Skip to main content

Research

Literature Review Template

A literature review is an argument about what is known, built from sources, not a list of summaries. This template takes you from scope and search, through a source matrix, to one section per theme with agreement, disagreement and gaps. Pick the example organized the way your sources group.

Updated 2026-10-27

Copy and adapt

The template

Literature reviewTemplate

Literature review: [topic]

Review question: [the one question this review answers] Type: [course paper / thesis chapter / proposal background / evidence review at work] Organized by: [theme / chronology / method / theory] because [how your sources naturally group] Project: [[Project name]] #research #litreview

Scope

  • In: [years, populations, settings, study types]
  • Out: [what you excluded] because [reason]

Search strategy

  • Databases: [e.g. the two or three your field uses]
  • Search terms: [terms and combinations]
  • Include if: [criteria]. Exclude if: [criteria]
  • Counts: [found] found, [screened] screened, [included] included. Last searched {{date}}

Source matrix

SourceQuestionMethod and sampleMain findingLimitsTheme
[Author, year][what they asked][design, n, setting][result in your words][weakness][theme]

Theme 1: [the claim these sources support, as a sentence]

  • Where sources agree: [sources and what they show]
  • Where they disagree: [sources, and a possible reason: method, sample, setting]
  • How strong the evidence is: [design, size, consistency]
  • Gap: [what nobody has tested yet]

Theme 2: [claim]

  • ...

Discussion

  • Overall picture: [what the field knows, in three sentences]
  • Confidence: [how much weight the evidence can bear]
  • Limits of this review: [what your search may have missed]

Conclusion

  • Answer to the review question: [one paragraph]
  • Most important gap: [and how your work addresses it]

References

[Full references in your required style]

4 examples

Examples for different situations

The same structure, filled in for the situations people actually bring to it. Copy the one closest to yours.

1.Thesis chapter organized by theme

When it fits: Use this when you are writing a master's or PhD chapter, your sources cluster around a few recurring findings, and your advisor has asked you to stop summarizing paper by paper.

Thesis chapter organized by themeExample 1

Literature review: retrieval practice in secondary classrooms

Review question: Does retrieval practice improve long-term retention for students aged 12 to 18 in real classrooms, not only in labs? Type: Master's thesis, chapter 2 (draft due to advisor 2026-12-01) Organized by: theme, because the sources split cleanly into lab evidence, classroom evidence and conditions that change the effect Project: [[Thesis: retrieval practice]] #research #litreview

Scope

  • In: experimental and quasi-experimental studies, secondary school, delayed test of at least one week
  • Out: studies testing only immediate recall, because the thesis is about retention

Search strategy

  • Counts: 212 found, 64 screened in full, 23 included. Last searched 2026-10-30

Theme 1: In the lab, testing beats restudying once there is a delay

  • Where sources agree: Roediger and Karpicke (2006) found restudying looked better at five minutes but practice testing won after a week. Dunlosky and colleagues' 2013 review rated practice testing among the most useful techniques.
  • How strong the evidence is: strong and replicated, but mostly university students and short texts.

Theme 2: The effect holds in classrooms, with smaller sizes

  • Where sources agree: most of the 14 classroom studies show a benefit on unit tests.
  • Where they disagree: three show no effect; all three used low-stakes quizzes students could skip.
  • Gap: almost no studies longer than one term.

Conclusion

  • Most important gap: retention across a full school year, which my study measures.

2.Evidence review at work, organized by method

When it fits: Use this when a practice change at work needs evidence, the studies differ more in design than in topic, and the decision makers need to know how much to trust each kind.

Evidence review at work, organized by methodExample 2

Literature review: hourly rounding and inpatient falls

Review question: Does structured hourly rounding reduce falls on adult medical wards? Type: Evidence review for the practice council, presenting 2026-11-18 Organized by: method, because the studies agree on direction but vary widely in how trustworthy their designs are Project: [[Falls prevention review]] #research #litreview

Scope

  • In: adult inpatient medical and surgical wards, 2012 to 2026, falls as an outcome
  • Out: long-term care and pediatrics, because our units are neither

Source matrix (summary)

DesignNumber of studiesTypical findingMain limit
Before-and-after on one unit9Falls down after rounding startsOther changes happened at the same time
Controlled comparison between units3Smaller reductionUnits not randomly chosen
Cluster randomized trial1No clear differenceRounding often not done as planned

Theme: the stronger the design, the smaller the effect

  • How strong the evidence is: weak overall. The most rigorous study found that staff completed rounds less than planned, so it may test poor implementation rather than rounding.

Conclusion

  • Answer: rounding may help, but the evidence cannot show it on its own. Recommend a pilot on two units with audit of completion, not a hospital-wide rollout.
  • Next step: propose pilot measures to Marguerite (falls lead) by 2026-11-11.

3.Policy brief organized chronologically

When it fits: Use this when the research changed as conditions changed, the reader needs to see why older findings may no longer apply, and dates matter as much as results.

Policy brief organized chronologicallyExample 3

Literature review: productivity and retention in remote and hybrid work

Review question: What does experimental evidence say about working from home and performance, and how has that changed since 2020? Type: Background section for the HR policy brief, due to Chidi 2026-11-25 Organized by: chronology, because the conditions (voluntary, forced, hybrid) changed what was being measured Project: [[Hybrid policy 2027]] #research #litreview

Period 1: before 2020, voluntary remote work

  • Bloom and colleagues (2015) ran a randomized experiment at a Chinese travel company's call center. Home workers' performance rose and quitting fell. Some later chose to return to the office, citing isolation.
  • Limit: call center work is easy to measure; most of our roles are not.

Period 2: 2020 to 2022, forced remote work

  • Many surveys and few experiments. Results vary with role, home setup and caring responsibilities.
  • Limit: nobody chose this arrangement, so results mix remote work with pandemic stress.

Period 3: 2022 onward, hybrid

  • Bloom, Han and Liang (2024) randomized hybrid work (two home days) at the same company. Quitting fell and performance reviews and promotions did not differ over two years.

Discussion

  • Overall picture: the best evidence is from one company. It is strong on retention, thinner on performance in complex roles.

Conclusion

  • Answer: evidence supports a two-day hybrid trial with retention as the main measure.

4.Course paper organized by theory

When it fits: Use this when an undergraduate assignment asks you to compare explanations, the sources are arguing about why something happens, and the grade depends on showing the debate rather than listing findings.

Course paper organized by theoryExample 4

Literature review: why do students procrastinate?

Review question: Is academic procrastination better explained as a failure of planning or as a way of managing bad moods? Type: PSY 310 paper, 2,500 words, due 2026-12-09 Organized by: theory, because the sources line up behind two explanations Project: [[PSY 310]] #research #litreview

Theory 1: procrastination as a self-regulation failure

  • Steel (2007) combined many studies in a meta-analysis and linked procrastination to unpleasant tasks, distant deadlines, impulsiveness and low confidence in finishing. He argued people discount rewards that are far away.
  • Strength: large body of data. Weakness: describes when procrastination happens more than why it feels good to do it.

Theory 2: procrastination as short-term mood repair

  • Sirois and Pychyl (2013) argued that people put off tasks to feel better now, giving priority to present mood over future goals.
  • Strength: explains why procrastinators often know the cost and delay anyway.

Where the theories meet

  • Both predict more delay for unpleasant tasks. They disagree on the fix: planning tools (theory 1) or managing the emotion around the task (theory 2).

Gap

  • Few studies compare the two fixes head to head with students.

Next steps

  • Ask Professor Lindqvist whether two theories are enough for 2,500 words @due(2026-11-12)

What a literature review needs that a summary does not

Most literature review templates give you the outline: introduction, body, conclusion, references. The outline is not the hard part. The hard part is the step between reading forty sources and writing paragraphs that connect them. This template puts two tools in that gap.

  • A source matrix. One row per source with the same columns: question, method and sample, main finding, limits, theme. Filling it forces you to read every paper for the same things, and it shows patterns that are invisible when sources live in separate notes.
  • Themes written as claims. Each body section starts with a sentence the sources support, then shows where they agree, where they disagree, how strong the evidence is, and what nobody has tested. That structure turns summaries into synthesis.

Before the matrix, read each source properly. How to read a research paper covers a three-pass method that fits the matrix columns.

Choosing how to organize it

The common guides list four ways to organize a review and leave you to choose. Choose from your matrix:

  1. By theme when sources cluster around a few recurring findings. This is the default for most theses. The retrieval practice example is organized this way.
  2. Chronologically when the answer changed over time because conditions changed. Do not use it just because the sources have dates; use it when the dates explain the findings, as in the remote work example.
  3. By method when studies agree on direction but differ in how much you can trust them. Common in health and policy reviews, as in the falls example.
  4. By theory when sources argue about why something happens. Course papers that ask you to compare explanations often fit, as in the procrastination example.

If two seem to fit, pick the one that lets you state your conclusion most directly. You can use another inside a section.

From source notes to synthesis

Work in this order:

  1. One note per source, with full reference, method, findings in your own words and limits.
  2. Fill the matrix from those notes. Add the Theme column last.
  3. Group by theme and write one claim per group.
  4. Write each theme section from the matrix rows, not from the papers.
  5. Run the paragraph check. Count citations per paragraph. One citation per paragraph means you are summarizing; go back to step 3 for that section.

When to stop searching

Top results describe the search but not when to stop. Stop when new sources stop changing your themes: three or four in a row fit an existing theme without changing its claim. Record the date of the last search in the template so you can rerun it before you submit; for a thesis that takes a year, new work will have appeared.

Common mistakes

  • One paragraph per source. Readers see an annotated bibliography with transitions.
  • Only agreeing sources. Reviewers notice, and the disagreements are often where your contribution sits.
  • No limits column. Without limits, a small pilot and a large trial look equally convincing.
  • Choosing the organization first. Let the matrix decide.
  • Losing track of what you read. Note how closely you read each source; citing an abstract as if you read the paper is a common error.

When to use a different template

While you are still reading, take source notes with the research notes template. If the assignment asks for evaluated summaries of each source rather than a synthesis, use the annotated bibliography template. For the broader setup of a research workflow, see the page for researchers.

Customization tips

  • Choose the organization from your matrix, not in advance

    Fill the source matrix first, then look at the Theme column. If sources cluster by finding, organize by theme. If results changed over time, go chronological. If they differ mostly in design, go by method. If they argue about why, go by theory.

  • Name each theme as a claim

    "Theme 2: Classroom studies" is a label. "Theme 2: The effect holds in classrooms, with smaller sizes" is an argument. Headings written as claims make the synthesis write itself.

  • Keep the search log even for a course paper

    Databases, terms and counts take five minutes to record and answer the first question any reviewer asks. For a systematic review, follow your field's reporting standard instead.

  • Put contradicting sources in on purpose

    A review that only cites agreeing studies reads as advocacy. A disagreement with a possible reason (different ages, shorter delay, different design) is often the most useful paragraph in the review.

  • Shorter for work, longer for a thesis

    An evidence review for colleagues can drop the search detail to one line and replace the matrix with a summary table by design, as the falls example does. A thesis chapter needs the full search, matrix and references.

In the app

How to do this in Scribelet

  1. Open Desk Settings, then Templates, tap Add Template, paste the template above and set the category to Research. Use it for the review itself.

  2. Write one note per source with the built-in Research Notes template and link each to the review with [[Thesis: retrieval practice]]. The review note's backlinks panel then lists every source you have read for it.

  3. Attach the PDF of each paper to its source note. Scribelet extracts the text so the paper is searchable next to your notes on it.

  4. Tag source notes by theme (#lab-evidence, #classroom-evidence). When you sit down to write Theme 2, the tag gives you every source that belongs there.

  5. Ask the AI chat "which of my sources used a delay of a week or more, and what did they find?" It answers from your source notes with citations, which is a quick check before you write a sentence like "most studies show".

Templates, template variables and AI generation are documented in Note templates.

Frequently asked questions

What are the parts of a literature review?

An introduction that states the question and scope, a body organized by theme, chronology, method or theory, a discussion of what the evidence adds up to, a conclusion that names the main gap, and references. Many reviews also describe the search strategy, and a thesis chapter almost always should.

How is a literature review different from an annotated bibliography?

An annotated bibliography summarizes and evaluates each source on its own, one entry per source. A literature review connects sources to each other around themes and makes an argument about what is known. Annotations are often the first step; see the annotated bibliography template.

How many sources should a literature review have?

It depends on the assignment and field. Course papers often use 10 to 20; thesis chapters often use several dozen or more. Ask your instructor or advisor, and stop when new sources stop changing your themes rather than at a number.

How do I avoid just summarizing sources?

Check your paragraphs. A paragraph that cites one source is usually summary; a paragraph that cites three and says where they agree and why they differ is synthesis. Writing each theme heading as a claim also forces you to argue.

How long should a literature review be?

A section in a research paper is often a few pages; a thesis chapter can be 20 to 40 pages or more. Follow the assignment or your department's guidance, and remember that a shorter review organized around clear claims usually reads better than a long one organized around sources.

From forty PDFs to one argument

Keep one note per source in Scribelet, link them to your review, tag them by theme and ask your notes which sources support a claim before you write it. Encrypted, free to start.

Free plan, no credit card. See pricing

Research

Research Notes Template

Research notes go wrong in two ways: you cannot tell where a claim came from, or you cannot tell whether it is still true. This template ties every finding to a source and a confidence level, keeps observation apart from interpretation, and records when you last checked.

Research

Annotated Bibliography Template

Each entry is a full citation in your assigned style followed by a short paragraph that summarizes the source, judges it, and says where it fits in your argument. Copy the template, then use the example closest to your course and citation style.

Study

Book Summary Template for Book Notes

A book summary is worth writing when it answers three questions a year later: what was the argument or story, what did I make of it, and what did I change because of it. Copy the template, or start from the example closest to the book on your nightstand.

Guide

Note Taking App for Researchers and PhD Students: Notes You Can Still Trust in Year Three

A research project outlives the notes most people take for it: by year three you cannot tell where a claim came from or why you made a decision in year one. This page says which tool fits which researcher (and what should stay in your reference manager), then gives a setup for literature notes, a research log and a weekly routine that keeps both usable.

Article

How to read a research paper

From the Scribelet blog

Article

Literature notes

From the Scribelet blog

We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Learn more