literature research wiki

• Literature review
• 2 Primary and secondary research
• 5 References

A literature review is a synthesis of past academic discussion and research findings.

Primary and secondary research

Literature reviews can be considered secondary research, which may then lead on to original research (primary research). Sometimes the boundary between primary and secondary research is not clear (e.g., a critical review of previously published ideas and data can lead to the discovery of new ideas).

Literature reviews can be [1] :

• Scoping (Munn et al., 2018)
• Traditional or narrative
• Systematic (Munn et al., 2018)
• Meta-analytic
• Meta-synthesis
• Formulating literature reviews (UC-Pharmacy-Research Wikiversity)
• Literature review (Wikipedia)
• Literature review (UC-Pharmacy-Research Wikiversity)

Navigation menu

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Conducting a Literature Review: Home

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )

Print Resources

Many resources on research methodology include a chapter on literature review. Try these titles:

• SAGE Research Methods "SAGE Research Methods (SRM) is a research tool supported by a newly devised taxonomy that links content and methods terms. It provides the most comprehensive picture available today of research methods (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods)across the social and behavioural sciences."

There are many resources available on the internet and in print to help you conduct a literature review. For graduate students working on a thesis, the most important resource is your graduate committee chair. Also, if you are an ILR student, don't forget to speak with one of Catherwood's reference librarians. They have subject matter expertise and can help you find research materials, as well as show you relevant databases and resources, including Zotero , an online bibliographic management system. Cornell students can also take advantage of the  John S. Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines , which offers a walk-in tutoring Service.

Additional Resources for Writing Literature Reviews

• Library Research at Cornell by Michael Engle Last Updated Mar 22, 2024 7418 views this year
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting Writing Advice from the University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.
• Write a Literature Review Research guide from the University Library, UC Santa Cruz
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature From the Writing Center at University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Searching the Library Catalog

Conducting a guided keyword search from the  Cornell University Library Catalog , using the terms "research methodology" or "qualitative research" will provide additional results, and adding the term "social sciences" to the search will help narrow the results. You can also use this list of the classification numbers for theses by department . We also offer a finding guide to dissertations and theses that you may find useful!

We also recommend you look through other theses - often your graduate chair will have copies.

• Last Updated: Feb 4, 2021 9:22 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/ilrlitreview

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• African Literatures
• Asian Literatures
• British and Irish Literatures
• Latin American and Caribbean Literatures
• North American Literatures
• Oceanic Literatures
• Slavic and Eastern European Literatures
• West Asian Literatures, including Middle East
• Western European Literatures
• Ancient Literatures (before 500)
• Middle Ages and Renaissance (500-1600)
• Enlightenment and Early Modern (1600-1800)
• 19th Century (1800-1900)
• 20th and 21st Century (1900-present)
• Children’s Literature
• Cultural Studies
• Film, TV, and Media
• Literary Theory
• Non-Fiction and Life Writing
• Print Culture and Digital Humanities
• Theater and Drama

Welcome to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature

• Learn about our Editorial Board .
• Browse the growing collection of articles , overviews and key subject works.

Letter from the editor

Special Projects

Literature and National Formation in 19th-Century Latin America

"There is more to the formation of a nation than the political reforms needed for the construction of a national state. To create a sense of national belonging, a collective consciousness among citizens is as crucial..." – By Andrea Castro and Kari Soriano Salkjelsvik

Cold War Institutions and the American Writer

"The Cold War shaped American literature more fundamentally than the political and cultural climate of any other era apart from the antebellum period. It was both an unavoidable topic for writers and a kind of ethos..." – By Greg Barnhisel

May 2024 Update

What's new to the ores.

In May 2024, 99 full new articles and 11 revised articles, spread across 23 subjects, have been published on the  Oxford Research Encyclopedias  platform.

Find out more about the newest discipline to be added: the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Food Studies .

One More Encyclopedia Available via Subscription and Perpetual Access

On January 30, after a successful free period during development, the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics has been made available via subscription and perpetual access to libraries and institutions worldwide.

Browse all ORE physics articles

Why the Oxford Research Encyclopedia?

With today’s overabundance of information, and misinformation, students and researchers alike can be overwhelmed in identifying what’s trustworthy, what’s up-to-date, and what’s accurate..

Explore by Discipline

Working with international communities of scholars across all fields of study, we are developing new comprehensive collections of in-depth, peer-reviewed summaries on an ever-growing range of topics.

For Librarians

Oxford University Press offers a variety of tools to help you promote your access to the Oxford Research Encyclopedias and get the most out of these resources.

Recently Published

Browse recently published articles by month, including summaries and previews of forthcoming full-text articles.

Latest blog articles

• Seven women who changed social work forever
• Black lives matter in prisons too
• How ancient Christians responded to pandemics
• Stress management in the work place [infographic]
• How academics can leave the university but stay in academia

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Literature. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 05 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.148.24.167]
• 185.148.24.167

ZSR Library

Basic literature research guide: doing literary research.

• Doing Literary Research
• Literary Texts & Primary Sources

Hello! This guide is to help any student do research for literature classes. If you want to meet one-on-one with a librarian, use the profile box on this page to meet with me, or use the Humanities librarians group to find another librarian who can meet with you.

More from ZSR

• Citation Guides
• Printing in ZSR
• Zotero Citation Manager
• Zotero Workshops
• ZSR Delivers & Interlibrary Loan
• How Do I . . . ?
• ZSR Research Guides & Tutorials
• WFU Writing Center
• ZSR Library Calendar

Primary Sources

• Other ZSR Primary Source Databases Full listing of all the ZSR primary source databases
• English Literature Primary Souces
• Early English Books Online - EEBO This link opens in a new window Full text of books, pamphlets and broadsides published in England or in English between 1475 and 1700. Includes many of the items indexed in the English Short Title Catalogue. Corresponds to the Pollard and Redgrave, and Wing Short-Title Catalogues, as well as Thomason Tracts. Coverage: 1473-1700
• Early English Prose Fiction This link opens in a new window Over 200 works of fictional prose by writers from the British Isles from the period 1500-1700. Coverage: 1500-1700
• Early American Imprints, Series I & II (combined) This link opens in a new window Includes the full text of all known existing books, pamphlets, and broadsides published in the 13 colonies and the United States between 1639-1819. Combined search of both the Evans collection and the Shaw & Shoemaker collection. Coverage: 1639-1819
• Early American Fiction This link opens in a new window A collection of American novels and short stories written before 1875. Includes both well-known and obscure figures. Coverage: 1789-1875
• Eighteenth-Century Fiction This link opens in a new window Contains 96 works in English prose by 18th Century British writers. Coverage: 1700-1780
• Eighteenth Century Collections Online - ECCO This link opens in a new window Contains books, pamphlets and broadsides published in England or in English between 1701 and 1800. Includes many of the items indexed in the English Short Title Catalogue. Coverage: 1701-1800
• Eighteenth Century Drama This link opens in a new window Archive of almost every play submitted for licence in England between 1737 and 1824. Also includes The London Stage 1660-1800 which is a searchable database of every performance in London during those years and the Biographical Dictionary of Actors etc. 1660-1800.
• Nineteenth-Century Fiction This link opens in a new window Includes 250 novels from the period 1786 to 1903, including works by all the major Victorian novelists such as Dickens, Thackeray, the Brontes, Eliot and Hardy, as well as the landmarks of Gothic and other fiction from the Romantic period. Coverage: 1786-1903
• Nineteenth Century Collections Online This link opens in a new window Primary source collections of the “long” nineteenth century. Collections are sourced through partnerships with major world libraries and specialist libraries. Content includes monographs, newspapers, manuscripts, ephemera, maps, and more. Coverage: 1769-1906
• Literary Manuscripts: Berg This link opens in a new window Manuscript collections of Victorian authors from the Berg collection at the NY Public Library. Each author collection is included in its entirety. Authors represented include: Matthew Arnold, Emily Bronte, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Robert Browning, Wilkie Collins, Joseph Conrad, Charles Dickens, George Eliot, George Gissing, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, John Ruskin, Alfred Tennyson, William Makepeace Thackeray.
• Literary Manuscripts: Leeds This link opens in a new window This resource contains manuscripts of 17th and 18th century verse held in the Brotherton Collection at the University of Leeds. Alongside original compositions are copied verses, translations, songs and riddles.
• Perdita Manuscripts This link opens in a new window Manuscripts written or compiled by women in the British Isles during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Produced in association with the Perdita Project based at the University of Warwick and Nottingham Trent University, the project seeks to rediscover early modern women authors who were “lost” because their writing exists only in manuscript form. Coverage: 1500-1700
• Editions and Adaptations of Shakespeare This link opens in a new window Contains 11 major editions from the First Folio of 1623 to the Cambridge edition of 1863-6, 28 separate contemporary printings of individual plays and poems, selected apocrypha, and related works. Also contains more than one hundred adaptations, sequels and burlesques from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Coverage: 1591-1911
• New Oxford Shakespeare Online This link opens in a new window Full Oxford editions of all of Shakespeare's works, both in modern spelling and original spelling. Also includes the Oxford Authorship Companion and introductory materials for each play.

Writing and Language Help

ZSR subscribes to the following items that can help you as you write papers for English classes. 

• MLA Handbook Plus This link opens in a new window The go-to resource for writers of research papers and anyone citing sources. MLA Handbook Plus includes the full text of the ninth edition of the MLA Handbook as well as the first editions of both the MLA Guide to Digital Literacy and the MLA Guide to Undergraduate Research in Literature.
• Oxford English Dictionary This link opens in a new window The definitive dictionary of the English Language. Provides timelines of when words entered the language, sources for words, and audio pronunciation guides. Coverage: 1989 Edition, with updates

Background Resources for Literature Research

• Gale Literature This link opens in a new window Search across literary biography, literary criticism, genre studies, reviews, and primary sources across thousands of Gale publications. Good starting point for doing any kind of research in English literature. Coverage: varies
• Literary Reference Center Plus This link opens in a new window Contains author biographies, literary criticism, journal articles and book reviews. Coverage: Details not available

Background Resources on History, Issues, Society, etc.

If you need background information on historical events, societal issues, or other topics covered in literature here are some sources that might help. 

• Encyclopaedia Britannica Online This link opens in a new window Includes articles ranging from concise explanations to comprehensive expositions and from historical treatments of subjects to current-events coverage. Includes Britannica's Book of the Year and Nations of the World. Coverage: 1994-
• Oxford Reference Online This link opens in a new window Search across dozens of reference books in a wide variety of disciplines. Especially strong in literature and the humanities!
• SAGE Reference This link opens in a new window Provides access to ebook versions of encyclopedias and handbooks in the social and behavioral sciences.
• Credo Reference This link opens in a new window Search across hundreds of subject encyclopedias and other referece works. A great place to find background information on almost any research topic. Includes subject trees, pro/con resources, links to scholarly articles and more.
• Gale eBooks This link opens in a new window Search across hundreds of subject encyclopedias and other reference works. A great place to find background information on almost any research topic. Includes a topic finder for help with narrowing or broadening your research topic. Coverage: varies

Searching Primo for books and more

Use Primo - the library's search interface - to locate books and other materials all in a single search. Here are a few tips to get you started:

• To find items on a theme or issue in an author's work, enter the name of the author/work and a term that best conveys the issue you are researching, e.g. Macbeth and feminis* (the asterisk is a truncation symbol that allows for word variants, such as feminist or feminism). Keep in mind that not every work of literature will have a lot of research on it -  you may need to back up from your initial search to something more broad.
• To find works about a literary author or other figure, enter the person's name in quotes, i.e. "Jane Austen" - adding in other terms will help narrow down your results - i.e. "Jane Austen" marriage or "Maya Angelou" "civil rights" 
• To find works around a particular genre, us that genre in your search i.e. poetry abolition or "short story" war 

Journal Databases

Literary criticism databases.

• MLA International Bibliography This link opens in a new window Contains articles, books, chapters of books, conference proceedings, dissertations, and working papers on topics relating to literature, modern languages, folklore, and linguistics. Coverage: 1926-
• Humanities International Index This link opens in a new window Contains scholarly journals and other periodicals and magazines covering the humanities including art, classics, history, literature, philosophy and more. Coverage: 1975-
• JSTOR This link opens in a new window A full-text database of archived issues of academic journals. Since JSTOR is a backfiles project, a typical coverage range is the beginning of a journal until three or five years ago. Supported in part by the Dail Endowment Fund. Coverage: Varies
• Project MUSE This link opens in a new window Provides access to the full text of scholarly journals and books in the arts and humanities and social sciences. Coverage: Varies
• ProQuest One Literature This link opens in a new window Provides content and tools to support the study of literature from a variety of sources including primary texts, criticism, full-text journals, book reviews, dissertations, eBooks, reference material, audio, and video. Coverage: varies

Other Databases Of Interest

• America: History and Life This link opens in a new window Search for articles about the history and culure of the United States and Canada. Publications include peer-reviewed journals, magazines, dissertations, books, and more. Access is limited to six simultaneous users. Note: For world history topics, use the Historical Abstracts database. Coverage: 1964-
• Historical Abstracts This link opens in a new window Provides indexing and abstracts for journal articles, books, and dissertations covering the history of the world from 1450-- except the U.S. and Canada. For similar coverage of the U.S. and Canada, use America History and Life. Access is limited to six simultaneous users. Coverage: 1954-
• International Medieval Bibliography This link opens in a new window A bibliography of modern scholarship concerning the European Middle Ages (c. 450-1500). Coverage: 1967-
• Contemporary Women's Issues (Gale OneFile) This link opens in a new window provides access to current full text and backfile content covering topics including civil rights, health, education, professional development, and entrepreneurship. Coverage: 1992-
• Performing Arts Periodicals Database This link opens in a new window Performing Arts Periodicals Database indexes around 400 scholarly and trade journals, magazines, books, and newspapers covering theater, dance, film, television, stagecraft, broadcast arts, storytelling, and more. It draws from both current files and selected backfiles to 1864 and 134 publications are included in full text. Coverage: 1864-

Rosalind Tedford

Instruction & Outreach Librarian

• Next: Literary Texts & Primary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 15, 2023 12:04 PM
• URL: https://guides.zsr.wfu.edu/litresearch

Something went wrong when searching for seed articles. Please try again soon.

No articles were found for that search term.

Author, year The title of the article goes here

LITERATURE REVIEW SOFTWARE FOR BETTER RESEARCH

“Litmaps is a game changer for finding novel literature... it has been invaluable for my productivity.... I also got my PhD student to use it and they also found it invaluable, finding several gaps they missed”

Varun Venkatesh

Austin Health, Australia

As a full-time researcher, Litmaps has become an indispensable tool in my arsenal. The Seed Maps and Discover features of Litmaps have transformed my literature review process, streamlining the identification of key citations while revealing previously overlooked relevant literature, ensuring no crucial connection goes unnoticed. A true game-changer indeed!

Ritwik Pandey

Doctoral Research Scholar – Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

Using Litmaps for my research papers has significantly improved my workflow. Typically, I start with a single paper related to my topic. Whenever I find an interesting work, I add it to my search. From there, I can quickly cover my entire Related Work section.

David Fischer

Research Associate – University of Applied Sciences Kempten

“It's nice to get a quick overview of related literature. Really easy to use, and it helps getting on top of the often complicated structures of referencing”

Christoph Ludwig

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

“This has helped me so much in researching the literature. Currently, I am beginning to investigate new fields and this has helped me hugely”

Aran Warren

Canterbury University, NZ

“I can’t live without you anymore! I also recommend you to my students.”

Professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“Seeing my literature list as a network enhances my thinking process!”

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

“Incredibly useful tool to get to know more literature, and to gain insight in existing research”

KU Leuven, Belgium

“As a student just venturing into the world of lit reviews, this is a tool that is outstanding and helping me find deeper results for my work.”

Franklin Jeffers

South Oregon University, USA

“Any researcher could use it! The paper recommendations are great for anyone and everyone”

Swansea University, Wales

“This tool really helped me to create good bibtex references for my research papers”

Ali Mohammed-Djafari

Director of Research at LSS-CNRS, France

“Litmaps is extremely helpful with my research. It helps me organize each one of my projects and see how they relate to each other, as well as to keep up to date on publications done in my field”

Daniel Fuller

Clarkson University, USA

As a person who is an early researcher and identifies as dyslexic, I can say that having research articles laid out in the date vs cite graph format is much more approachable than looking at a standard database interface. I feel that the maps Litmaps offers lower the barrier of entry for researchers by giving them the connections between articles spaced out visually. This helps me orientate where a paper is in the history of a field. Thus, new researchers can look at one of Litmap's "seed maps" and have the same information as hours of digging through a database.

Baylor Fain

Postdoctoral Associate – University of Florida

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.

Twenty years of Wikipedia in scholarly publications: a bibliometric network analysis of the thematic and citation landscape

• Published: 14 February 2023
• Volume 57 , pages 5623–5653, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Mohamed M. Mostafa 1  

645 Accesses

22 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Wikipedia has grown to be the biggest online encyclopedia in terms of comprehensiveness, reach and coverage. However, although different websites and social network platforms have received considerable academic attention, Wikipedia has largely gone unnoticed. In this study, we fill this research gap by investigating how Wikipedia is used in scholarly publications since its launch in 2001. More specifically, we review and analyze the intellectual structure of Wikipedia’s scholarly publications based on 3790 Web of Science core collection documents written by 10,636 authors from 100 countries over two decades (2001–2021). Results show that the most influential outlets publishing Wikipedia research include journals such as Plos one, Nucleic Acids Research, the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, IEEE Access, and Information Processing and Management . Results also show that the author collaboration network is very sparsely connected, indicating the absence of close collaboration among the authors in the field. Furthermore, results reveal that the Wikipedia research institutions’ collaboration network reflects a North–South divide as very limited cooperation occurs between developed and developing countries’ institutions. Finally, the multiple correspondence analysis applied to obtain the Wikipedia research conceptual map reveals the breadth, diversity, and intellectual thrust of the Wikipedia’s scholarly publications. Our analysis has far-reaching implications for aspiring researchers interested in Wikipedia research as we retrospectively trace the evolution in research output over the last two decades, establish linkages between the authors and articles, and reveal trending topics/hotspots within the broad theme of Wikipedia research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

(Adapted from Chen et al. 2020a , b )

Similar content being viewed by others

Methodological issues in measuring citations in Wikipedia: a case study in Library and Information Science

Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016), co-word analysis and thematic landscapes in spanish information science literature, 1985–2014.

Ajiferuke, I., Burrel, Q., Tague, J.: Collaborative coefficient: a single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics 14 , 421–433 (1988)

Article   Google Scholar  

Aleixandre, J., Aleixandre-Tudo, J., Bolanos-Pizarro, M., Aleixandre-Benavent, R.: Mapping the scientific research in organic farming: a bibliometric review. Scientometrics 105 , 295–309 (2015)

Al-Khalifa, H.: Scientometric assessment of Saudi publication productivity in computer science in the period of 1978–2012. Int. J. Web Inf. Syst. 10 , 194–208 (2014)

Arazy, O., Nov, O., Patterson, R., Yeo, L.: Information quality in Wikipedia: the effects of group composition and task conflict. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27 , 71–98 (2011)

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C.: Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Inform. 11 , 959–975 (2017)

Aryadoust, V., Ang, B: Exploring the frontiers of eye tracking research in language studies: a novel co-citation scientometric review. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. (Forthcoming)

Ávila-Robinson, A., Wakabayashi, N.: Changes in the structures and directions of destination management and marketing research: a bibliometric mapping study, 2005–2016. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 10 , 101–111 (2018)

Google Scholar  

Azad, H., Deepak, A.: A new approach for query expansion using Wikipedia and WordNet. Inf. Sci. 492 , 147–163 (2019)

Baker, H., Kumar, S., Pandey, N.: Abibliometric analysis of managerial finance: a retrospective. Manag. Finance 46 , 1495–1517 (2020)

Bakshy, E., Hofman, J., Mason, W., Watts, D.: Everyone’s an influencer. In: King, I., Nejdl, W., Li, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining – WSDM’11, p. 65. ACM Press, New York (2011)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Banckendorff, P.: Themes and trends in Australian and New Zealand tourism research: a social network analysis of citations in two leading journals (1994–2007). J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 16 , 1–15 (2009)

Barabasi, A., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., Vicsek, T.: Evolution of the social network of scientific collaboration. Phys. A 311 , 590–614 (2000)

Behrendt, S., Peter, F., Zimmermann, D.: An encyclopedia for stock markets? Wikipedia searches and stock returns. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 72 , 101563 (2020)

Block, J., Fisch, C., Rehan, F.: Religion and entrepreneurship: a map of the field and a bibliometric analysis. Manag. Rev. q. 70 , 591–627 (2020)

Bouzembrak, Y., Kluche, M., Gavai, A., Marvin, H.: Internet of Things in food safety: literature review and a bibliometric analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 94 , 54–64 (2019)

-Brazzeal, B.: Citations to Wikipedia in chemistry journals: a preliminary study. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 67 ( http://www.istl.org/11-fall/refereed2.html ) (2011)

Brown, A.: Wikipedia as a data source for political scientists: Accuracy and completeness of coverage. Polit. Sci. Polit. 44 , 339–343 (2011)

Burt, R.: Structural Holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1992)

Book   Google Scholar  

Burt, R.: The social capital of opinion leaders. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 566 , 37–54 (1999)

Cai, K., Spangler, S., Chen, Y., Zhang, L.: Leveraging sentiment analysis for topic detection. Web Intell. Agent Syst. 8 , 291–302 (2010)

Callon, M., Courtial, J., Laville, F.: Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics 22 , 155–205 (1991)

Chen, C.: Visualization of knowledge structures. Handb. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 2 , 700–744 (2002)

Chen, C., Leydesdorff, L.: Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: a new method of publication portfolio analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 65 , 334–351 (2014)

Chen, X., Liu, Y.: Visualization analysis of high-speed railway research based on CiteSpace. Transp. Policy 85 , 1–17 (2020)

Chen, C., Paul, R.: Visualizing a knowledge domain’s intellectual structure. Computer 34 , 65–71 (2001)

Chen, C., Song, I., Yuan, X., Zhang, J.: The thematic and citation landscape of data and knowledge engineering (1985–2007). Data Knowl. Eng. 67 , 234–250 (2008)

Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., Tseng, H.: Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: a scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 12 , 593–608 (2012)

Chen, C., Dublin, R., Kim, M.: Orphan drugs and rare diseases: a scientometric review (2000–2014). Expert Opin. Orphan Drugs 2 , 709–724 (2014)

Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H.: Fifty years of British journal of educational technology: a topic modeling based bibliometric perspective. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 51 , 692–708 (2020a)

Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., Xie, H.: Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: a retrospective of all volumes of computers & education. Comput. Educ. 151 , 103855 (2020b)

Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G.: Twenty years of personalized language learning: topic modeling and knowledge mapping. Educ. Technol. Soc. 24 , 205–222 (2021)

Chi, E.: Using information scent to model user information needs and actions on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGGHI Conference on Human Factor in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 490–497 (2001)

Chun-Hao, C., Jian-Min, Y.: A bibliometric study of financial risk literature: a historic approach. Appl. Econ. 44 , 2827–2839 (2012)

Cobo, M., Lopez-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. J. Informetr. 5 , 146–166 (2011a)

Cobo, M., Lopez-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62 , 1382–1402 (2011b)

Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., Noe, C., Strozzi, F.: Information sharing in supply chains: a review of risks and opportunities using the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA). Supply Chain Manag. 24 , 5–21 (2019)

Coquide, C., Emann, L., Lages, J., Shepelyansky, D.: World influence and interactions of universities from Wikipedia networks. Eur. Phys. J. B 92 (1), 3 (2019)

Corbet, S., Dowling, M., Gao, X., Huang, S., Lucey, B., Vigne, S.: An analysis of the intellectual structure of research on financial economics of precious metals. Resour. Policy 63 , 101416 (2019)

Corte, V., Gaudio, G., Sepe, F.: Ethical food and the Kosher certification: a literature review. Br. Food J. 120 , 2270–2288 (2018)

Cress, U., Kimmerle, J.: A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 3 , 105–122 (2008)

Cuccurullo, C., Aria, M., Sarto, F.: Foundations and trends in performance management: a twenty-five years bibliometric analysis in business and public administration domains. Scientometrics 108 , 595–611 (2016)

da Silva, S., Antonio, N., Carvalho, J.: Analysis of the service dominant logic network, authors, and articles. Serv. Ind. J. 37 , 125–152 (2017)

de la Hoz-Correa, A., Munoz-Leiva, F., Bakuca, M.: Past themes and future trends in medical tourism research: a co-word analysis. Tour. Manag. 65 , 200–211 (2018)

Demiroz, F., Haase, T.: The concept of resilience: a bibliographic analysis of the emergency and disaster management literature. Local Gov. Stud. 45 , 308–327 (2019)

Dewald, N.: Future voices in public services. Public Serv. Q. 10 , 245–251 (2014)

Diekmann, F., Ford, R., Harisson, S., Regnier, E., Venkatesh, R.: Bibliometric analysis of the literature on Giant Ragweed ( Ambrosia trifida L.). J. Agric. Food Inf. 14 , 290–320 (2013)

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W., Robinson, J.: Social implications of the internet. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27 , 307–336 (2001)

Ding, Y.: Scientific collaboration and endorsement: network analysis of co-authorship and citation networks. J. Informetr. 5 , 187–203 (2011)

Dobusch, L., Kapeller, J.: A guide to paradigmatic self-marginalization: lessons for post-Keynesian economists. Rev. Polit. Econ. 24 , 469–487 (2012)

Ezell, J.: Empathy plasticity: decolonizing and reorganizing wikipedia and other online spaces to address racial equity. Ethn. Racial Stud. (Forthcoming)

Fang, Y., Yin, J., Wu, B.: Climate change and tourism: a scientometric analysis using CiteSpace. J. Sustain. Tour. 26 , 108–126 (2018)

Findlay, K., van Rensburg, O.: Using interaction networks to map communities on Twitter. Int. J. Mark. Res. 60 , 169–189 (2018)

Flanagin, A., Metzger, M.: From encyclopedia britannica to wikipedia. Inf. Commun. Soc. 14 , 355–374 (2011)

Forte, A., Larco, V., Bruckman, A.: Decentralization in Wikipedia governance. J MIS 26 (1), 49–72 (2009)

Francisco, G., Enrique, C., Bartolome, M., Mercedes, U.: Identifying the ‘knowledge base’ or ‘intellectual structure’ of research on international business, 2000–2015: a citation/co-citation analysis of JIBS. Int. Bus. Rev. 28 , 713–726 (2019)

Gaede, J., Rowlands, I.: Visualizing social acceptance research: a bibliometric review of the social acceptance literature for energy technology and fuels. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40 , 142–158 (2018)

Garfield, E., Malin, M., & Small, H.: Citation data as science indicators. Eds. Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. Merton, R. Thackray, A., & H. Zuckerman, pp. 179–208. Wiley, New York (1978)

Gavel, Y., Iselid, L.: Web of science and scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Inf. Rev. 32 , 8–21 (2008)

Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigo, J., Popa, S.: Twenty years of the journal of knowledge management: a bibliometric analysis. J. Knowl. Manag. 22 , 1655–1687 (2018)

Gheisari, M., Esmaeili, B.: Applications and requirements of unmanned aerial systems (UASs) for construction safety. Saf. Sci. 118 , 230–240 (2019)

Giles, J.: Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature 438 , 900–901 (2006)

Glänzel, W., Schubert, A.: Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In: Moed, H., Glanzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Springer, Dordrecht (2005)

Glötzl, F., Aigner, E.: Orthodox core-heterodox periphery? Contrasting citation networks of economics departments in Vienna. Rev. Polit. Econ. 30 , 210–240 (2018)

Gobel, S., Munzert, S.: Political advertising on the Wikipedia marketplace of information. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 36 , 157–175 (2018)

Gonzales-Valiente, C.: Redes de citación de revistas iberoamericanas de bibliotecología y ciencia de la información en Scopus. Bibliotecas Anal. Investig. 15 , 83–98 (2019)

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., Takhteyev, Y.: Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. Am. Behav. Sci. 55 , 1294–1318 (2011)

Gupta, R., Pandey, R., Sebastian, V.: International entrepreneurial orientation (IEO): a bibliometric overview of scholarly research. J. Bus. Res. 125 , 74–88 (2021)

Haythornthwaite, C.: Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library Inform. Sci. Res. 18 , 323–342 (1996)

Himelboim, I., Han, J.: Cancer talk on Twitter: community structure and information sources in breast and prostate cancer social networks. J. Health Commun. 19 , 210–225 (2014)

Himelboim, I., Smith, M., Shneiderman, B.: Tweeting apart: applying network analysis to detect selective exposure clusters in Twitter. Commun. Methods Meas. 7 , 195–223 (2013)

Hjorland, B.: Citation analysis: a social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization. Inf. Process. Manage 49 , 1313–1325 (2013)

Holub, M., Johnson, J.: Bitcoin research across disciplines. Inf. Sci. 34 , 114–126 (2018)

Hu, J., Zhang, Y.: Structure and patterns of cross-national big data research collaborations. J. Doc. 73 , 1119–1136 (2017)

Jayantha, W., Oladinrin, O.: Knowledge mapping of office workspace: a scientometric review of studies. Facilities (Forthcoming)

Jiang, Y., Bai, W., Zhang, X., Hu, J.: Wikipedia-based information content and semantic similarity computation. Inf. Process. Manag. 53 , 248–265 (2017)

Jiang, Y., Ritchie, B., Benckendorff, P.: Bibliometric visualization: an application to tourism crisis and disaster research. Curr. Issue Tour. 22 , 1925–1957 (2019)

Jullien, N.: What we know about Wikipedia: a review of the literature analyzing the project(s). 86 (2012)

Keegan, B., Gergle, D., Contractor, N.: Hot off the Wiki: structures and dynamics of Wikipedia’s coverage of breaking news events. Am. Behav. Sci. 57 , 595–622 (2013)

Khan, G., Wood, J.: Knowledge networks of the information technology management domain: A social network analysis approach. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 39 , 367–397 (2016)

Khasseh, A., Soheili, F., Moghaddam, N., Chelak, A.: Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrivs: a co-word analysis. Inf. Process. Manag. 53 , 705–720 (2017)

Kim, M., Chen, C.: A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in recommendation systems. Scientometrics 104 , 239–263 (2015)

Kim, J., Kim, S., Lee, C.: Anticipating technological convergence: link prediction using Wikipedia hyperlinks. Technovation 79 , 25–34 (2019)

Knoke, D., Yang, S.: Social Network Analysis. SAGE, Los Angeles, CA (2010)

Koppen, L., Phillips, J., Papageorgiou, R.: Analysis of reference sources used in drug-related Wikipedia articles. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 103 , 140–144 (2015)

Korfiatis, N., Poulos, M., Bokos, G.: Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: an insight from Wikipedia. Online Inf. Rev. 30 , 252–262 (2006)

Kosterich, A., Weber, M.: Transformation of a modern newsroom workforce: a case study of NYC journalist network histories from 2011 to 2015. J. Pract. 13 , 431–457 (2019)

Krauskopf, E.: A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Infection and Public Health: 2008–2016. J. Infect. Public Health 11 , 224–229 (2018)

Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Haldar, A.: Twenty years of public management review (PMR): a bibliometric overview. Public Manag. Rev. 22 , 1876–1896 (2020)

Laengle, S., Modak, N., Merigo, J., de la Sotta, C.: Thirty years of the international journal of computer integrated manufacturing: a bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 31 , 1247–1268 (2018)

Lamprecht, D., Strohmaier, M., Helic, D., Nyulas, C., Tudorache, T., Noy, N., Mark, A.: Using ontologies to model human navigation behavior in information networks: a study based on Wikipedia. Semant. Web 6 , 403–422 (2015)

Law, J., Bauin, S., Courtial, J., Wittaker, J.: Policy and the mapping of scientific change: a co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics 14 , 251–264 (1988)

Lee, M., Chen, T.: Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: from 1995 to 2010. Knowl.-Based Syst. 28 , 47–58 (2012)

Leong, C., Lee, Y., Mak, W.: Mining sentiments in SMS texts for teaching evaluation. Expert Syst. Appl. 39 , 2584–2589 (2012)

Levitt, P.: Religion on the move: mapping global cultural production and consumption. In: Bender, C., et al. (eds.) Religion on the Edge: De-Centering and Re-Centering the Sociology of Religion, pp. 159–176. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)

Lin, J., Himelboim, I.: Political brand communities as social network clusters: winning and training candidates in the GOP 2016 primary elections. J. Polit. Mark. 16 , 1–29 (2018)

Linnenluecke M.K., Singh, A.: Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust. J. Manag. (Forthcoming)

Lotka, A.: The frequency distribution of scientific productivity (1926)

Mas-Tur, A., Brandtner, M., Ewert, R., Kursten, W.: Advances in management research: a bibliometric overview of the review of managerial science. RMS 14 , 933–958 (2020)

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.: Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27 , 415–444 (2001)

Merediz-Sola, I., Bariviera, A.: A bibliometric analysis of bitcoin scientific production. Res. Int. Bus. Finance 50 , 294–305 (2019)

Mestyan, M., Yasseri, T., Kertesz, J.: Early prediction of movie box office success based on Wikipedia activity big data. PLoS ONE 8 (8), e71226 (2013)

Milgram, S.: The small-world problem. Psychol. Today 2 , 60–67 (1967)

Moat, H., Curme, C., Avakian, A., Kenett, D., Stanley, H., Preis, T.: Quantifying Wikipedia usage patterns before stock market moves. Sci. Rep. 3 , 1801 (2013)

Moradi, S.: The scientometrics of literature on smart cities. Libr. Hi Tech (Forthcoming)

Mostafa, M.: Do products’ warning labels affect consumer safe behavior? A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Stud. 22 , 24–39 (2015)

Mostafa, M.: Do consumers recall products’ warning labels? a meta-analysis. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 9 , 81–96 (2016)

Mulet-Forteza, C., Martorell-Cunill, O., Merigo, J., Genovart-Balaguer, J., Mauleon-Mendez, E.: Twenty-five years of the journal of travel & tourism marketing: a bibliometric ranking. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 35 , 1201–1221 (2018)

Navarrete, T., Borowiecki, K.: Changes in cultural consumption: ethnographic collections in Wikipedia. Cult. Trends 25 , 233–248 (2016)

Neff, M., Corley, E.: 35 years and 160,000 articles: a bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics 80 , 657–682 (2009)

Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., Wrede, C.: The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: an empirical study. Libr. Acad. 6 , 127–141 (2006)

Newman, M., Girvan, M.: Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69 , 1–15 (2004)

Nisonger, T.: A methodological issue concerning the use of social sciences citation index journal citation reports impact factor data for journal ranking. Libr. Acquis. Pract. Theory 18 , 447–458 (1994)

Okoli, C.: A brief review of studies of Wikipedia in peer-reviewed journals. In: 2009 Third International Conference on Digital Society, pp. 155–160. IEEE (2009)

Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: a review of literature. Libri 46 , 149–158 (1996)

Park, S., Lim, Y., Park, H.: Comparing Twitter and YouTube networks in information diffusion: The case of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 95 , 208–217 (2015)

Pieters, P., Baumgartner, H., Vermunt, J., Bijmolt, T.: Importance and similarity in the evolving citation network of the international journal of research in marketing. Int. J. Res. Mark. 16 , 113–127 (1999)

Pirolli, P., Fu, W.: SNIF-ACT: a model of information foraging on the World Wide Web. In: The 9th International Conference on User Modeling. Springer, New York (2003)

Pirolli, P., Card, S.: Information Foraging. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999)

Portugal-Ferreira, M., Frias-Pinto, C., Ribeiro-Serra, F.: The transaction costs theory in international business research: a bibliometric study over three decades. Scientometrics 98 , 1899–1922 (2014)

Price, D., Beaver, D.: Collaboration in an invisible college. Am. Psychol. 21 , 1011–1018 (1966)

Prieto-Gutierrez, J., Segado-Boj, F.: Annals of library and information studies: a bibliometric analysis of the journal and a comparison with the top library and information studies in Asia and worldwide. Ser. Libr. (Forthcoming)

Qi, T., Wang, T., Ma, Y., Zhang, W., Zhu, Y.: A scientometric analysis of e-participation research. Int. J. Crowd Sci. 2 , 136–148 (2018)

Qian, J., Law, R., Wei, J.: Knowledge mapping in travel website studies: a scientometric review. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 19 , 192–209 (2019)

Qin, H., Prastyo, Y., Bass, M., Sanders, C., Prentice, E., Nguyen, Q.: Seeing the forest for the tree: a bibliometric analysis of environmental and resource sociology. Soc. Nat. Resour. 3 , 1131–1148 (2020)

R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria ( www.R-project.org ) (2021).

Ratkiewicz, J., Menczer, F., Fortunato, S., Flammini, A.: Traffic in social media II: modeling bursty popularity. In: IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing, pp. 393–400 (2010)

Rivera, M., Pizam, A.: Advances in hospitality research: “from Rodney Dangerfield to Aretha Franklin.” Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27 , 362–378 (2015)

Rodi, G., Loreto, V., Tria, F.: Search strategies of Wikipedia readers. PLoS ONE 12 (2), e0170746 (2017)

Rollin, G., Lages, J., Shepelyansky, D.: Wikipedia network analysis of cancer interactions and world influence. PLoS ONE 14 (9), e0222508 (2019)

Rosensweig, R.: Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. J. Am. History 93 , 117–146 (2006)

Ruiz-Alba, J., Guzman-Parra, V., Oblitas, J., Mediano, J.: Entrepreneurial intentions: a bibliometric analysis. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2 , 121–213 (2021)

Sankey, H.: Introductory note on the thermal efficiency of stream-engines. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 278–283 (1898)

Scott, J.: Social Network Analysis. Sage, London (2013)

Shafee, T., Masukume, G., Kipersztok, L., Das, D., Häggström, M., Heilman, J.: Evolution of Wikipedia’s medical content: past, present and future. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 71 , 1122–1129 (2017)

Shannon, C., Weaver, W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL (1949)

Shi, F., Teplitsky, M., Duede, E., Evans, J.: The wisdom of polarized crowds. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3 , 329–336 (2019)

Shiau, W., Dwivedi, Y., Yang, H.: Co-citation and cluster analysis of extant literature on social networks. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 , 390–399 (2017)

Shirky, C.: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Press, New York (2008)

Skupin, A.: The world of geography: visualizing a knowledge domain with cartographic means. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. U. S. a. 101 , 5274–5278 (2004)

Skupin, A.: Discrete and continuous conceptualizations of science: Implications for knowledge domain visualization. J. Informetr. 3 , 233–245 (2009)

Smith, N., Graham, T.: Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22 , 1310–1327 (2019)

Soundararajan, K., Ho, H., Su, B.: Sankey diagram framework for energy and exergy flows. Appl. Energy 136 , 1035–1042 (2014)

Space, D., Owens, K.: Lexical co-occurrence and association strength. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 19 , 317–330 (1990)

Su, H., Lee, P.: Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in technology foresight. Scientometrics 85 , 65–79 (2010)

Surowiecki, J., Silverman, M.: The wisdom of the crowds. Am. J. Phys. 75 , 190 (2007)

Talukdar, D.: Research productivity patterns in the organizational behavior and human resource management literature. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 26 , 467–484 (2015)

Tang, M., Liao, H., Wan, Z., Herrera-Viedma, E., Rosen, M.: Ten years of sustainability (2009 to 2018): a bibliometric overview. Sustainability 10 , 1655 (2018a)

Tang, M., Liao, H., Rosen, M.: A bibliometric overview and visualization of the international journal of fuzzy systems between 2007 and 2017. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20 , 1403–1422 (2018b)

Tausczik, Y., Faasse, K., Pennebaker, J., Petrie, K.: Public anxiety and information seeking following the H1N1 outbreak: blogs, newspaper articles, and Wikipedia visits. Health Commun. 27 , 179–185 (2012)

The Economist (January 9th 2921). The other giant, pp. 49–50

Thompson, N., Hanley, D.: Science is shaped by Wikipedia: evidence from a randomized control trial. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5238-17. SSRN-ID 3039505 (2019)

Tomaszewski, R., MacDonald, K.: A study of citations to Wikipedia in scholarly publications. Sci. Technol. Libr. 35 , 246–261 (2016)

Trier, M., Molka-Danielsen, J.: Sympathy or strategy: social capital drivers for collaborative contributions to the IS community. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22 , 317–335 (2013)

Valenzuela-Fernandez, L., Merigo, J., Lichtenthal, J., Nicolas, C.: A bibliometric analysis of the first 25 years of the journal of business-to-business marketing. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 26 , 75–94 (2019)

van Eck, N., Waltman, L.: Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D. (eds.) Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice. Springer, New York (2014)

van Eck, N., Waltman, L.: VOSviewer, Version 1.6.13 (2019)

Vanni, T., Mesa-Frias, M., Sanchez-Garcia, R., Roesler, R., et al.: International scientific cooperation in HIV and HPV: a network analysis. PLoS ONE 9 (3), e93376 (2014)

Vidgen, R., Henneberg, S., Naude, P.: What sort of community is the European conference on information systems? A social network analysis 1993–2005. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22 , 317–335 (2007)

Vieira, F., Brito, C.: Science mapping in industrial marketing. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 16 , 5–19 (2015)

Vila-Lopez, N., Kuster-Boluda, I.: A bibliometric analysis on packaging research: towards sustainable and healthy packages. Br. Food J. 123 , 684–701 (2021)

Vos, T., Heinderyckx, F.: Gatekeeping in Transition. Routledge, New York (2015)

Wakefield, R.: Networks of accounting research: a citation-based structural and network analysis. Br. Account. Rev. 40 , 228–244 (2008)

Wallace, J.: Modeling contemporary gatekeeping: the rise of individuals, algorithms and platforms in digital new dissemination. Digit. Journal. 6 , 274–293 (2018)

Wallace, D., Fleet, C.: The democratization of information? Ref. User Serv. Q. 45 , 10–102 (2005)

Wamba, S., Mishra, D.: Big data integration with business processes: a literature review. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 23 , 477–492 (2017)

Wang, C., Lim, M., Zhao, L., Tseng, M., Chien, C., Lev, B.: The evolution of omega-the international journal of management science over the past 40 years: a bibliometric overview. Omega

Wäsche, H., Dickson, G., Woll, A., Brandes, U.: Social network analysis in sport research: an emerging paradigm. Eur. J. Sport Soc. 14 , 138–165 (2017)

Watts, D., Strogatz, S.: Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393 , 440–442 (1998)

West, R., Pineau, J., Precup, D.: Wikipedia: an online game for inferring semantic distances between concepts. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 1598–1603 (2009)

-West, R., Paranjape, A., Leskovec, J.: Mining missing hyperlinks from human navigation traces: a case study of Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1242–1252. ACM (2015)

-Wetzstein, A., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., Benton, W.: Uncovering the supplier selection knowledge structure: a systematic citation network analysis from 1991 to 2017. J. Purch. Supply Manag. (Forthcoming)

Wilkerson, B.: Using Wikipedia page views to measure the mass salience of US Supreme Court decisions. In: The Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 16 (2015)

Wong, W., Mittas, N., Arvanitou, E., Li, Y.: A bibliometric assessment of software engineering themes. Schools and institutions (2013–2020). J. Syst. Softw. 180 , 111029 (2021)

Wu, G., Cunningham, P.: Integration of multiple network views in Wikipedia. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 45 , 473–490 (2015)

Xu, S., Zhang, X.: Impact of Wikipedia on market information environment: evidence on management disclosure and investor reaction. MIS Q. 37 , 1043–1068 (2013)

Yang, H., Lai, C.: Understanding knowledge-sharing behavior in Wikipedia. Behavi. Inf. Technol. 30 , 131–142 (2011)

Yang, G., Li, G., Li, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, T., Liu, T., Chen, D., Huang, M.: Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value. Scientometrics 105 , 1319–1346 (2015)

Yang, S., Han, R., Wolfram, D., Zhao, Y.: Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): introducing author-keyword coupling analysis. J. Informetr 10 , 132–150 (2016)

Yasseri, T., Bright, J.: Predicting elections from online information flows: towards theoretically informed models. arXiv:1505–01818 (2015)

Zant, S., Frahm, K., Jaffres-Runser, K., Shepelyansky, D.: Interactions and influence of world painters from reduced Google matrix of Wikipedia networks. IEEE Access 6 , 47735–47750 (2018b)

Zant, S., Frahm, K., Jaffres-Runser, K., Shepelyansky, D.: Analysis of world terror networks from the reduced Google matrix of Wikipedia. Eur. Phys. J. B 91 (2018a)

Zeleznik, D., Blazun, H., Kokol, P.: A bibliometric analysis of the journal of advanced nursing: 1976–2015. J. Adv. Nurs. 73 , 2407–2419 (2017)

Zhang, S., Lyu, P., Yan, Y.: Global geographical and scientometric analysis of tourism-themed research. Scientometrics 105 , 385–401 (2015)

Zhang, C., Zheng, X., Su, C., Huang, H., Yan, F., et al.: A bibliometric study of the journal of school health: 1965–2014. Chin. Nurs. Res. 4 , 75–83 (2017)

Zhu, J., Hua, W.: Visualizing the knowledge domain of sustainable development research between 1987 and 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 110 , 893–914 (2017)

Zong, Q., Shen, H., Yuan, Q., Hu, X., Hou, Z., Deng, S.: Doctoral dissertations of library and information science in China: a co-word analysis. Scientometrics 94 , 781–799 (2013)

Zou, X., Yue, W., Vu, H.: Visualization and analysis of mapping knowledge domain of road safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 118 , 131–145 (2018)

Zupic, I., Cater, T.: Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18 , 429–472 (2015)

Download references

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Gulf University for Science and Technology, West Mishref, Kuwait

Mohamed M. Mostafa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed M. Mostafa .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have not disclosed any 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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mostafa, M.M. Twenty years of Wikipedia in scholarly publications: a bibliometric network analysis of the thematic and citation landscape. Qual Quant 57 , 5623–5653 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01626-7

Download citation

Accepted : 03 February 2023

Published : 14 February 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01626-7

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

• Bibliometric networks
• Intellectual structure
• Keyword co-occurrence
• Historiography
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of The Streets are Talking: Public Forms of Creative Expression from Around the World
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

National Endowment for the Arts

• Grants for Arts Projects
• Challenge America
• Research Awards
• Partnership Agreement Grants
• Creative Writing
• Translation Projects
• Volunteer to be an NEA Panelist
• Manage Your Award
• Recent Grants
• Arts & Human Development Task Force
• Arts Education Partnership
• Blue Star Museums
• Citizens' Institute on Rural Design
• Creative Forces: NEA Military Healing Arts Network
• GSA's Art in Architecture
• Independent Film & Media Arts Field-Building Initiative
• Interagency Working Group on Arts, Health, & Civic Infrastructure
• International
• Mayors' Institute on City Design
• Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge
• National Folklife Network
• NEA Big Read
• NEA Research Labs
• Poetry Out Loud
• Save America's Treasures
• Shakespeare in American Communities
• Sound Health Network
• United We Stand
• American Artscape Magazine
• NEA Art Works Podcast
• National Endowment for the Arts Blog
• States and Regions
• Accessibility
• Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program
• Arts and Health
• Arts Education
• Creative Placemaking
• Equity Action Plan
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Literary Arts
• Native Arts and Culture
• NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships
• National Heritage Fellowships
• National Medal of Arts
• Press Releases
• Upcoming Events
• NEA Chair's Page
• Leadership and Staff
• What Is the NEA
• Publications
• National Endowment for the Arts on COVID-19
• Open Government
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Office of the Inspector General
• Civil Rights Office
• Appropriations History
• Make a Donation

New Data Reveal How Adults Participated in the Arts During COVID-19

A masked audience watches a performance at the Lied Center for Performing Arts in Lincoln, Nebraska, in 2020. Photo courtesy of the Lied Center for Performing Arts at University of Nebraska.

Washington, DC —What was the impact of COVID-19 on arts participation? New research released today by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) notes that between July 2021 and July 2022, more than half of all adults created and/or performed art—similar to findings in 2017, the last time the survey was conducted. During the same time period, just under half of all adults attended in-person arts events, a significant drop from 2017. A separate survey shows that 82 percent of respondents watched or listened to arts activities through digital media between 2021 and 2022. These and other findings about in-person and virtual arts participation, and about adults’ reading habits, are available in two new NEA research publications: Arts Participation Patterns in 2022: Highlights from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts and Online Audiences for Arts Programming: A Survey of Virtual Participation Amid COVID-19 .

Chair of the NEA, Maria Rosario Jackson, PhD, said, “The National Endowment for the Arts has a longstanding commitment to providing the arts and culture field and the general public with accurate and relevant research. Taken together, these reports help to reveal the state of arts participation in our country and serve as an important resource in understanding areas that are growing in interest, those that showed a decline, as well as demographic gaps in participation, among other trends.”

Arts Participation Patterns in 2022: Highlights from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts

Since 1982, the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) has been administered roughly every five years by the U.S. Census Bureau. This report is the first look through the lens of federal survey data at how adults participated in arts activities for one year of the pandemic: a 12-month period from July 2021 to July 2022. The report examines areas such as attending arts events, personally creating or performing art, reading books or literature, watching or listening to arts content via media, or learning an art form. A comprehensive statistical report of the 2022 SPPA data will be released next year. 

Key findings from this report include:

Art Making:

• More than half (52 percent) of the nation’s adults did some form of art making in 2022. This is similar to the share of adults who, using a different set of measures, reported creating and/or performing art in 2017.
• For most art forms, the share of adults personally creating and/or performing has either grown modestly or held flat since 2017. Art making activities that showed growth from 2017 included leatherwork, metalwork, and woodwork. and playing musical instruments. Other activities, such as working with textiles, taking artistic photos, or doing creative writing, took a dip in 2020 but have since returned to 2017 levels.
• Social dancing is the most popular activity across all forms of personal arts performance and creation, involving 22 percent of adults.
• The next most popular activity is singing, whether alone or in a choir, though the proportion of adults singing declined by five percentage points from 2017 to 2022.
• Other declines in personal creation and performance included performing or practicing dance; restoring, rebuilding, or customizing objects; and cooking as an artistic activity.
• Most adults who learned an arts subject did so through friends or family, or by teaching oneself.

Arts Attendance—In-person:

• Just under half (48 percent) of all adults attended at least one arts event in person. This is six percentage points less than reported in 2017.
• Attendance rates declined in comparison to 2017 for virtually every type of arts activity specified in the survey—art museum or gallery visits, and attendance at jazz, classical, or Latin/salsa music performances, musical and non-musical plays, craft fairs and outdoor performing arts festivals, operas, and ballet and other dance forms, and movies. 
• However, attendance rates grew 15 percent, to 21 percent of adults, for the “other” performing arts category. This could include all kinds of music, dance, and theater events not specified by the survey, such as rock or pop, rap or hip-hop, folk or country, or music from other countries and cultural traditions, in addition to comedy/improv, circus acts, or magic shows. 
• As for visual arts attendance, the only activity not to see a severe decline was visits to parks, buildings, monuments, or neighborhoods for historic or design purposes—this participation rate slipped by only two percentage points.
• In 2022, open-air facilities (e.g., parks, pavilions, amphitheaters) were among the most popular sites of in-person arts attendance.
• Social media and peer-to-peer communications were the most commonly cited mechanisms for learning about in-person arts events that survey respondents attended.

Arts Consumption Via Media:

• As in prior years, the largest share of adults who participated in the arts did so by consuming art through electronic or digital media (75 percent).
• The rate of music-listening via electronic or digital media held steady between 2017 and 2022, with the exception of jazz and classical music or opera, which saw declines. 
• Many other forms of arts consumption via media saw declines in the five-year period, including watching or listening to theater productions and dance performances, as well as programs, podcasts, or other video or audio content about the visual arts or about books or writers.
• In 2022, 53 percent of U.S. adults read literature and/or books of some kind (compared to 57.1 percent in 2017).
• Data indicate a sharp decline in reading over the last decade. The percent of U.S. adults who read at least one book (in print or electronically) in 2022 was 48.5, 6.1 percentage points lower than in 2012. 
• The percent of U.S. adults who read literature—novels or short stories, poetry, and plays—was lower in 2022 than in 2017. In particular, the percent of U.S. adults who read novels or short stories declined at a 17 percent rate, from 45.2 percent in 2012 to 37.6 percent in 2022—the lowest share on record with the survey. 
• The percent of U.S. adults who read poetry dropped to 9.2 percent in 2022 from 11.7 percent in 2017, but remained above the 2012 level of 6.7 percent. A new survey question for 2022 asked about poetry listening, with 4.8 percent of adults (11.8 million) reporting having listened to poetry via broadcasts, recordings, or web streaming. (More information is available in the April 2023 NEA blog post: New Survey Reports Size of Poetry’s Audience – Streaming Included )

Demographic Differences:

• Companion tables to this report examine arts attendance by different demographic groups. For most activity/event types, the declines seen in arts attendance were borne by both genders, Whites, older adults, and those with higher education levels. Exceptions include:
• Musical plays; classical music; outdoor performing arts festivals, and craft fairs—declines were also seen in Hispanic attendees
• Non-musical plays and Latin music—declines were also seen in younger age groups 
• Non-ballet dance forms—declines were also seen in African American and Hispanic attendees, and in younger adults
• Art museums and galleries—declines were also seen in African American and Asian visitors

Raw data for the full 2022 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts will be available later this year at the NEA’s National Archive of Data on Arts and Culture .

Online Audiences for Arts Programming: A Survey of Virtual Participation Amid COVID-19

The 2022 General Social Survey (GSS), administered by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, is another tool for understanding arts participation. Supported by the NEA in partnership with the National Science Foundation, the 2022 GSS Arts Module asked respondents to reflect on their arts experiences during the first year of the pandemic (from March 2020 to March 2021) and to report whether, in the most recent 12-month period, they participated at a higher, lower, or identical rate. The report also examines how responses varied by demographic subgroup.

• 82 percent of respondents attended some type of digital arts activity between 2021 and 2022, such as: viewing or listening to archived and livestreamed web performing arts events; listening to arts-related podcasts; viewing or listening to archived and livestreamed web reading events; taking online art classes; and attending online art exhibits or tours. (This is roughly comparable to the 75 percent of adults reporting engagement with digital arts activities in the 2022 SPPA, which used different question-items and methods.)
• The greatest share of adults (70 percent) attended web-archived performing arts events, followed by 43 percent attending livestreamed performing arts events. (70 percent is updated from 69 percent using the GSS 2022 Cross-section data Release 2, which was released November 2023.)
• Roughly 30 percent of respondents reported doing one or more digital arts activities more often than in the first year of the pandemic.
• Overall, a slightly larger share of women than men reported engaging with any type of digital arts activity. This trend was consistent across many digital activity types, except for watching or listening to livestreamed performing arts events. 
• More women than men reported participating in one or more digital arts activity more often than in the first year of COVID-19.
• Adults aged 18-24 reported higher rates of engagement with digital arts activities than did older age groups and also were also more likely than other age groups to say they now did these activities more often than in the first year of the pandemic.
• Almost all Black/African Americans and other non-Hispanic and non-White respondents, and the vast majority of Hispanic respondents, reported engaging with at least one type of digital arts content over the most recent 12-month period. 
• Roughly half of all Black/African American and other non-Hispanic and non-White respondents, and over a third of Hispanic respondents, reported doing one or more digital activity more often than in the first year of the pandemic—compared to 24 percent of White respondents.
• Respondents from all educational backgrounds reported strong engagement with digital arts activities, with those with graduate degrees reporting the highest rate and those with less than a high school diploma reporting the lowest. Nevertheless, 42 percent of adults who had not earned a high school diploma said they now engaged with one or more digital arts activities more often than in the first year of the pandemic, which was the highest rate for any education group. (42 percent is updated from 41 percent using the GSS 2022 Cross-section data Release 2, which was released November 2023.)

Related Content

“arts attendance and reading trends, by demographic group”: tables for 2017 and 2022, about the national endowment for the arts.

Established by Congress in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts is the independent federal agency whose funding and support gives Americans the opportunity to participate in the arts, exercise their imaginations, and develop their creative capacities. Through partnerships with state arts agencies, local leaders, other federal agencies, and the philanthropic sector, the Arts Endowment supports arts learning, affirms and celebrates America’s rich and diverse cultural heritage, and extends its work to promote equal access to the arts in every community across America. Visit arts.gov to learn more.

Liz Auclair, [email protected], 202-682-5744

Recent News

Announcing the 2024-2025 National Endowment for the Arts Big Read Communities

Creative Forces Announces Grants for Arts Engagement Projects to Support Military-Connected People

Readout of Federal Interagency Working Group on Arts, Health, and Civic Infrastructure Meeting 

Stay connected to the national endowment for the arts.