balance from scientific to policy-relevant measures of evidence quality;

shift the ways in which we communicate evidence from a focus on clarity to an emphasis on framing;

suggest that we need to engage with policymakers to such an extent that the division between honest broker and issue advocate become blurry;

prompt us to focus less on the ‘entrepreneurial’ skills of individual researchers and more on the nature of their environment; and

inform reflection on our role, since successful engagement may feel more like a career choice than an event.

Throughout this process, we need to decide what policy engagement is for —whether it is to frame problems or simply measure them according to an existing frame—and how far researchers should go to be useful and influential . While immersing oneself fully in policy processes may be the best way to achieve credibility and impact for researchers, there are significant consequences of becoming a political actor (Jasanoff and Polsby, 1991 ; Pielke, 2007 ; Haynes et al., 2011 ; Douglas, 2015 ). The most common consequences include criticism within one’s peer-group (Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ), being seen as an academic ‘lightweight’ (Maynard, 2015 ), and being used to add legitimacy to a policy position (Himmrich, 2016 ; Reed and Evely, 2016 ; Crouzat et al., 2018 ). More serious consequences include a loss of status completely—David Nutt famously lost his advisory role after publicly criticising UK government drug policy—and the loss of one’s safety if adopting an activist mindset (Zevallos, 2017 ). If academics need to go ‘all in’ to secure meaningful impact, we need to reflect on the extent to which they have the resources and support to do so.

Three major dilemmas in policy engagement

These misunderstandings matter, because well-meaning people are giving recommendations that are not based on empirical evidence, and may lead to significant risks, such as reputational damage and wasted resources. Further, their audience may reinforce this problem by holding onto deficit models of science and policy, and equating policy impact with a simple linear policy cycle. When unsuccessful, despite taking the ‘how to’ advice to heart, researchers may blame politics and policymakers rather than reflecting on their own role in a process they do not understand fully.

Although it is possible to synthesise the ‘how to’ advice into eight main themes, many categories contain a wide range of beliefs or recommendations within a very broad description of qualities like’ accessibility’ and ‘engagement’. We interrogate key examples to identify the wide range of (potentially contradictory) advice about the actual and desirable role of researchers in politics: whether to engage, how to engage, and the purpose of engagement.

Should academics try to influence policy?

A key area of disagreement was over the normative question of whether academics should advocate for policy positions, try to persuade policymakers of particular courses of action (e.g., Tilley et al., 2017 ), offer policy implications from their research (Goodwin, 2013 ), or be careful not to promote particular methods and policy approaches (Gluckman, 2014 ; Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ; Prehn, 2018 ). Aspects of the debate include:

The public duty to engage versus the need to protect science . Several pieces argued that publicly-paid academics should regard policy impact as a professional duty (Shergold, 2011 ; Tyler, 2017 ). If so, they should try: to influence policy by framing evidence into dominant policy narratives or to address issues that policymakers care about (Rose, 2015 ; Hillman, 2016 ; King, 2016 ), and engage in politics directly or when needed (Farmer, 2010 ; Petes and Meyer, 2018 ). Others felt that it risked an academic’s main asset – their independence of advice (Whitty, 2015 ; Alberts et al., 2018 ; Dodsworth and Cheeseman, 2018 )—and that this political role should be left to the specialists, such as scientific advisors (Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016 ). Others emphasise the potential costs to self-censorship (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ), and the tension between being elite versus inclusive and accessible (Collins, 2011 ).

The potential for conflict and reputational damage . Some identify the tension between being able to provide rational advice to shape political discourse and the potential for conflict (De Kerckhove et al., 2015 ). Others rejected it as a false dichotomy, arguing that advocacy is a “continuous process of establishing relationships and creating a community of experts both in and outside of government who can give informed input on policies” (Himmrich, 2016 ).

The need to represent academics and academia : Some recommend discussing topics beyond your narrow expertise—almost as a representative for your field or profession (Petes and Meyer, 2018 )—while others caution against it, since speaking about one’s own expertise is the best way to maintain credibility (Marshall and Cvitanovic, 2017 ).

Such debates imply a choice to engage and do not routinely consider the unequal effects built on imbalances of power (Cairney and Oliver, 2018 ). Many researchers are required to show impact and it is not strictly a choice to engage. Further, there are significant career costs to engagement, which are relatively difficult to incur by more junior or untenured researchers, while women and people of colour may be more subject to personal abuse or exploitation. The risk of burnout, or the opportunity cost of doing impact rather than conducting the main activities of teaching and research jobs is too high for many (Graffy, 1999 ; Fischoff, 2015 ). Being constantly available, engaging with no clear guarantee of impact or success, with no payment for time or even travel is not possible for many researchers, even if that is the most likely way to achieve impact. This means that the diversity of voices available to policy is limited (Oliver and Faul, 2018 ). Much of the ‘how to’ advice is tailored to individuals without taking into account these systemic issues. They are mostly drawn from the experiences of people who consider themselves successful at influencing policy. The advice is likely to be useful mostly to a relatively similar group of people who are confident, comfortable in policy environments, and have both access and credibility within policy spaces. Thus, the current advice and structures may help reproduce and reinforce existing power dynamics and an underrepresentation of women, BAME, and people who otherwise do not fit the very narrow mould (Cairney and Oliver, 2018 )—even extending to the exclusion of academics from certain institutions or circles (Smith and Stewart, 2017 ).

How should academics influence policy?

A second dilemma is: how should academics try to influence policy? By merely stating the facts well, telling stories to influence our audience more, or working with our audience to help produce policy directly? Three main approaches were identified in the reviews. Firstly, to use specific tools such as evidence syntheses, or social media, to improve engagement (Thomson, 2013 ; Caird et al., 2015 ). This approach fits with the ‘deficit’ model of the evidence-policy relationships, whereby researchers merely provide content for others to work with. As extensively discussed elsewhere, this method, while safe, has not been shown to be effective at achieving policy change; and underpinning much of the advice in this strain are some serious misunderstandings about the practicalities, psychology and real world nature of policy change and information flow (Sturgis and Allum, 2004 ; Fernández, 2016 ; Simis et al., 2016 ).

Secondly, to use emotional appeals and storytelling to craft attractive narratives with the explicit aim of shaping policy options (Jones and Crow, 2017 ; Crow and Jones, 2018 ). Leaving aside the normative question of the independence of scientific research, or researchers’ responsibilities to represent data fully and honestly (Pielke, 2007 ), this strategy makes practical demands on the researcher. It requires having the personal charisma to engage diverse audiences and seem persuasive yet even-handed. Some of the advice suggests that academics try to seem pragmatic and equable about the outcome of any such approach, although not always clear whether this was to help the researcher seem more worldly-wise and sensible, or simply as a self-protective mechanism (King, 2016 ). Either way, deciding how to seem omnipotent yet credible; humble but authoritative; straightforward yet not over-simplifying—all while still appearing authentic—is probably beyond the scope of most of our acting abilities.

Thirdly, to collaborate (Oliver et al., 2014 ). Co-production is widely hailed as the most likely way to promote the use of research evidence in policy, as it would enable researchers to respond to policy agendas, and enable more agile multidisciplinary teams to coalesce around topical policy problems. There are also trade-offs to this way of working (Flinders et al., 2016 ). Researchers have to cede control over the research agenda and interpretations. This can give rise to accusations of bias, partisanship, or at least partiality for one political view over another. There are significant reputational risks involved in collaboration, within the academic community and outside it. Pragmatically, there are practical and logistical concerns about how and when to maintain control of intellectual property and access to data. More broadly, it may cloud one’s judgement about the research in hand, hindering one’s ability to think or speak critically without damaging working relationships.

What is the purpose of academics engagement in policymaking?

Authors do not always tell us the purpose of engagement before they tell us how to do it. Some warn against ‘tokenistic’ engagement, and there is plenty of advice for academics wanting to build ‘genuine’ rapport with policymakers to make their research more useful. Yet, it is not always clear if researchers should try and seem authentically interested in policymakers as a means of achieving impact or actually to listen, learn, and cede some control over the research process. The former can be damaging to the profession. As Goodwin points out, it’s not just policymakers who may feel short-changed by transactional relationships: “by treating policy engagement as an inconvenient and time-consuming ‘bolt on' you may close doors that could be left open for academics who genuinely care about this collaborative process” (Goodwin, 2013 ). The latter option is more radical. It involves a fundamentally different way of doing public engagement: one with no clear aim in mind other than to listen and learn, with the potential to transform research practices and outputs (Parry-Davies and Newell, 2014 ).

Although the literature helps us frame such dilemmas, it does not choose for us how to solve them. There are no clear answers on how scientists should act in relation to policymaking or the public (Mazanderani and Latour, 2018 ), but we can at least identify and clarify the dilemmas we face, and seek ways to navigate them. Therefore, it is imperative to move quickly from basic ‘how to’ advice towards a deeper understanding of the profound choices that shape careers and lives.

Conclusions

Academics are routinely urged to create impact from their research; to change policy, practice, and even population outcomes. There are, however, few empirical evaluations of strategies to enable academics to create impact. This lack of empirical evidence has not prevented people from offering advice based on their personal experience, rather than concrete evaluations of strategies to increase impact. Much of the advice demonstrates a limited understanding or description of policy processes and the wider social aspects of ‘doing’ science and research. The interactions between knowledge production and use may be so complex that abstract ‘how to’ advice is limited in use. The ‘how to’ advice has a potentially immense range, from very practical issues (how long should an executive summary be?) to very profound (should I risk my safety to secure policy change?), but few authors situate themselves in that wider context in which they provide advice.

There are some more thoughtful approaches which recognise more complex aspects of the task of influencing policy: the emotional, practical and cognitive labour of engaging; that it often goes unrewarded by employers; that impact is never certain, so engagement may remain unrewarded; and, that our current advice, structures and incentives have important implications for how we think about the roles and responsibilities of scientists when engaging with publics. Some of the ‘how to’ literature also considers the wider context of research production and use, noting that the risks and responsibilities are borne by individuals and, for example, one individual cannot possibly to get to know the whole policy machinery or predict the consequences of their engagement on policy or themselves. For example, universities, funders and academics are advised to develop incentives, structures to make ‘impact’ happen more easily (Kerr et al., 2015 ; Colglazier, 2016 ); and remove any actual or perceived penalisation of ‘doing’ public engagement (Maynard, 2015 ). Some suggest universities should move into the knowledge brokerage space, acting more like think-tanks (Shergold, 2011 ) by creating and championing policy-relevant evidence (Tyler, 2017 ), and providing “embedded gateways” which offer access to credible and high-quality research (Green, 2016 ). Similarly, governments have their own science advisory system which, they are advised, should be both independent, and inclusive and accountable (Morgan et al., 2001 ; Malakoff, 2017 ). Government and Parliament need to be mindful about the diversity of the experts and voices on which they draw. For example, historians and ethicists could help policymakers question their assumptions and explore historical patterns of policies and policy narratives in particular areas (Evans, 2013 ; Haddon et al., 2015 ) but economics and law have more currency with policymakers (Tyler, 2013 ).

However, we were often struck by the limited range of advice offered to academics, many of whom are at the beginning of their careers. This gap may leave each generation of scientists to fight the same battles, and learn the same lessons over again. In the absence of evidence about the effectiveness of these approaches, all one can do is suggest a cautious, learning approach to coproduction and engagement, while recognising that there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits all model which would lead to simple, actionable advice. Further, we do not detect a coherent vision for wider academy-policymaker relations. Since the impact agenda (in the UK, at least) is unlikely to recede any time soon, our best response as a profession is to interrogate it, shape and frame it, and to help us all to find ways to navigate the complex practical, political, moral and ethical challenges associated with being researchers today. The ‘how to’ literature can help, but only if authors are cognisant of their wider role in society and complex policymaking systems.

For some commentators, engagement is a safe choice tacked onto academic work. Yet, for many others, it is a more profound choice to engage for policy change while accepting that the punishments (such as personal threats or abuse) versus rewards (such as impact and career development opportunities) are shared highly unevenly across socioeconomic groups. Policy engagement is a career choice in which we seek opportunities for impact that may never arise, not an event in which an intense period of engagement produces results proportionate to effort.

Overall, we argue that the existing advice offered to academics on how to create impact is not based on empirical evidence, or on good understandings of key literatures on policymaking or evidence use. This leads to significant misunderstandings, and advice which can have potentially costly repercussions for research, researchers and policy. These limitations matter, as they lead to advice which fails to address core dilemmas for academics—whether to engage, how to engage, and why—which have profound implications for how scientists and universities should respond to the call for increased impact. Most of these tips focus on the individuals, whereas engagement between research and policy is driven by systemic factors.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

17 march 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Aguinis H, Werner S, Lanza Abbott J, Angert C, Joon Hyung P, Kohlhausen D (2010) Customer-centric science: reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organ Res Methods 13(3):515–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109333339

Article   Google Scholar  

Alberts B, Gold BD, Lee Martin L, Maxon ME, Martin LL, Maxon ME (2018) How to bring science and technology expertise to state governments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(9):19521955. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800543115

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Allen DD, Lauffenburger J, Law AV, Pete Vanderveen R, Lang WG (2012) Report of the 2011-2012 standing committee on advocacy: the relevance of excellent research: strategies for impacting public policy. Am J Pharmaceut Educ 76(6). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe766S6

Andermann A, Pang T, Newton JN, Davis A, Panisset U (2016) Evidence for health II: overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice. Health Res Policy Syst 14(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0086-3 . BioMed Central

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aurum (1971) Letter from London: science policy and the question of relevancy. Bull At Sci Routledge 27(6):25–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1971.11455376

Basbøll T (2018) We need our scientists to build models that frame our policies, not to tell stories that shape them, LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/07/30/we-need-our-scientists-to-build-models-that-frame-our-policies-not-to-tell-stories-that-shape-them/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Baumgartner FR (2017) Endogenous disjoint change. Cogn Syst Res 44:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.001

Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (1993) Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd IL (2015) How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research. Environ Sci Eur 27(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-015-0041-x

Birkland TA (1997) After disaster: agenda, public policy, and focusing events. American governance and public policy. Georgetown University Press, 178. http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/after-disaster . Accessed 17 July 2018

Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A (2011) Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 .

Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M (2018) How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6 . BioMed Central

Boaz A, Locock L, Ward V (2015) Whose evidence is it anyway? Evidence and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426515X14313738355534

Bondi H (1982) Science adviser to government. Interdiscip Sci Rev 7(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801882789801269

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Boyd I (2013) Research: a standard for policy-relevant science. Nature 501(7466):159–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/501159a

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brumley C (2014) Academia and storytelling are compatible–how to reduce the risks and gain control of your research narrative. LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/27/academic-storytelling-risk-reduction/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Burgess J (2005) Follow the argument where it leads: Some personal reflections on “policy-relevant” research. Trans Inst Br Geogr 30(3):273–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474720500209X

Caird J, Sutcliffe K, Kwan I, Dickson K, Thomas J (2015) Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evid Policy 11(1):81–97. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13988609036850

Cairney P (2016) The politics of evidence-based policy making, The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. 1–137. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4

Google Scholar  

Cairney P, Heikkila T (2014) A comparison of theories of the policy process. Theor Policy Process. p. 301–324

Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R (2017) How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications 3(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8

Cairney P, Oliver K (2018) How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Polit Stud Rev https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807714

Cairney P (2017) Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs|Paul Cairney: Politics and Public Policy, https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/three-habits-of-successful-policy-entrepreneurs/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chapman JM, Algera D, Dick M, Hawkins EE, Lawrence MJ, Lennox RJ, Rous AM, Souliere CM, Stemberger HLJ, Struthers DP, Vu M, Ward TD, Zolderdo AJ, Cooke SJ (2015) Being relevant: practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems. Glob Ecol Conserv 4:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.07.013

Coffait L (2017) Academics as policy entrepreneurs? Prepare to fight for your ideas (if you want to win), Wonkhe. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/academics-as-policy-entrepreneurs-prepare-to-fight-for-your-ideas-if-you-want-to-win/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Colglazier B (2016) Encourage governments to heed scientific advice. Nature 537(7622):587. https://doi.org/10.1038/537587a

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Collins P (2011) Quality control in scientific policy advice: the experience of the Royal Society. Polit Scient Adv https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777141.018

Crouzat E, Arpin I, Brunet L, Colloff MJ, Turkelboom F, Lavorel S (2018) Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy. Ambio 47(1):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0939-1

Crow D, Jones M (2018) Narratives as tools for influencing policy change. Policy Polit 46(2):217–234. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230061022899

Datta A (2018, July 11) Complexity and paradox: lessons from Indonesia. On Think Tanks https://onthinktanks.org/articles/complexity-and-paradox-lessons-from-indonesia/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Docquier D (2017) Communicating your research to policy makers and journalists–Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/communicating-science-to-policymakers-and-journalists/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Dodsworth S, Cheeseman N (2018) Five lessons for researchers who want to collaborate with governments and development organisations but avoid the common pitfalls. LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/02/05/five-lessons-for-researchers-who-want-to-collaborate-with-governments-and-development-organisations-but-avoid-the-common-pitfalls/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, Craig C, Vallance P, Walport M, Whitty CJM, Woods E, Wormald C (2018) Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature 558(7710):361–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05414-4

Douglas H (2012) Weighing complex evidence in a democratic society. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 22(2):139–162. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2012.0009

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Douglas H (2015) Politics and science: untangling values, ideologies, and reasons. Ann Am Acad Political Social Sci 658(1):296–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214557237

Echt L (2017a) “Context matters”: a framework to help connect knowledge with policy in government institutions, LSE Impact blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/12/19/context-matters-a-framework-to-help-connect-knowledge-with-policy-in-government-institutions/ Accessed 10 July 2018

Echt L (2017b) How can we make our research to be policy relevant? | Politics and Ideas: A Think Net, Politics and Ideas. http://www.politicsandideas.org/?p=3602 . Accessed 10 July 2018

Editorial (1972) Science research council advises the government. Nature 239(5370):243–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/239243a0 . Nature Publishing Group

Eisenstein M (2017) The needs of the many. Nature 551. https://doi.org/10.1038/456296a .

Evans J (2013, Feburary 19) How arts and humanities can influence public policy. HuffPost . https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jules-evans/arts-humanities-influence-public-policy_b_2709614.html . Accessed 9 July 2018

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 4(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

Fafard P (2015) Beyond the usual suspects: using political science to enhance public health policy making. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1129:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204608 .

Farmer R (2010) How to influence government policy with your research: tips from practicing political scientists in government. Political Sci Polit 43(4):717–719. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510001368

Fernández RJ (2016) How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. Environ Sci & Policy 64:171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.07.006

Fischoff M (2015) How can academics engage effectively in public and political discourse? At a 2015 conference, experts described how and why academics should reach out. Network for Business Sustainability

Fleming AH, Pyenson ND (2017) How to produce translational research to guide arctic policy. BioScience 67(6):490–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix002

Flinders M, Wood M, Cunningham M (2016) The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution. Evid Policy 12(2):261–279. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14412037949967

Game ET, Schwartz MW, Knight AT (2015) Policy relevant conservation science. Conserv Lett 8(5):309–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12207

Garrett T (2018) Moving an Evidence-based Policy Agenda Forward: Leadership Tips from the Field. NASN Sch Nurse 33(3):158–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942602X18766481

Gigerenzer G, Selten R (2001) The adaptive toolbox. In: G. Gigerenzer, R. Selten (eds) Bounded rationality The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press: Cambridge, pp. 37–50

Gluckman P (2014) The art of science advice to the government. Nature 507:163–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/507163a

Goodwin M (2013) How academics can engage with policy: 10 tips for a better Conversation, The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/mar/25/academics-policy-engagement-ten-tips

Gough D, Oliver S and Thomas J (2012) Introducing systematic reviews. In: An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

Graffy EA (1999) Enhancing policy-relevance without burning up or burning out: a strategy for scientists, in Science into policy: water in the public realm. The Association, pp. 293–298. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=AdvancedSearch&qid=3&SID=D3Y7AMjSYyfgCmiXBUw&page=21&doc=208 . Accessed 9 Jul 2018

Green D (2016) How academics and NGOs can work together to influence policy: insights from the InterAction report, LSE Impact blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/09/23/how-academics-and-ngos-can-work-together-to-influence-policy-insights-from-the-interaction-report/ . Accessed 10 July 2018

Green LW, Glasgow RE, Atkins D, Stange K (2009) Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice. slips “Twixt Cup and Lip”. Am J Prev Med 37(6 SUPPL. 1):S187–S191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.08.017

Haddon C, Devanny J, Forsdick PC, Thompson PA (2015) What is the value of history in policymaking? https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/what-value-history-policymaking . Accessed 10 July 2018

Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108(4):814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hammersley M (2013) The myth of research-based policy and practice

Havens B (1992) Making research relevant to policy. Gerontologist 32(2):273. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/32.2.273

Hayes S, Wilson C (2018) Being ‘resourceful’ in academic engagement with parliament | Wonkhe | Comment, Wonkhe. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/being-resourceful-in-academic-engagement-with-parliament/ . Accessed 12 July 2018

Haynes AS, Derrick GE, Chapman S, Redman S, Hall WD, Gillespie J, Sturk H (2011) From “our world” to the “real world”: Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers. Social Sci Med 72(7):1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.004

Head BW (2010) Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Policy Soc 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001

Hillman N (2016) The 10 commandments for influencing policymakers | THE Comment, Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/the-10-commandments-for-influencing-policymakers . Accessed 9 July 2018

Himmrich J (2016) How should academics interact with policy makers? Lessons on building a long-term advocacy strategy. LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/06/20/how-should-academics-interact-with-policy-makers-lessons-on-building-a-longterm-advocacy-strategy/ . Accessed 10 July 2018

Hutchings JA, Stenseth NC (2016) Communication of science advice to government. Trends Ecol Evol 31(1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.008

Jasanoff S, Polsby NW (1991) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Contemp Sociol 20(5):727. https://doi.org/10.2307/2072218

Jo Clift Consulting (2016) Are you trying to get your voice heard in Government?–Jo Clift’s Personal Website. http://jocliftconsulting.strikingly.com/blog/are-you-trying-to-get-your-voice-heard-in-government . Accessed 10 July 2018

John P (2003) Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Stud J 31(4):481–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0072.00039

Jones BD, Thomas HF (2017) The cognitive underpinnings of policy process studies: Introduction to a special issue of Cognitive Systems Research. Cogn Syst Res 45:48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.003

Jones M, Crow D (2018) Mastering the art of the narrative: using stories to shape public policy–Google Search, LSE Impact blog. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=astering+the+art+of+the+narrative%3A+using+stories+to+shape+public+policy&rlz=1C1GGRV_en-GBGB808GB808&oq=astering+the+art+of+the+narrative%3A+using+stories+to+shape+public+policy&aqs=chrome..69i57.17213j0j4&sourceid=chrom Accessed 6 Aug 2018

Jones Michael D, Anderson Crow D (2017) How can we use the “science of stories” to produce persuasive scientific stories. Palgrave Commun 3(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0047-7

Kahneman DC, Patrick E (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912453207

De Kerckhove DT, Rennie MD, Cormier R (2015) Censoring government scientists and the role of consensus in science advice: a structured process for scientific advice in governments and peer-review in academia should shape science communication strategies. EMBO Rep 16(3):263–266. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439680

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kerr EA, Riba M, Udow-Phillips M (2015) Helping health service researchers and policy makers speak the same language. Health Serv Res 50(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12198

King A (2016) Science, politics and policymaking. EMBO Rep 17(11):1510–1512. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643381

Kingdon J Thurber J (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. https://schar.gmu.edu/sites/default/files/current-students/Courses/Fall_2017/PUAD/Regan-PUAD-540-002-Fall-17.pdf . Accessed 31 Jan 2018

Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P (2017) Methodology of the “craft” of scientific advice for policy and practice. J Clin Epidemiol 82:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.005

Koshland Jr. DE, Koshland Jr. DE, Koshland DE, Abelson PH (1988) Science advice to the president. Science 242(4885):1489. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.242.4885.1489

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Krige J (1990) Scientists as Policy-makers - British Physicists Advice to Their Government on Membership of CERN (1951-1952). Science History Publications, U.S.A. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&-search_mode=AdvancedSearch&qid=3&SID=D3Y7AMjSYyfgCmiXBUw&page=11&doc=105 Accessed 9 July 2018

Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052

Lawler A (1997) Academy seeks government help to fight openness law. Science 473. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.473

de Leeuw E, McNess A, Crisp B, Stagnitti K (2008) Theoretical reflections on the nexus between research, policy and practice. Critical Public Health https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590801949924

Lepkowski W (1984) Heritage-foundation science policy advice for reagan. Chem Eng News 62(51):20–21. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v062n051.p020

Lewis PG (2013) Policy thinking, fast and slow: a social intuitionist perspective on public policy processes. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300479 . Accessed 17 July 2018

Lloyd J (2016) Should academics be expected to change policy? Six reasons why it is unrealistic for research to drive policy change, LSE Impact Blod. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/05/25/should-academics-be-expected-to-change-policy-six-reasons-why-it-is-unrealistic/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Locock L, Boaz A (2004) Research, policy and practice–worlds apart? Social Policy Soc https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746404002003

Lucey JM, Palmer G, Yeong KL, Edwards DP, Senior MJM, Scriven SA, Reynolds G, Hill JK (2017) Reframing the evidence base for policy-relevance to increase impact: a case study on forest fragmentation in the oil palm sector. J Appl Ecol 54(3):731–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12845

Maddox G (1996) Policy-relevant health services research: who needs it? J Health Serv Res Policy 1(3):167–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581969600100309

Majone G (1989) Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300052596/evidence-argument-and-persuasion-policy-process . Accessed 17 July 2018

Malakoff D (2017) A battle over the “best science. Science. Am Assoc Advan Sci 1108–1109. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.355.6330.1108

Marshall E (1980) Advising reagan on science policy. Science 210(4472):880–881. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.210.4472.880

Marshall N, Cvitanovic C (2017) Ten top tips for social scientists seeking to influence policy, LSE Impact Blog

Masood E (1999) UK panel formed to rebuild trust in government science advice. Nature 397(6719):458. https://doi.org/10.1038/17161

Maybin J (2016) How proximity and trust are key factors in getting research to feed into policymaking, LSE Impact Blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/09/12/how-proximity-and-trust-are-key-factors-in-getting-research-to-feed-into-policymaking/ . Accessed 1 Aug 2018

Mayer J (1982) Science advisers to the government. Science 215(4535):921. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4535.921

Maynard, A. (2015) Is public engagement really career limiting? Times Higher Education

Mazanderani F and Latour B (2018) The Whole World is Becoming Science Studies: Fadhila Mazanderani Talks with Bruno Latour. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4(0): 284. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2018.237

Morandi L (2009) Essential nexus. how to use research to inform and evaluate public policy. Am J Prev Med 36(2 SUPPL.):S53–S54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.10.005

Morgan MG, Houghton A, Gibbons JH (2001) Science and government: Improving science and technology advice for congress. Science . 1999–2000. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1065128

NCCPE (2018) How can you engage with policy makers? https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/do-engagement/understanding-audiences/policy-makers . Accessed 10 July 2018

Nichols RW (1972) Some practical problems of scientist-advisers. Minerva 10(4):603–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01695907

Nichols RW (1988) Science and technology advice to government. To not know is no sin; To not ask is. Technol Soc 10(3):285–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791X(88)90011-5

Norse D (2005) The nitrogen cycle, scientific uncertainty and policy relevant science. Sci China Ser C, Life Sci / Chin Acad Sci 48(Suppl 2):807–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03187120

Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO (2007) Using evidence: how research can inform public services. Policy Press. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/U/bo13441009.html . Accessed 21 Jan 2019

Oakley A, Strange V, Toroyan T, Wiggins M, Roberts I, Stephenson J (2003) Using random allocation to evaluate social interventions: three recent U.K. examples. Ann Am Acad Political Social Sci 589(1):170–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203254765

Olander L, Polasky S, Kagan JS, Johnston RJ, Wainger L, Saah D, Maguire L, Boyd J, Yoskowitz D (2017) So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst Serv 26:170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.003

Oliver KA, de Vocht F (2015) Defining “evidence” in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health. ckv082. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv082

Oliver K, Faul MV (2018) Networks and network analysis in evidence, policy and practice. Evidence and Policy 14(3): 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418X15314037224597

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2

Ostrom E (2007a) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. Theor Policy Process . 21–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Ostrom E (2007b) Sustainable social-ecological systems: an impossibility. Presented at the 2007 Annual Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being ” . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.997834

Pain E (2014) How scientists can influence policy. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1400042

Parkhurst J (2017) The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Routledge Studies in Governance and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675008

Book   Google Scholar  

Parry-Davies E, Newell P (2014, July, 21) 10 ways to make public engagement work for you | Higher Education Network | The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/jul/21/10-ways-make-public-engagement-work-for-you . Accessed 10 July 2018

Petes LE, Meyer MD (2018) An ecologist’s guide to careers in science policy advising. Front Ecol Environ 16(1):53–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1761

Petticrew M, Roberts H (2008) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide, systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Sociol Health Illness. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Honest Broker https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

POST (2017) Getting your research into parliament-Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/getting-your-research-into-parliament/ . Accessed 9 July 2018

Prehn T (2018, May 24) Thomas Prehn’s innovation diary: What I learned at MindLab. Apolitical

Quarmby S (2018) Evidence-informed policymaking: does knowledge brokering work? LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/evidence-informed-policymaking-knowledge-brokers/

Reed, M. and Evely, A. (2016) How can your research have more impact? Five key principles and practical tips for effective knowledge exchange. LSE Impact blog. pp. 1–5. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/07/07/how-can-your-research-have-more-impact-5-key-principles-tips/ . Accessed 10 July 2018

Rose DC (2015) The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conserv Biol 29(3):748–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12444

Sapolsky HM (1968) Science advice for state and local government. Science 160(3825):280–284. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.160.3825.280

Sebba J (2011) Getting research into policy: the role of think tanks and other mediators. LSE Impact blog. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/03/07/getting-research-into-policy-the-role-of-think-tanks-and-other-mediators/. Accessed 10 July 2018

Shergold P (Interviewee) (2011, November 8) Let’s close the gap between academics and policy makers: Peter Shergold on changing the system. The Conversation

Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2010) Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 .

Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci 25(4):400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

Simon H (1976) Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization, PsycNET. 3rd edn. New York: Free Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-21554-000 Accessed 5 Feb 2019

Sloman S, Fernbach P (2017) The knowledge illusion: why we never think alone

Smith KE, Stewart E (2015) “Black magic” and “gold dust”: the epistemic and political uses of evidence tools in public health policy making. Evid Policy 11(3):415–437. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14381786400158

Smith KE, Stewart E (2017) We need to talk about impact: why social policy academics need to engage with the UK’s research impact agenda. J Social Policy 46(01):109–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000283

Srinivasan TN (2000) The Washington consensus a decade later: Ideology and the art and science of policy advice. World Bank Res Obs 15(2):265–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.265

Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690

Sutherland WJ (2013) Review by quality not quantity for better policy. Nature 503(7475):167. https://doi.org/10.1038/503167a

Sutherland WJ, Burgman MA (2015) Policy advice: se experts wisely, Nature 317–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/526317a .

Sy KJ (1989) As scientists and citizens: profiles and perspectives of academic advisers to state government. Sci Commun 10(4):280–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708901000403

Tesar C, Dubois MA, Shestakov A (2016) Toward strategic, coherent, policy-relevant arctic science. Science 353(6306):1368–1370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8198

Thomson H (2013) Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: the three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources]). Am J Public Health 103(8):e17–e23. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301400

Tilley H, Shaxson L, Rea J, Ball L, Young J (2017) 10 things to know about how to influence policy with research. London. https://www.odi.org/publications/10671-10-things-know-about-how-influence-policy-research . Accessed 9 July 2018

Topp L, Mair D, Smillie L, Cairney P (2018) Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre Introduction: why we need knowledge management for policy. Palgrave Commun 4(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0143-3

Tyler C (2013, December) Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making. The Guarduna , pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen

Tyler C (2017) Wanted: academics wise to the needs of government. Nature 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-07744-1 .

Tyndall J (2008) How low can you go?: toward a hierarchy of grey literature, Flinders Academic Commons. http://www.alia2008.com . Accessed 21 Jan 2019

Walley J, Khan MA, Witter S, Haque R, Newell J, Wei X (2018) Embedded health service development and research: why and how to do it (a ten-stage guide). Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0344-7

Walsh J (1973) Science policy: committee wants adviser to use active voice. Science 181(4098):421–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.181.4098.421

Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39(5):426. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916

Wellstead A, Cairney P, Oliver K (2018) Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap. Policy Des Pract 1(2):115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1458397

Whitty CJM (2015) What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Med 13(1):301. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilkinson C (2017) Evidencing impact: a case study of UK academic perspectives on evidencing research impact. Stud Higher Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1339028

Wolfle D (1968) Science advice for state governments. Science 160(3828):607–607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.160.3828.607

Young A, Jones D (1994) The role of the public and federal advisory committees in providing advice to the government on science issues of papers, in American Chemical Society. Meeting. American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=AdvancedSearch&qid=3&SID=D3Y7AMjSYyfgCmiXBUw&page=17&doc=162 Accessed 9 July 2018

Zahariadis N (2007) The multiple streams framework. Theor Policy Process https://doi.org/10.1081/E-EPAP2-120041405

Zevallos Z (2017) Protecting activist academics against public harassment. The Other Sociologist

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the audiences of recent talks given by both authors, which helped to develop the ideas presented.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1H 9SR, UK

Kathryn Oliver

University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Paul Cairney

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Oliver .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oliver, K., Cairney, P. The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun 5 , 21 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y

Download citation

Received : 08 August 2018

Accepted : 28 January 2019

Published : 19 February 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in aboriginal and torres strait islander health.

• Kathleen P. Conte
• Alison Laycock
• Ross Bailie

Health Research Policy and Systems (2024)

Assumptions and contradictions shape public engagement on climate change

• Michael Murunga
• Catriona Macleod
• Gretta Pecl

Nature Climate Change (2024)

National digital strategies and innovative eHealth policies concerning older adults’ dignity: a document analysis in three Scandinavian countries

• Moonika Raja
• Ingjerd G. Kymre
• Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt

BMC Health Services Research (2023)

Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy

• Emily Banks
• Abby Haynes
• Jason Agostino

Health Research Policy and Systems (2023)

Connections between health research systems and decision-making spaces: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of Québec, Canada

• Pernelle Smits
• Caroline Cambourieu
• Mathieu Ouimet

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Top Dos and Don’ts for Writing Scientific Literature Reviews

Literature reviews provide quality information to those who are interested in the most recent research on a particular topic. However, literature reviews can be tricky to write with the correct specifications. It is essential to build experience writing literature reviews. However, even writers with years of practice tend to miss some key points. Read on for dos and don’ts for writing an effective review, as well as for optimizing your research to write efficiently.

Free LIVE Training Webinar Reveals How to Earn Up to $14,444 Per Day Just Sending a Quick Email to People Who Visit an Odd 2 Page Website. >>  Click Here to Join Live Tra ining   <<

Develop Your Thesis to Answer a Question

Even if you have already determined a topic area, you’ll need to write to answer a question or address a problem. In short, you need to define the scope of your literature review. Are there specific aspects of your topic you wish to explore more deeply? Are there aspects that are missing reviews others could benefit from in the future?

Use Credible Sources in your Literature Reviews

Your official research will need to come from trusted sources, such as PubMed , Google Scholar , and library databases. For official research, a highly credible author publishing in a respected journal is preferred. You also need to ensure the author’s research fits into the scope of and supports your review.

Use Your Own Research, If Applicable

If you’ve done research on the topic, use it as you would any other source. While performing research, keep in mind that choosing equipment that keeps your data ready for analysis, like machines offering detailed protein stability analysis , makes evaluating your results much easier.

Don’t Use Creative Writing Techniques

Scientific writing means writing for professionals familiar with the topic, but not with your unique focus. Use statistics where relevant but be precise. Avoid ambiguous or overly passive language. Similarly, avoid being excessively wordy, or overly descriptive.

Be a Critical Thinker

You should aim your writing at analyzing the research , not just describing it. Point out any limitations of the research and identify other conflicting research to determine validity. Most importantly, point out any biases or opinions you disagree with.

Use an Approved Structure

Your literature review should include:

• Abstract, to summarize the topic, findings, and conclusion
• Introduction (10% of the review) to introduce your topic and frame your thesis
• Break the main body up into research topics, grouped by common elements
• Use subheadings to organize your points
• Focus on one key point per paragraph
• Conclusion (5-10%), to restate your thesis and make clear any conclusions you’ve drawn.
• References, using the proper citation. You should cite every source you use.

Revise Your Work

If you have access to an editor, it can be easy to overlook performing quality checks on your own writing. However, keep in mind that your editor does not know what you are trying to say as well as you do. Editing your own literature review before passing on to a secondary editor helps you ensure you are getting your point across.

Then, check your voice for professionality and scientific writing, and ensure you haven’t used passive voice. Check sentence length, grammar and spelling, and read aloud if you’re unsure. Finally, double-check your references.

Writing an effective literature review comes with many considerations, but it doesn’t have to be overwhelming. Use the above guide to get a good start, and ask an experienced writer to help you edit. If you take care during the writing process, you’ll provide a literature review that helps others to fill a key gap in your area of research.

Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC3715443/ https://www.enago.com/academy/ how-to-write-a-good- scientific-literature-review/ https://guides.lib.umich.edu/ c.php?g=283300&p=2915110 https://www.dcu.ie/sites/ default/files/students_ learning/scientific_lit_ review_workshop_ug.pdf

Photo by  rawpixel.com  from  Pexels

ℹ️ This blog is reader-supported. When you buy through links on this site, I may earn an affiliate commission without any surcharge to you. This helps me continue offer free and quality content for the community.

Hi. My name is Pavlos. I am a full time blogger, affiliate marketer and SEO expert. In this blog, I review software, training programs and make money online opportunities. I also write how to tutorials and listicles around SEO, Software and make money online.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Testimonials
• For Schools
• For Access Orgs
• Online Essay
• Academic Tutoring
• Digital PSAT Prep

Digital SAT Do’s and Don’ts

A strong SAT score can really help your college applications stand out. While it’s not the only factor colleges consider, a high score demonstrates mastery of the important subject matter, as well as hard work and dedication. So, how can you achieve a high score? Practice!

Here are some Digital SAT do’s and don’ts.

First and foremost…

Do: Take the Test!

With many universities currently test-optional , students wonder whether the SAT is worth the effort.

It may be tempting to skip SAT or ACT. It is added work after all. However, the data show that admissions officers value test scores.

Look at the numbers from 2023. Notice the overwhelming majority of admitted students submitted scores. This trend bears out amongst most schools. While it is difficult to find details on the relative acceptance rates of students who submit scores versus students who do not, it appears that students who submit scores are admitted at significantly higher rates .

Sources: Harvard | Princeton | Stanford | Michigan | Pittsburg | Illinois

Additionally, several top schools—including Dartmouth, MIT, Harvard, and Yale—are now back to requiring test scores, with more universities following their lead. These schools noted that test scores are an important factor in admissions and that test-optional policies discouraged some less-advantaged students from submitting test scores that would have helped their applications. Dartmouth noted, “the use of SAT and ACT scores is an essential method by which Admissions can identify applicants who will succeed at Dartmouth…Under an SAT/ACT optional policy, many high-achieving less-advantaged applicants choose not to submit scores even when doing so would allow Admissions to identify them as students likely to succeed at Dartmouth and in turn benefit their application.”

For more information on navigating test optional policies, check out our blog post, Do I need to take the SAT and ACT? A Guide for Students and Families.

Bottom line: take the test. And take adequate time to prepare. 

Don’t: Expect quick gains

Some students think they can raise their scores by hundreds of points in just a few weeks. Plenty of people on the internet promise a quick path to 1500 with just a few “tricks and tips.” But if it were easy to get a 1500, everyone would do it.

Raising your score significantly is absolutely possible, but it can take months of dedicated work . 

So, how do you practice for the SAT? 

Here is our recommended method for studying:

1. Take a full-length practice test. Taking a full-length practice test is the best way to familiarize yourself with the SAT and see what you need to work on. You’ll want to mimic testing conditions as closely as possible, so complete the practice test in one sitting, taking only the breaks allowed during the real test.

2. Review your results. After completing the practice test, evaluate your performance. What went well? What could have gone better? Review any questions you missed, skipped, or flagged, and then read the answer explanations and make note of any concepts you need to review.

3. Do targeted practice. Focus on the areas you identified in step 2. First, review any concepts that you struggled with. Then, learn some strategies to help you tackle the question types that give you the most trouble. Finally, do some targeted practice, focusing on the areas you want to improve. 

4. Repeat! Take another full-length practice test to see how you’ve improved and what you still need to work on. Practice the areas that need more work. Keep repeating steps 1-3 until test day.

Dedicate some time every day to practice and set aside a few hours every 2-3 weeks for a full-length practice test (if your SAT date is coming up quickly, you might want to take a practice test every week).

For the Math section…

Do: Learn how to use Desmos

Students can use a calculator on the entire Math section. In fact, the Desmos Graphing Calculator is built right into the testing application. While you are allowed to bring your own approved calculator , it’s still a good idea to learn how to use Desmos, just in case something happens to your calculator during the test.  

Besides, Demos is a great calculator and a powerful tool for the Math section. For many questions, inputting functions into Desmos can be an effective shortcut or a great way to check your work.

But don’t become overly dependent on the calculator! Based on feedback from students who have taken the official test , Desmos isn’t always be a reliable shortcut for the more difficult problems. 

Don’t: Forget to read the instructions for the student-produced response questions

Student-produced response questions make up 25% of the Math section. These questions can be tricky. Not only do they require you to come up with your own answer, but there are also specific rules for formatting fractions and decimals. 

For example, if the correct answer is one-third, you can enter  1/3  or  0.333  or  .3333 . But if you enter  .333 , you will get the question wrong.

Familiarize yourself with these instructions ahead of time, and reference them during the test to be extra sure you’ve entered your fractions and decimals correctly.

For the multiple-choice math questions…

Do: Use the answer choices

For Math multiple-choice questions, take a look at the answer choices before you start to solve. At the very least, they will give you a sense of the correct format for the answer and often provide clues on how to solve the problem. 

Sometimes you can even plug the answer choices directly into the equation in the question to see which one is right. Not all SAT Math questions can be solved like this, but this method can save you some time on some of the more straightforward questions, so that you can spend longer working out the more complex questions.

  Speaking of more complex questions…

Don’t: Forget that you can plug in values for variables

Some math questions on the digital SAT are are quite abstract with a lot of variables. For example, this question from our practice exercises has three variables and a lot of exponents:

While you can certainly solve this problem with more traditional methods, you can also pick values for a, b, and c.  

Pick numbers that are easy to work with. For this problem, let’s start with a = 1, b = 1, and c = 1. 

Suddenly the exponents don’t matter, and the expression in the question becomes  1 (1 +1) = 2.

Plug a = 1, b = 1, and c = 1 into the answer choices and you get:

So, you can very quickly eliminate answer choices A and B. 

Now, what happens if a = 2, b = 1, and c = 1?  With these values, both the expression in the question and answer choice D equal 516. Whereas, answer choice C is equal to 262,144.125. Choice D is correct.

A word of caution with this method: as you can see, sometimes the values you pick will work for multiple answer choices (especially if you choose 0 or 1). So, make sure you test all of the answer choices. If you’re left with more than one possible answer, pick another value to test.

For the Reading and Writing section…

Do: Learn punctuation and grammar

Punctuation and grammar rules are straightforward. About 26% of the Reading and Writing section tests your knowledge of “the conventions of standard English.” 

Learn them, and you’ll breeze through the Standard English Conventions questions and leave yourself time for the tricker reading questions.

Know the proper usage of:

• semicolons 

Make sure you understand:

• subject-verb agreement
• pronoun-antecedent agreement
• subject-modifier placement
• plurals, possessives, and contractions

To help you master the Standard English Conventions questions, check out our Guide to Digital SAT Grammar and Punctuation . 

Do: Come up with your own answer before looking at the answer choices.

On the Reading and Writing section, the wrong answers are designed to trick you. In fact, they are called distractors. It’s easy to talk yourself into choosing an incorrect answer choice that seems plausible.

Coming up with your own answer to the question first is a great way to defend against distractors. If you have a solid idea of what the right answer should be before reading answer choices, you are less likely to be swayed by an incorrect choice that seems plausible.

On a related note…

Don’t: Pick a correct answer without eliminating incorrect answers.

Evaluate the answer choices against the answer you came up with and eliminate anything that isn’t 100% correct. This mentality will help you avoid the traps set on the Reading and Writing section. Besides, it’s easier to look for wrong answers than correct ones because every question has three wrong answers and one correct! 

Bottom line, don’t assume an answer choice is correct because it’s partially correct. Partially correct is wrong .

Speaking of false assumptions…

Don’t: Assume short = easy

The passages on the Reading and Writing section are short, but that doesn’t mean they’re easy. These passages test high-level reading comprehension and grammar, which means that they can be quite challenging.

In these short passages, every detail matters. The difference between a correct and an incorrect answer could be one word.

Take this Words in Context question, for example.

Viewers of digital special effects would not find cardboard cutouts “brilliant” or “astonishing.” Cross those off.

Between “minimalistic” and “rudimentary”, which is correct?

We can’t use “minimalistic” (simplistic, ordinary) to describe the earlier special effects because the text calls them “inventive” (creative, imaginative.) The answer is “rudimentary” (basic, fundamental.)

One word, inventive, makes the difference.

While short, SAT passages are known for their complexity and specificity. 

Speaking of complex questions…

Do: Answer hard questions last

When you encounter a question that you don’t know the answer to, come back to it later. It’s not helpful to dwell on the hard questions because it takes away time for other questions. 

When you skip a question, your brain will subconsciously think about it as you work through the other questions in the module. When you come back to the question again, you may have a new perspective. 

But even if you don’t, you can still make an educated guess without sacrificing the time needed to complete the rest of the module for the sake of one question. 

As you think about the answer choices…

Don’t: Use outside knowledge.

Outside knowledge refers to what you learned at school, at home, on social media, or any other knowledge not in the text in front of you. 

Test makers trick students by providing answers that seem logical or similar to what they’ve learned but aren’t confirmed by text.

Take this question from our platform, for example.

You might assume that experts are “skilled” forecasters. However, the text states the opposite: experts suffer from a bias that leads them to ignore evidence and make flawed predictions.

Everything you need is in the text in front of you. Don’t go outside of it. 

And finally…

Do: Practice!

Practice is key to SAT success. But it doesn’t have to be limited to SAT materials. Read books, articles, and short stories. In non-fiction texts, outline the key ideas. In fiction texts, summarize each chapter. Do your math homework. Read articles with quantitative analysis. Articles about the economy, scientific studies, or even sports statistics can be a great way to build your data literacy.

Of course, take advantage of practice SAT materials, too!  Test Innovators has 10 full-length, adaptive practice tests and over 1,100 additional practice questions.

A high score will take a lot of work, but it is possible!

Start preparing for the digital SAT today!

Nikita Kostyuk

Nikita is a tutor and a member of the content team at Test Innovators who specializes in creating reading and writing content for our practice tests. He has been tutoring for over 8 years. As a first-generation American born to Eastern European parents, Nikita especially loves working with ESL students and students from immigrant backgrounds.

Share this post

Related posts.

200+ Vocabulary Words to Know for the Digital SAT 

Transition words may be considered by some to be an unnecessary accouterment to a sentence, a garnish rather than a key ingredient to a dish. While it is true that inexperienced writers run the risk of overembellishing their sentences with transition words, it’s important to recognize that transitions have a...

The College Journey: What Students Should Be Doing in High School to Prepare for College

We spoke with Keith Wilkerson to learn what you can be doing throughout high school to set yourself up for a successful college admissions experience. Keith is the Founder and Lead Teacher for College Thoughts and has over 21 years of experience in the college placement field. He has counseled...

Test Innovators Launches SAT Prep Platform

That's right -- Test Innovators has officially launched SAT prep! Test Innovators now has a brand-new test prep platform for the SAT, the college admissions exam taken by over 1.7 million students each year. The platform uses personalized data-driven technology to help students focus on only the areas that need improvement,...

2019 Year in Review

2019 was a major year of growth for Test Innovators. To date, we have helped 135,000+ students, and those students have answered more than 20 MILLION questions on our platform. To support this growth, our team nearly doubled in size, so we can continue to enhance student learning.

2020-2021 SAT Test Dates

The 2020-2021 SAT Test Dates are officially here!

A Tale of Paper & Diagnostics: Timed Paper Test Mode

Test Innovators has yet another test prep innovation that we’re excited to share with you – Timed Paper Test Mode. For years, we've offered detailed timing feedback on our online platform, which provides valuable insights for students and educators to see how much time is spent per question, as well as...

The College Journey: What Students Should Be Doing in Middle School to Prepare for College

The college admissions process is one of the most important parts of your future, and one that you can start preparing for in middle school. To learn how, we spoke with Keith Wilkerson, Founder and Lead Teacher for College Thoughts. Keith has over 21 years of experience in the college...

Should I Take the Paper or Digital SAT?

The SAT isn’t just going digital—the test is fundamentally changing. Our infographic provides a detailed overview of the structure and content of the new computer adaptive test.

ACT and SAT Test Day

Learn what you should do the day before and the day of the ACT and SAT, as well as what to bring and what not to bring to the test.

How the Digital SAT Is Scored | Tests and the Rest Podcast

The digital SAT is an adaptive test, which means that scoring is a lot more complicated than it used to be. Wondering how it works?Brenna O’Neill, President of Test Innovators, joined Mike Bergin and Amy Seeley on the Tests and the Rest podcast for an in-depth discussion on digital SAT scoring. Listen...