research or review paper

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is the Difference Between Research Papers and Review Papers?

Researchers often have to write different types of articles, from review papers to review papers and more, each with its own purpose and structure. This makes it critical for students and researchers to understand the nuances of good writing and develop the skills required to write various kinds of academic text. With so many different types of academic writing to pursue – scholarly articles, commentaries, book reviews, case reports, clinical study reports – it is common for students and early career researchers to get confused. So in this article, we will explain what is a review paper and what is a research paper, while summarizing the similarities and difference between review papers and research papers.

Table of Contents

What is a Review Paper ?

A review paper offers an overview of previously published work and does not contain any new research findings. It evaluates and summarizes information or knowledge that is already available in various published formats like journals, books, or other publications, all of which is referred to as secondary literature. Well-written review papers play a crucial role in helping students and researchers understand existing knowledge in a specific field or a research topic they are interested in. By providing a comprehensive overview of previous studies, methodologies, findings, and trends, they help researchers identify gaps in a specific field of study opening up new avenues for future research.

What is a Research Paper ?

A research paper is based on original research and primary sources of data. Unlike review papers, researchers writing research papers need to report new findings derived from empirical research or experimentation. It requires the author to draw inferences or make assumptions based on experiments, surveys, interviews, or questionnaires employed to collect and analyze data. Research papers also typically follow the recommended IMRAD format, which includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Through research papers, authors address a specific research question or hypothesis with the aim of contributing novel insights to the field.

Similarities between research papers and review papers

Research papers and review papers share several similarities, which makes it understandable that it is this pair of academic documents that are often most confused.

• Research papers and review papers are written by scholars and intended for an academic audience; they’re written with the aim of contributing to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field and can be published in peer reviewed journals.
• Both research papers and review papers require a comprehensive understanding of all the latest, relevant literature on a specific topic. This means authors must conduct a thorough review of existing studies, theories, and methodologies in their own subject and related areas to inform their own research or analysis.
• Research papers and review papers both adhere to specific formatting and citation styles dictated by the target journal. This ensures consistency and allows readers to easily locate and reference the sources cited in the papers.

These similarities highlight the rigorous, scholarly nature of both research papers and review papers, which requires both research integrity and a commitment to further knowledge in a field. However, these two types of academic writing are more different than one would think.

Differences between research papers and review papers

Though often used interchangeably to refer to academic content, research papers and review papers are quite different. They have different purposes, specific structure and writing styles, and citation formats given that they aim to communicate different kinds of information. Here are four key differences between research papers and review papers:

• Purpose: Review papers evaluate existing research, identify trends, and discuss the current state of knowledge on a specific topic; they are based on the study of previously published literature. On the other hand, research paperscontain original research work undertaken by the author, who is required to contribute new knowledge to the research field.
• Structure: Research papers typically follow a structured format, including key sections like the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Meanwhile, review papers may have a more flexible structure, allowing authors to organize the content based on thematic or chronological approaches. However, they generally include an introduction, main body discussing various aspects of the topic, and a conclusion.
• Methodology: Research papers involve the collection of data, experimentation, or analysis of existing data to answer specific research questions. However, review papers do not involve original data collection; instead, they extensively analyze and summarize existing studies, often using systematic literature review methods.
• Citation style: Research papers rely on primary sources to support and justify their own findings, emphasizing recent and relevant research. Review papers incorporate a wide range of primary and secondary sources to present a comprehensive overview of the topic and support the evaluation and synthesis of existing literature.

In summary, it’s important to understand the key differences between research papers and review papers. By mastering the art of writing both research papers and review papers, students and researchers can make more meaningful contributions to their chosen disciplines. All the best!

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Should you use ChatGPT for Literature Search?

Tips on Writing the Acknowledgments Section 

Review Paper vs. Research Paper: Main Differences

Doing a paper is difficult, so learn the difference between a review paper vs. research paper, to determine which one is ideal for you.

A research paper and a review paper are two very specific types of papers. They have different motives, goals, and prerequisites. The elements found in research papers and review papers differ. The research paper is based on originality, therefore the paper takes into consideration the author’s original research, whereas the review paper is founded on an existing collection of knowledge. 

This article will walk you through the main differences between a review paper vs. research paper, allowing you to correctly determine which one is ideal for your work.

What is a review paper?

A review paper project tries to provide readers with an overview of an existing collection of knowledge by reviewing a book or an article and examining its content, structure, style, and statements. Reviews, such as peer reviews, can be used to examine and assess the work of other authors, rating the work by comparing it to the work of others. A review article is frequently written for a large readership, which is why it is usually brief. 

Review papers can be classified into three types:

• Narrative: a collection of and attempt to communicate all known information about a certain topic. It is based on research that has previously been completed and published. 
• Meta-analysis: a method of comparing and combining the findings of past research studies. It is done routinely to evaluate the efficacy of a particular initiative or method of treatment.
• Systematic: a search of all known scientific information on a topic to find a solution to a specific issue or problem. 

What is a research paper?

A research paper entails writing on research that has been performed by themselves, usually something new and done mostly from scratch since it has to be original research. It incorporates the research parameters, as well as the assessment, interpretation and important findings of the research. 

Writing a research paper involves several phases and different aspects, such as: selecting a topic, developing a hypothesis, conducting research, testing the hypothesis, drawing conclusions, and publishing a paper supporting or denying the hypothesis. 

Review paper vs. Research paper

Now that you have a basic understanding of both sorts of papers, it is time to compare and contrast the main differences between review paper vs. research paper.

These are the main differences, however, there may be others:

• A research paper is usually more detailed and thorough than a review paper.
• A research paper is usually peer-reviewed, but a review paper is not always.
• In general, a research paper is more formal than a review paper.
• A research paper’s tone is normally objective, but a review paper’s tone can be more subjective.
• A research paper is normally written in APA style, however, a review paper may be written in a different format.

Add visual impact to your posters with scientific illustrations and graphics

Using infographics and illustrations may assist to make dense information more accessible and understood, they can bring interest and engagement to a research study or presentation. Use Mind The Graph to turn your work into remarkable work.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

Comparing Research and Review Papers: Key Differences

Research papers and review papers are two distinct forms of academic writing that are often confused. In this article, we provide a detailed analysis of the key differences between research and review papers, with an emphasis on helping researchers to better understand these distinctions. Specifically, we will explore the defining features of each paper type, discuss their individual purpose and scope in detail, consider when one should be used over another for certain topics or disciplines, and finally offer practical strategies for crafting effective research and review pieces. With this comprehensive overview of the fundamental distinctions between these two types of writing projects as our guidepost—we hope readers will come away from this piece having gained a clearer sense about how to effectively compare them within their own practice.

I. Introduction

Ii. definition of research and review papers, iii. differences in purpose and scope, iv. key features of research paper writing, v. formatting requirements for review papers, vi. conclusion: distinguishing between the two types of documents, vii. references.

The world of academic writing is vast and varied. From research papers to reviews, there are many genres available for an author to explore. Understanding the differences between these two types of works is essential in order to produce effective scholarly pieces.

• Research Paper : Research papers present evidence gathered from data analysis or experimentation; they also discuss theoretical conclusions based on those results. A successful research paper requires thorough background knowledge, a clear focus, and logical arguments that support your claims.
• Review Paper : Review papers provide an overview of existing literature on a given topic. They should be composed with careful attention paid to detail, as well as offering insights into patterns found within related sources of information. Reviews typically do not include new primary research but rather summarize other studies while synthesizing important themes across multiple works.

Understanding the distinction between research and review papers is critical to a successful academic career. While both seek to explore and synthesize current knowledge on a subject, there are key differences in their purpose.

• Research Papers:

Research papers involve independent investigation into existing literature that strives to add something new or significant to the field of study. The core objective is to use evidence-based methodology as an analytical tool for exploring ideas and hypotheses while establishing scholarly credentials within one’s chosen discipline. It also requires rigorous fact checking, accurate source citation, methodological consistency, adherence to ethical standards of conduct with regard to human subjects, etc.

• Review Papers:

Purpose and Scope: Research papers and review papers both present the findings of an author’s study, but there is a fundamental difference between them. Research papers focus on new research in a particular field or subject, while reviews take an existing body of literature and summarize it for readers to get up-to-date with the topic. While research articles often investigate something that has not been studied before, review articles provide insight into past studies done in various fields. Reviews typically contain fewer details than full research reports due to their summarizing nature; thus they are usually shorter in length as well. Furthermore, different styles of writing may be used depending on which type of paper is being written – narrative for reviews vs analytical for original works.

The scope also differs when comparing these two types of documents – academic journals tend to favor more thorough pieces such as those found in research articles whereas magazines generally prefer short opinion pieces based off other authors’ work (i.e., reviews). Additionally, peer reviewers have differing roles when evaluating each respective article; they examine specific criteria including accuracy and depth when looking at research reports versus precision and clarity within reviews. The primary purpose remains unchanged regardless though – providing valuable information to its audience through thoughtful analysis backed by evidence from scholarly sources!

Research paper writing has its own set of distinct characteristics that render it unique from other genres. This section outlines the key features of research papers and also provides a brief comparison to review papers.

• Formalism: Research papers generally maintain a more formal style than most types of writing, often containing complex vocabulary and thorough explanations in an effort to best communicate ideas. Review papers are slightly less formal, providing summary rather than detailed analyses.
• Structure: A well-structured research paper will typically contain several elements such as an introduction with background information on the topic, multiple body sections covering different aspects related to the topic at hand, and conclusions synthesizing all major points made throughout. In contrast, reviews commonly have fewer structured components but may be organized around themes or topics discussed.

Consistent Formatting Across Review Papers Review papers, like research papers, come with a set of formatting requirements that must be followed to make them look presentable and clear. For starters, the general paper format should be maintained throughout – 1-inch margins on all sides and double spacing are most commonly accepted as standards for any academic writing. Font size may vary depending on the journal but should generally remain between 10–12 pt; Times New Roman is considered an acceptable font choice.

A review paper differs from its research counterparts in two key ways: Firstly, it does not include primary data or raw results which would usually need to accompany experimental work (in fact these findings can be referenced rather than detailed within). Secondly, each section’s content needs to focus more heavily on summarizing existing literature sources instead of discussing interpretations or drawing conclusions based off your own experiments.

• Table titles must align directly above their respective tables.
• Figures should also follow similar conventions as far as alignment goes.

. A comprehensive list of references at the end – including both those cited in body text and otherwise consulted during preparation — is required too. In many cases this will take up significantly more space compared to what you’d find in a comparable research article due to the number of publications discussed therein!

Distinguishing Between Research and Review Papers

Both research and review papers are used for academic purposes, however they differ in purpose and writing style. The primary difference between the two is that a research paper involves original investigation of a subject, while a review paper summarises already-existing information about it.

• A research paper typically includes an introduction outlining the author’s hypothesis or aims; a literature review with citations; methodology describing how data was collected to test hypotheses or answer questions posed in the introduction section; results showing what was found out during analysis of gathered data; discussion interpreting findings from results; conclusion summarising whether study met its goals.

Locating Sources The research process is only as strong as the references it builds upon. To ensure accuracy and relevance, it is important to track down a variety of sources when undertaking an academic task. For this purpose, research papers and review papers are valuable contributions which can be tapped for relevant insights.

Research Papers provide direct accounts from field experts on their experiments or findings in a particular area; these are typically peer-reviewed before they become available publicly. Meanwhile Review Papers synthesize multiple primary documents into one unified viewpoint; here authors can assess past efforts while offering insight into future directions for further inquiry. Both types of paper offer researchers insightful perspectives that aid in understanding complex topics, but each serve different roles depending on the project’s needs.

English: The comparison between research and review papers is an important one, as it can help to inform readers on the differences between two types of academic writing. By highlighting key points such as the purpose, content, structure and language used in each type of paper we have seen that there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. It is clear that this understanding is invaluable for those looking to improve their own skills in writing either form of scholarly article or those wanting a better appreciation when reading others’ work.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

What the science of elections can reveal in this super-election year

Career Feature 10 JUN 24

How we packed off the giant pandas from the Smithsonian’s National Zoo

‘I saw that discrimination wasn’t hearsay or rumours — it really did exist’

Career Q&A 05 JUN 24

How to track the economic impact of public investments in AI

Comment 10 JUN 24

I was denied tenure — how do I cope?

Career Feature 06 JUN 24

How I run a virtual lab group that’s collaborative, inclusive and productive

Career Column 31 MAY 24

China seeks global impact and recognition

Nature Index 05 JUN 24

Chinese research collaborations shift to the Belt and Road

A guide to the Nature Index

Postdoctoral fellow at USC (Dr. Jian-Fu Chen lab), Los Angeles

Two post-doc positions for studying neuroscience and craniofacial biology, crosstalk, and disease using mouse and iPSC models.

Los Angeles, California

USC - Center for Craniofacial Molecular Biology

Associate Editor, Physics of Living Systems

The Associate Editor will decide on publishing the most exciting and consequential results in the physics of living systems.

United States (US) - Remote

American Physical Society

Senior Project Manager

The Senior Project Manager will play a key role in enabling Springer Nature’s OA transformation, and optimising and expanding our OA business.

London – Hybrid Working Model

Springer Nature Ltd

Senior Commercial Manager (Open Access)

This position offers a unique opportunity to influence the future of open access publishing.

Postdoctoral Fellow in Immunology at Northwestern University

Our T cell biology lab is looking for fellows interested in improving immunotherapies for cancer and autoimmune disease through immune engineering.

Chicago, Illinois

Choi Laboratory at Northwestern

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

• Published: 02 October 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
• Mark B. Houston 2 &
• John Hulland 3  

234k Accesses

448 Citations

63 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. 

From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we’ll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these insights will streamline your writing journey.

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

What Is A Review Paper?

Diving into the realm of scholarly communication, you might have stumbled upon a research review article.

This unique genre serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic. 

Unlike a standard research article that presents original experiments, a review paper delves into published literature, aiming to: 

• clarify, and
• evaluate previous findings.

Imagine you’re tasked to write a review article. The starting point is often a burning research question. Your mission? To scour various journals, piecing together a well-structured narrative that not only summarises key findings but also identifies gaps in existing literature.

This is where the magic of review writing shines – it’s about creating a roadmap for future research, highlighting areas ripe for exploration.

Review articles come in different flavours, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses being the gold standards. The methodology here is meticulous, with a clear protocol for selecting and evaluating studies.

This rigorous approach ensures that your review is more than just an overview; it’s a critical analysis that adds depth to the understanding of the subject.

Crafting a good review requires mastering the art of citation. Every claim or observation you make needs to be backed by relevant literature. This not only lends credibility to your work but also provides a treasure trove of information for readers eager to delve deeper.

Types Of Review Paper

Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions.

Systematic Review Paper

First up is the systematic review, the crème de la crème of review types. It’s known for its rigorous methodology, involving a detailed plan for:

• identifying,
• selecting, and
• critically appraising relevant research. 

The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses, where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions. This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.

Literature Review Paper

Then there’s the literature review, a broader type you might encounter.

Here, the goal is to give an overview of the main points and debates on a topic, without the stringent methodological framework of a systematic review.

Literature reviews are great for getting a grasp of the field and identifying where future research might head. Often reading literature review papers can help you to learn about a topic rather quickly.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews allow for a more flexible approach. Authors of narrative reviews draw on existing literature to provide insights or critique a certain area of research.

This is generally done with a less formal structure than systematic reviews. This type is particularly useful for areas where it’s difficult to quantify findings across studies.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are gaining traction for their ability to map out the existing literature on a broad topic, identifying:

• key concepts,
• theories, and

Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews have a more exploratory approach, which can be particularly useful in emerging fields or for topics that haven’t been comprehensively reviewed before.

Each type of review serves a unique purpose and requires a specific skill set. Whether you’re looking to summarise existing findings, synthesise data for evidence-based practice, or explore new research territories, there’s a review type that fits the bill. 

Knowing how to write, read, and interpret these reviews can significantly enhance your understanding of any research area.

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

A review paper has a pretty set structure, with minor changes here and there to suit the topic covered. The format not only organises your thoughts but also guides your readers through the complexities of your topic.

Title & Abstract

Starting with the title and abstract, you set the stage. The title should be a concise indicator of the content, making it easier for others to quickly tell what your article content is about.

As for the abstract, it should act as a descriptive summary, offering a snapshot of your review’s scope and findings. 

Introduction

The introduction lays the groundwork, presenting the research question that drives your review. It’s here you:

• justify the importance of your review,
• delineating the current state of knowledge and
• highlighting gaps.

This section aims to articulate the significance of the topic and your objective in exploring it.

Methodology

The methodology section is the backbone of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, detailing the research methods employed to select, assess, and synthesise studies. 

This transparency allows readers to gauge the rigour and reproducibility of your review. It’s a testament to the integrity of your work, showing how you’ve minimised bias.

The heart of your review lies in the body, where you:

• analyse, and
• critique existing literature.

This is where you synthesise evidence, draw connections, and present both sides of any argument. Well-structured paragraphs and clear subheadings guide readers through your analysis, offering insights and fostering a deeper understanding of the subject.

Discussion & Conclusion

The discussion or conclusion section is where you weave together the main points, reflecting on what your findings mean for the field.

It’s about connecting the dots, offering a synthesis of evidence that answers your initial research question. This part often hints at future research directions, suggesting areas that need further exploration due to gaps in existing knowledge.

Lastly, the citation list is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others. Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

Writing a review article quickly without sacrificing quality might seem like a tall order, but with the right approach, it’s entirely achievable. 

Clearly Define Your Research Question

Clearly define your research question. A focused question not only narrows down the scope of your literature search but also keeps your review concise and on track.

By honing in on a specific aspect of a broader topic, you can avoid the common pitfall of becoming overwhelmed by the vast expanse of available literature. This specificity allows you to zero in on the most relevant studies, making your review more impactful.

Efficient Literature Searching

Utilise databases specific to your field and employ advanced search techniques like Boolean operators. This can drastically reduce the time you spend sifting through irrelevant articles.

Additionally, leveraging citation chains—looking at who has cited a pivotal paper in your area and who it cites—can uncover valuable sources you might otherwise miss.

Organise Your Findings Systematically

Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies. This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant.

Tools like citation management software can be invaluable here, helping you keep track of your sources and their key points. We list out some of the best AI tools for academic research here. 

Build An Outline Before Writing

Don’t underestimate the power of a well-structured outline. A clear blueprint of your article can guide your writing process, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.

This roadmap not only speeds up the writing process by providing a clear direction but also helps maintain coherence, ensuring your review article delivers a compelling narrative that advances understanding in your field.

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

When it’s time to write, start with sections you find easiest. This might be the methodology or a particular thematic section where you feel most confident.

Getting words on the page can build momentum, making it easier to tackle more challenging sections later.

Remember, your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect; the goal is to start articulating your synthesis of the literature.

Learn How To Write An Article Review

Mastering the review paper format is a crucial step towards efficient academic writing. By adhering to the structured components outlined, you can streamline the creation of a compelling review article.

Embracing these guidelines not only speeds up the writing process but also enhances the clarity and impact of your work, ensuring your contributions to scholarly discourse are both valuable and timely.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• Agraphia. Tiu JB, Carter AR. Tiu JB, et al. 2022 Dec 4. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. 2022 Dec 4. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 32809557 Free Books & Documents.
• How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
• [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
• How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
• A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
• Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
• Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
• Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
• Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
• Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
• Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours: 

• Maxwell Library
• Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
• Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

• Where Do I Start?
• How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
• How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
• Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece:  An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short. 

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

• Journal Title and Author
• Abstract 
• Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
• Literature Review
• Methods/Methodology
• Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions.  Common sections of these articles include:

• an Introduction
• Discussion/Conclusion
• works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
• INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
• Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
• UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
• << Previous: Where Do I Start?
• Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,112,618 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

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.

• Research Process

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 82.8K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

• Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
• Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
• Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
• Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
• Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
• Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
• Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
• Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

• Manuscript Preparation

What are Implications in Research?

How to write the results section of a research paper

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Interesting
• Scholarships
• UGC-CARE Journals

Research Paper Vs Review Paper | 50 Differences

50 Differences Between Research Article and a Review Article

A research paper is a piece of writing that reports facts, data, and other information on a specific topic. It is usually longer than a review paper and includes a detailed evaluation of the research. Whereas, a review paper is a shorter piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates the research on a specific topic. It is usually shorter than a research paper and does not include a detailed evaluation of the research. In this article, we have listed the 50 important differences between a review paper vs research article.

• A research paper is typically much longer than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more detailed and comprehensive than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more focused on a specific topic than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more analytical and critical than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically more objective than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically written by one or more authors, while a review paper may be written by a single author.
• A research paper is typically peer-reviewed, while a review paper may not be.
• A research paper is typically published in a scholarly journal, while a review paper may be published in a variety of different publications.
• The audience for a research paper is typically other scholars, while the audience for a review paper may be the general public.
• The purpose of a research paper is typically to contribute to the scholarly literature, while the purpose of a review paper may be to provide an overview of the literature or to evaluate a particular research study.
• The structure of a research paper is typically more complex than the structure of a review paper.
• A research paper typically includes an abstract, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes a literature review, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes a methodology section, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes results and discussion sections, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes a conclusion, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper is typically organized around a central research question , while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
• A research paper typically uses primary sources, while a review paper may use both primary and secondary sources.
• A research paper is typically based on empirical research, while a review paper may be based on either empirical or non-empirical research.
• A research paper is typically more formal than a review paper.
• A research paper is typically written in the third person, while a review paper may be written in the first person.
• A research paper typically uses formal language, while a review paper may use more informal language.
• A research paper is typically objective in tone, while a review paper may be more subjective in tone.
• A research paper typically uses APA style, while a review paper may use a different style.
• A research paper typically includes a title page, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes an abstract on the title page, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes keywords on the title page, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper typically includes an author note, while a review paper may not.
• A research paper is typically organized around a central research question, while a review paper may be organized around a central theme.
• A research paper is typically longer than a review paper.

I hope, this article would help you to know the differences between Research Paper and a Review Paper.

Also Read: What is a Research Design? Importance and Types

• Difference between
• evaluation review paper
• Research Paper

How to Check Scopus Indexed Journals 2024

List of open access sci journals in computer science, 24 best online plagiarism checker free – 2024, most popular, apply for the dst-jsps indo-japan call 2024, india-eu partner up for explainable and robust ai research, scopus indexed journals list 2024, 5 free data analysis and graph plotting software for thesis, the hrd scheme india 2024-25, 6 best online chemical drawing software 2024, imu-simons research fellowship program (2024-2027), best for you, what is phd, popular posts, how to write a research paper in a month, popular category.

• POSTDOC 317
• Interesting 258
• Journals 234
• Fellowship 130
• Research Methodology 102
• All Scopus Indexed Journals 92

Mail Subscription

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

Contact us: [email protected]

Google News

Copyright © 2024 iLovePhD. All rights reserved

• Artificial intelligence

• Trending Now
• Foundational Courses
• Data Science
• Practice Problem
• Machine Learning
• System Design
• DevOps Tutorial

Difference between Research Paper and Review Paper

• Difference between Pair Programming and Peer Reviews
• Difference Between Graph and Tree
• Difference between Project Report and Research Report
• Difference between Data Science and Operations Research
• Difference between E-paper and LCD
• Difference between Inkjet printer and Laser printer
• Difference between Qualitative research and Quantitative research
• Difference between Paragrah and Essay
• Difference between Survey and Experiment
• Difference between Descriptive Research and Experimental Research
• Difference between Printer and Scanner
• Difference between Revision and Review
• Difference between Plotter and Printer
• Difference between Vertical search and Horizontal search
• Difference between Firewall and Proxy Server
• Difference Between Stars And Planets
• Difference between Virus and Spyware
• Difference between Word Processor and Text Editor
• Difference between Switch and Gateway

Scholarly literature can be of different types. Many of them require researchers to perform an original study, whereas others are based on previously published research. Amateur researchers have quite a confusion understanding each type of scholarly literature and the difference between them.

Research Paper

When researchers partake in an original study or investigation of a unique topic, for example, a study of the prevalence of substance abuse in a specific community or geographical area, the findings of that study are presented as a research paper. The most essential component of a research paper is the analysis of the topic, evidence to support the study and the conclusion of the study. It can comprise of the answer to the reach question and may include a hypothesis, the resource requirement for the study and the method followed to reach the conclusion. The formatting of a research paper is fairly similar across all subjects and institutions, though it can vary from one region to another depending upon the pattern laid down by the publishing and educational bodies. This scholarly work is unique and bears no similarity to any other published work. Analysis of the data can vary from the use of software to authentic experiments.

Review Paper

Review papers are universal and can be focused upon a wide range of mediums, including articles in journals, books, magazines, and software. A review paper refers to the study and survey of a recently published Research paper on a specific topic or subject. For instance, climate change due to industrial waste has many scholarly Research paper. these papers can be reviewed by any other number of scholars for its merits. In order to write a review paper successfully, one needs to have knowledge of what other scholars have written on the subject and their thoughts on the subject, particularly in recent times. the reach papers act as a reference and source material for these review papers. These can be stimulating and extremely exhaustive with the intent for undertaking research by introducing challenging materials and facts. It should act as a summary of the original research paper with all its relevant literature on the topic.

Key differences between the Research paper and Review paper are given in the table below:

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Difference Between
• Write From Home

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

Elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.

Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions opens in new tab/window of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process opens in new tab/window under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This opinion was endorsed by the outcome of a survey Elsevier and Sense About Science conducted in 2009 opens in new tab/window and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly organization surveys. Furthermore, a  2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium opens in new tab/window , saw 82% of researchers agreeing that “without peer review there is no control in scientific communication.”

To learn more about peer review, visit Elsevier’s free e-learning platform  Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window and see our resources below.

The peer review process

Types of peer review.

Peer review comes in different flavours. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, and often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community. Before submitting or reviewing a paper, you must therefore check which type is employed by the journal so you are aware of the respective rules. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly.  

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymized review include:

Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions , as the reviewers will not be influenced by potential criticism from the authors.

Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double anonymized review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, such as on author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history.

Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our  double-anonymized peer review guidelines .

Triple anonymized review

With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous to the author, and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in a way to minimize any potential bias towards the authors. However, it should be noted that: 

The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable.

As with double anonymized review, there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly identify the author(s) from their writing style, subject matter, citation patterns, or other methodologies.

Open review

Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:

Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page 

Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, either signed or anonymous 

Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article 

Publication of the paper after pre-checks and opening a discussion forum to the community who can then comment (named or anonymous) on the article 

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect ( example opens in new tab/window ).

Read more about the experiment

More transparent peer review

Transparency is the key to trust in peer review and as such there is an increasing call towards more  transparency around the peer review process . In an effort to promote transparency in the peer review process, many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the handling editor of the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance. Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers about the editor’s decision and their peers’ recommendations. 

Article transfer service: sharing reviewer comments

Elsevier authors may be invited to  transfer  their article submission from one journal to another for free if their initial submission was not successful. 

As a referee, your review report (including all comments to the author and editor) will be transferred to the destination journal, along with the manuscript. The main benefit is that reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals. 

Tools and resources

Interesting reads.

Chapter 2 of Academic and Professional Publishing, 2012, by Irene Hames in 2012 opens in new tab/window

"Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Perspectives in Publishing No 2, August 2004, by Adrian Mulligan opens in new tab/window

“The history of the peer-review process” Trends in Biotechnology, 2002, by Ray Spier opens in new tab/window

Reviewers’ Update articles

Peer review using today’s technology

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni

How face-to-face peer review can benefit authors and journals alike

Innovation in peer review: introducing “volunpeers”

Results masked review: peer review without publication bias

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules

The certified peer reviewer course opens in new tab/window

Transparency in peer review opens in new tab/window

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab (the Purdue OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The On-Campus and Online versions of Purdue OWL assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue OWL serves the Purdue West Lafayette and Indianapolis campuses and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

• Search Search
• CN (Chinese)
• DE (German)
• ES (Spanish)
• FR (Français)
• JP (Japanese)
• Open Research
• Booksellers
• Peer Reviewers
• Springer Nature Group ↗
• Publish an article
• Roles and responsibilities
• Signing your contract
• Writing your manuscript
• Submitting your manuscript
• Producing your book
• Promoting your book
• Submit your book idea
• Manuscript guidelines
• Book author services
• Publish a book
• Publish conference proceedings

Journal-integrated preprint sharing from Springer Nature and Research Square

Share your preprint and track your manuscript’s review progress with our  In Review service

Our commitment to early sharing and transparency in peer review inspires us to think about how to help our authors in new ways. So, in October 2018, we added a new option for you when you submit to select Springer Nature journals. This first-of-its-kind option, called In Review , brought to you by our partners at Research Square, makes it easy to share a preprint of your manuscript on the Research Square platform and gives you real time updates on your manuscript’s progress through peer review.  In Review clearly links your manuscript to the journal reviewing it, while it’s in review. 

How can you participate?

It's simple! Just select the In Review option when you submit your next article to one of the participating journals. ( But be sure all your coauthors agree to opt-in , too.) And here is a list of journals currently on  In Review . 

Learn more about In Review

Brought to you by Research Square

With In Review you can:

• Share your work early  with funders and others as a preprint on Research Square in a citeable way while it is under review, and engage the wider community in discussion to help make your article even better including through the Hypothes.is open annotation tool. And social sharing of your preprint is easy—every article page has social media buttons at the top
• Track the status of your manuscript , including when reviews have been received (see below for details)
• Benefit from early sharing, such as more collaboration opportunities and earlier citations

Your peers will be able to:

• Comment on/see emerging science in full HTML—in both phone and desktop-friendly sizes
• Find new discoveries with fully-indexed search
• Gain insight into the peer review pipeline at participating journals

What can you expect if you opt in?

The editorial and peer review process will continue through the peer review systems as usual. You can use  In Review  to access up-to-date information on where your article is in the peer review process. 

The system will also immediately post a preprint of your manuscript to the In Review section of Research Square, in easy-to-read HTML, and with a citeable DOI. There, it will become a permanent part of the scholarly record —that means that your manuscript will permanently remain publicly available, regardless of whether the journal you submitted it to accepts it or not. (The FAQ has more details about the mechanics of how this works.)

You can see an example in the article above .  

What happens when you opt in to In Review?

When you submit your article through the manuscript submission system you will get the chance to opt in to  In Review . All coauthors must agree to post a preprint and participate in  In Review . 

2. Quality control checks

If you choose to opt in, your article will undergo some basic quality control checks before being sent to the  In Review  platform. 

3. Preprint deposition

Research Square converts the manuscript to HTML, assigns a DOI, and posts on the platform with a CC-BY license. This is public, and permanent. 

4. Author notification

Research Square notifies authors of preprint posting, and sends a link to the author dashboard. Authors will need to create an account (i.e., password) before logging in to see the dashboard.

5. Author dashboard (private)

Authors will get real time updates on their manuscript’s progress through peer review in the private author dashboard. 

6. Peer review timeline

Updates appear on the public peer review timeline as the manuscript progresses through peer review* (*Not available on Nature-branded journals.)

7. Final Decision

If the article is published, the preprint is updated with a link to the version of record. If that article is rejected, the journal name and public peer review timeline will be removed but the preprint and any versions of it, if any, will remain public. 

Still have more questions about In Review?

If you still have questions about what In Review can do for you or how it works, read our FAQ. 

Find out more about In Review across Springer Nature

• Authors’ original submitted version and all versions are released in real time as peer review progresses
• Public peer review timeline
• Authors will be able to track peer review on their private author dashboard

(Including  Nature Communications )

• Authors’ original submitted version

• Coming soon

For further information, please contact Research Square at [email protected] . 

Stay up to date

Here to foster information exchange with the library community

Connect with us on LinkedIn and stay up to date with news and development.

• Tools & Services
• Account Development
• Sales and account contacts
• Professional
• Press office
• Locations & Contact

We are a world leading research, educational and professional publisher. Visit our main website for more information.

• © 2024 Springer Nature
• General terms and conditions
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Your Privacy Choices / Manage Cookies
• Accessibility
• Legal notice
• Help us to improve this site, send feedback.

Advertisement

The Best Toilet Paper

By Nancy Redd

Nancy Redd is a writer who covers health and grooming. She has tested dozens of hair dryers, toothbrushes, and pairs of period underwear.

The average American uses an astounding 141 rolls of toilet paper a year . If you’re going through that much tissue, we think it’s worth settling on a brand you actively like (you could also consider cutting back, with the help of a bidet ). Over the course of 10 months, we tushy-tested 36 varieties of toilet paper. And we concluded that Unilever’s Seventh Generation 100% Recycled Extra Soft & Strong Bath Tissue and Procter & Gamble’s Charmin Ultra Strong are the most likely to please the most people. Amazon’s Presto! Ultra-Soft Toilet Paper , our budget pick, is great for folks looking for soft-enough toilet paper that costs less.

Everything we recommend

Seventh Generation 100% Recycled Extra Soft & Strong Bath Tissue

The best sustainable toilet paper.

Seventh Generation 100% Recycled toilet paper is a soft, strong, low-lint offering. And it’s economically as well as environmentally friendly.

Buying Options

Charmin Ultra Strong

The best traditionally produced toilet paper.

One of the plushest of the toilet papers we tested, the strong, soft, low-lint Charmin Ultra Strong left all other traditional toilet papers … behind.

Budget pick

Amazon Presto Ultra-Soft Toilet Paper

A reliable budget toilet paper.

Amazon Presto! Ultra-Soft Toilet Paper is a tad lintier and almost imperceptibly rougher than our top picks. But our testers liked it best of all the lower-cost toilet papers we tested.

How we picked

We looked for toilet paper that felt cushy on our tushies.

Many toilet papers leave crumbles and dust on bottoms and bathroom floors—yuck.

Toilet paper that maintains its composition during wiping is critical: No one likes rips.

If a toilet paper brand is hard to find, it doesn’t matter if it’s great.

Seventh Generation 100% Recycled Extra Soft & Strong Bath Tissue is made with 100% recycled materials, but you’d never know it by the look and feel of this soft, sturdy, and lint-free toilet paper. Its price is on a par with that of traditional papers, and it was unanimously liked by testers.

Charmin Ultra Strong is a strong, low-lint, readily available toilet paper that’s slightly plusher than the Seventh Generation paper. But the Charmin paper is usually more expensive than our Seventh Generation pick, and it’s not made from sustainable or recycled materials. Of the traditional toilet papers we tested, this one was judged to be the most durable and comfortable to use.

Amazon Presto! Ultra-Soft Toilet Paper is soft and serviceable, especially for the price. Unlike our Seventh Generation pick, this one is not made from recycled materials, nor is it super-plush or extra-strong like our pick from Charmin. But Amazon’s paper gets the job done well: It’s not scratchy, doesn’t rip too easily, and doesn’t leave much lint behind.

The research

Why you should trust us, how we picked and tested, what is sustainable toilet paper, what about bamboo toilet paper, our pick: seventh generation 100% recycled extra soft & strong bath tissue, flaws but not dealbreakers, our pick: charmin ultra strong, budget pick: amazon’s presto ultra-soft toilet paper, what to look forward to, other good toilet papers, what about bidets, what about “flushable” wipes, the competition.

Wirecutter has been testing toilet paper for nearly a decade. Combined, the previous author of this guide (Kevin Purdy) and I (Nancy Redd) have spent more than 50 hours reading about and researching the paper-manufacturing industry, paper recycling, toilet paper sustainability, and how paper products are produced—and dissolved.

In 2021 and early 2022, I personally compared 36 toilet papers at home, also taking into account feedback from my husband and two kids. After I narrowed the field considerably, I recruited nine additional Wirecutter staffers and their family members. Some of them compared top sustainable brands side by side; others compared only the top-two sustainable options with favorite traditional toilet papers. All testers ranked toilet papers in terms of softness, strength, and lint levels.

I also interviewed two industry experts: Shelley Vinyard , from the Natural Resources Defense Council, a not-for-profit environmental group, and Chris McLaren , chief marketing officer at the US Forest Stewardship Council.

As Wirecutter’s senior staff writer for health, I’m not new to bathroom-related comparison testing, having written guides to tampons , toilet stools , period underwear , and portable pee funnels .

We’ve been recommending toilet papers for nearly a decade. But after the great toilet paper shortage of 2020 —and with more consumer interest and tremendous strides in the number and quality of sustainable toilet papers available—we decided to give this guide a complete overhaul. Beginning in summer 2021, we called in 36 types of toilet paper from all of the major manufacturers. These included our three existing picks (from Charmin and Cottonelle), several smaller brands, and store-brand (generic) options.

Eleven of the 36 toilet papers we tried were made from what the toilet paper industry calls “ sustainable materials ,” like recycled paper. The rest were traditional toilet papers, made from trees cut down specifically to be ground into pulp for making toilet paper. We did test some three-ply toilet papers and one-ply toilet papers. But most of the papers we tested—and all of our eventual picks—were two-ply (two thin layers of paper lightly pressed or glued together).

Our initial testing examined various factors for each entrant:

Comfort: We judged softness subjectively during wiping. Our blind tushy testing had initial testers (my family members and me) rating all 36 toilet papers on a scale of 1 (those that felt like sandpaper or looked transparent like facial tissue) to 10 (opaque toilet papers that felt obscenely plush).

Lint factor: I wiped the sheets on velvet to test how much lint or dust was left behind, dismissing toilet papers that shed large amounts of residue.

Sturdiness: I poked and pulled sheets in multiple directions and with varying levels of pressure to test strength and “rippiness,” noting the ones that held up.

Once the testing pool was whittled down considerably, I sent rolls to nine additional staffers, who judged each toilet paper without knowledge of which had performed best in the first round of testing. Several testers were sent the papers sans packaging, so they were unaware of the brand or whether a roll was made from recycled paper, bamboo, or traditional trees. The staffers (and, in some cases, their families) ranked the contenders in terms of softness, lintiness, and strength. After those results came in, I also considered secondary factors, including:

• Certification: Toilet papers that bear a certification label from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have been evaluated by the organization and found to be manufactured with responsibly sourced fibers. Though there are other certifications available, such as from the Swiss Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC, which certifies our budget pick), FSC is considered by environmental leaders (such as the World Wildlife Fund ) to have the most rigorous universal standards. Although we didn’t consider FSC certification to be a requirement, we did weigh papers with FSC certification more favorably.
• Additives: Most toilet papers have “proprietary” formulas of chemicals and conditioners that companies typically won’t disclose. We asked the manufacturers of our top picks whether their toilet paper contained any animal ingredients or byproducts (because some do), and we also asked about what they use to purify and whiten their toilet papers. In 1998, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began requiring most paper mills to limit elemental chlorine from being used in toilet paper production, due to carcinogenic concerns. Today almost all toilet papers are still purified and whitened using chlorine-based disinfectants and other undisclosed chemicals. Our Seventh Generation pick’s manufacturing process is completely free of chlorine. But its toilet paper is made from recycled papers that may have once been bleached, so it can’t be considered totally chlorine-free (which is most ideal ). The use of additives did not make or break our toilet paper picks, but they did inform our evaluation.
• Availability: I searched stores (online and in person) regularly to check fluctuations in price and availability, noting whether brands were frequently out of stock.

Until our March 2022 update, we recommended only toilet papers made from virgin wood pulp—also referred to as “traditional” toilet paper—because none of the environmentally friendlier toilet papers we’d tested came close in softness and strength. Since our original testing for this guide began, nearly a decade ago, there have been tremendous strides in the area of “sustainable” toilet paper. Sustainable toilet paper is made from either recycled fibers or from more environmentally friendly primary sources, such as responsibly sourced bamboo. We found several of the sustainable toilet papers we tested in 2021 and 2022 to be comparable in comfort and strength to traditional toilet papers, as well as comparatively much less dusty.

With growing concerns about climate change and deforestation , there is an increasing push to eliminate the “tree to toilet pipeline,” which is the cutting down of forests full of trees just to make toilet paper, said Shelley Vinyard, co-author of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s The Issue With Tissue (PDF) report. Since 2019, the NRDC —a not-for-profit environmental group—has evaluated dozens of toilet papers and ranked them, taking into consideration factors such as whether potentially carcinogenic chlorine is used to purify or whiten the fibers and the type of certifications held by the fiber suppliers to demonstrate their commitment to responsible sourcing. The latest report ranked toilet paper made from recycled fibers higher than toilet paper made from other sustainable materials, such as bamboo. “What we want most is circular solutions to avoid sending waste to the landfill, so, with toilet paper, that means post-consumer recycled content is the gold standard,” Vinyard said.

Chris McLaren, chief marketing officer at the US Forest Stewardship Council, agreed with Vinyard’s assessment, with the caveat that it’s not always possible to incorporate circular solutions because there isn’t as much used paper to recycle as there once was. “The digitalization of society (such as online media instead of newspapers and magazines) has caused there to be fewer recycled papers to utilize in the making of sustainable paper products,” he explained. McLaren said this issue of sustainability goes far beyond toilet paper, and that without enough recycled paper to use, some toilet paper will always need to come from new materials “to keep up with demand.” FSC certification is one way to ensure that, as McLaren put it, “forests are well-managed to stay healthy."

The toilet paper you decide to use is obviously a personal choice. Seventh Generation’s 100% Recycled Extra Soft & Strong is FSC-certified to be made from 100% recycled materials. Charmin Ultra Strong has a lesser type of FSC certification that guarantees at least 70% of materials are from FSC-approved forests; the other 30% of materials are considered acceptable but are not FSC-certified. Amazon Presto! Ultra-Soft is not FSC-certified, but it is PEFC -certified (an industry certification considered to have less-rigorous standards than those of FSC). As of February 2022, the PEFC certification does not appear anywhere on Presto! Ultra-Soft’s new packaging, though an Amazon spokesperson confirmed it was PEFC-certified.

Bamboo has become an increasingly popular alternative source material for toilet paper, and we tested several bamboo brands for this guide, including Betterway , Who Gives A Crap , and No. 2. Toilet paper made from bamboo is often promoted as an eco-friendly solution since bamboo grows so quickly and can be easily replenished, unlike a boreal forest . But bamboo toilet paper isn’t necessarily better for the environment, and it’s generally more expensive and not as soft as other papers.

When bamboo toilet paper is FSC-certified to be sourced responsibly—that is, ecosystems aren’t being wiped out and forests aren’t being clear-cut to plant homogenous swaths of bamboo—it is a great alternative option, McLaren and Vinyard both said. But few bamboo toilet paper companies have pursued certification. Two exceptions are Betterway and Cloud Paper , which are both FSC-certified to source 100% of their bamboo from suppliers committed to responsibly managing their crops and surrounding environments.

Seventh Generation 100% Recycled Extra Soft & Strong Bath Tissue is the cubic zirconia of toilet paper: With close scrutiny, an astute toilet-paper user might notice something’s different. But we think the average person would be hard-pressed to guess that this one is formulated with 100% recycled paper, instead of traditional virgin tree pulp. This soft, supple, nearly lint-free toilet paper is manufactured without bleach or any animal byproducts. And it was a true diamond in the rough among our testing pool of 11 environmentally friendly toilet papers.

Although we found many of the sustainable bath tissues we tested to be scratchy, Seventh Generation’s toilet paper is not. It also held its own against traditional toilet papers in softness and strength—testers found it to be durable and dependable, with no reports of accidental ripping during use. During the velvet rub tests to check for crumbling, pilling, and lint, the paper remained intact and left behind almost no residue.

Like traditional toilet paper (but unlike many of its sustainable competitors), Seventh Generation’s Extra Soft & Strong toilet paper is white in color. Yet this is due only to the color of the recycled papers used to make it; there is no chlorine used in the manufacturing process. This toilet paper is two-ply, and both sides are soft, but only one side features an embossed pattern (which is meant to help with wiping, though its usefulness is debatable). Seventh Generation says this paper is safe for septic systems and low-flush-volume toilets, and that no animal ingredients or byproducts are used in the manufacturing process.

Seventh Generation toilet paper is readily available in stores and online. Its largest offering, a 24-pack (240 sheets per roll), is normally about $22, or 0.38¢ ($0.0038) per sheet. Since it’s often on sale for less, Seventh Generation toilet paper is one of the most economical of the sustainable papers, and it’s similar (or even cheaper) in price to many traditional toilet papers.

Princess and the Pee types may notice that Seventh Generation is slightly less soft and a tad less strong than Charmin, our traditional toilet paper pick. However, one of our testers of sustainable toilet paper didn’t even realize that it was a recycled option, mistaking the Seventh Generation paper as a “control” traditional roll.

Price: about 0.38¢ ($0.0038) per sheet (depending on pack size and store sales)

Options: four, 12, or 24 rolls (240 sheets per roll)

Manufactured in: USA and Canada

FSC certification: Yes, certified to be 100% recycled.

Chlorine used in processing: No. Only hydrogen peroxide is used for the purification process. However, the recycled office paper and newspaper used may have been initially processed with chlorine, so the toilet paper cannot be called totally chlorine-free.

Ingredients: recycled paper fibers, hydrogen peroxide, “proprietary ingredients to control microbial growth and to aid in the wet strength of the product,” according to a Seventh Generation spokesperson (the company says this paper contains no animal ingredients or byproducts)

Of the 36 toilet papers we tested, the supple Charmin Ultra Strong stood out as the one with the best combination of strength and softness, with the added bonus of being low-lint and crumble-free. As bathroom tissue goes, our testers found this one to be foolproof—it tackled the toughest of toilet trips with nary a breakthrough finger rip, but it also felt pampering on our most delicate body parts. Our velvet rub tests found that Charmin Ultra Strong left behind very little lint, with no pilling or crumbling.

Charmin Ultra Strong is two-ply, and though only one side features an embossed pattern (like the Seventh Generation toilet paper), our testers confirmed that both sides felt super-soft. A Charmin spokesperson told us that it’s safe for septic systems and low-flush-volume toilets.

This toilet paper is available almost everywhere bathroom tissue is sold, in-store and online, and it has rarely been out of stock.

This traditional toilet paper is formulated from virgin tree pulp, but it is FSC-certified to have the majority of its materials sourced responsibly. It is manufactured using a purification/whitening process that is elemental chlorine-free but not totally chlorine-free.

When not on sale, Charmin Ultra Strong is slightly more expensive per sheet than Seventh Generation’s paper. The largest pack you can buy is a Mega roll 30-pack (264 sheets per roll) for about $31.50, or 0.39¢ ($0.0039) per sheet. That’s more than our other picks cost, but this paper is often on sale, and manufacturer coupons abound.

Charmin could not confirm whether animal ingredients or byproducts are used in the manufacturing process.

Price: about 0.39¢ ($0.0039) per sheet (depending on pack size and store sales)

Options: six, 12, 18, 24, or 30 Mega rolls (264 sheets per roll); eight, 12, or 18 Super Mega rolls (396 sheets per roll)

Manufactured in: USA

FSC certification: Yes, certified to be FSC-Mix, meaning at least 70% of the tree fibers used are responsibly sourced.

Chlorine used in processing: Yes. The purification/whitening process is elemental chlorine-free, but not totally chlorine-free.

Ingredients: wood pulp, water-based adhesive, and proprietary conditioners (a spokesperson for Charmin said it may contain animal ingredients or byproducts)

Although it isn’t quite as soft as our top picks from Seventh Generation and Charmin , Amazon’s Presto! Ultra-Soft Toilet Paper is a reliable traditional toilet paper that’s comfortable to use. However, it comes only in a large box of 24 rolls (four packages of six), so this may not work well for people with very limited storage space. At around 0.31¢ ($0.0031) per sheet, Presto! paper costs at least 25% less than our top picks—and using Amazon’s Subscribe & Save service could bring the price down by an additional 5% to 15%.

In our velvet rub test, we found Amazon Presto! left behind more lint than our other picks—but not too much. It also did not pill or rip easily while wiping. Most testers noticed only that it was less soft than our other picks, when they were asked to compare them side by side. The Amazon paper is two-ply, and both sides are soft (though, as with our other picks, only one side features the embossed pattern). Amazon says this tissue is safe for septic systems and low-flow toilets.

Amazon! Presto is rarely out of stock, but you can purchase it only online (on Amazon, of course). And it can be purchased only in a set of 24 Mega rolls (308 sheets per roll). This is a traditional toilet paper that is formulated from virgin tree pulp, and it is not FSC-certified. The pulp used to make the toilet paper is purified/whitened through a process that utilizes chlorine dioxide, making it elemental chlorine-free but not totally chlorine-free. Amazon confirmed that no animal ingredients or byproducts are used in the manufacturing process.

Price: about 0.31¢ ($0.0031) per sheet (less if you use Amazon’s Subscribe & Save service)

Options: Amazon’s Presto! Ultra-Soft comes in only one size: 24 Mega rolls (308 sheets per roll)

FSC certification: No, though it is certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).

Chlorine used in processing: Yes. The purification/whitening process uses chlorine dioxide and thus is elemental chlorine-free, but it is not totally chlorine-free.

Ingredients: wood pulp and proprietary process chemicals “to help deliver properties like wet strength to the product,” according to an Amazon spokesperson (a spokesperson for Amazon said it contained no animal ingredients or byproducts)

We’re currently testing the premium version of celebrity-backed Cloud Paper, a well-liked, if slightly expensive, 100% FSC-certified bamboo toilet paper bleached using a TCF (totally chlorine free) method.

If you’re looking for a budget toilet paper and prefer to shop in-store: Walmart’s Great Value Ultra Strong and Target’s Up & Up Premium Ultra Soft are both extremely similar to our budget pick, Amazon’s Presto! Ultra-Soft . In fact, until late 2021, all three products had the same manufacturer license from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative on their packaging, as did other toilet paper made by white-label company First Quality Enterprises Inc. Although Presto! Ultra-Soft changed its packaging to omit this license number, the new packaging links to www.prestopaperpatents.com , which discusses First Quality Tissue at length. If you find either of these on sale, they’re both a good inexpensive option. But we found that Amazon’s Presto! Ultra-Soft was generally less expensive.

If you want a super-soft toilet paper and don’t mind a little butt dandruff: Cottonelle Ultra ComfortCare (our previous top pick) and the brand’s Ultra GentleCare (an aloe-infused cult favorite) are the softest toilet papers we’ve tested. However, they are also the dustiest and lintiest of all the papers we’ve tested, shedding tiny little lint bits and other residue everywhere the toilet paper touches, from bathroom cabinets to human bottoms. These are still super-comfy, super-cushy, and super-sturdy choices if you’re okay with tp residue.

If you’d prefer a toilet paper made of bamboo: Testers liked Betterway , which is soft (for bamboo toilet paper) and FSC-certified to have 100% of its fibers sourced responsibly (the best of the certifications available to bamboo papers). It comes at a higher cost than our picks, however, and it feels a lot rougher.

As an alternative to toilet paper, or as a means to reduce the amount of toilet paper you use, consider the bidet . A bidet is, essentially, a powerful water fountain in your toilet that’s meant to spray your bottom clean, hands-free, with only a square or two of toilet paper needed to dry off. (Some bidets even incorporate a bum-drying fan, potentially cutting out the need for toilet paper altogether.) Bidets have been a bathroom-hygiene staple in many parts of the world, such as Japan and Italy, for decades, and they’re gaining popularity in the US. Wirecutter testers have found bidets to be life-changing devices that can be more economical in the long run and cut your toilet paper needs by at least half. “We’re not saying people should throw out their toilet paper,” Shelley Vinyard said. “But bidets take much less water to use than the water required to make a roll of toilet paper, and they save money.”

Don’t buy wipes, unless you’re willing to put used wipes in your bathroom trash can or maintain a separate can for them. By flushing them down your toilet, you’re passing on a huge problem to your sewer system, as evidenced by sewer crises in New York City and London , and recurring problems in Miami , Ottawa , and Lake Charles, Louisiana , among other cities. For those who think they need to use wipes, we suggest they consider a bidet instead.

Sustainable toilet paper

Bamboo No. 2 Toilet Paper rolls come individually wrapped in colorful, Instagram-worthy tissue, and the packaging doesn’t use any plastic. But this toilet paper is not FSC-certified, and it’s also not as soft as our sustainable pick .

​​ Who Gives A Crap Premium Bamboo Toilet Paper also comes individually wrapped in pretty, plastic-free packaging. But it’s not as soft as our sustainable pick, nor is it FSC-certified.

Caboo Bamboo Bath Tissue was polarizing. Some testers thought it was perfectly serviceable, but others found it to be rough and not strong enough.

Tushy’s bamboo toilet paper also comes individually wrapped in pretty, plastic-free packaging, but it is very thin and scratchy.

Reel Tree-Free bamboo toilet paper feels rough compared to other bamboo toilet papers we tried.

PlantPaper bamboo toilet paper is FSC-certified, but it’s also rough and thin, and it ripped too easily.

Who Gives A Crap 100% Recycled Toilet Paper is extremely popular among sustainability-minded butt wipers, and it comes individually wrapped in attractive, plastic-free packaging. But it felt rough to us.

Neither Whole Foods’ 365 Sustainably Soft recycled toilet paper nor its 100% recycled toilet paper felt as strong or as comfortable to use as our picks.

A spokesperson from Seventh Generation told us its Natural Unbleached Bathroom Tissue (also made from recycled paper) had been discontinued.

Traditional toilet paper

Aria Premium Earth Friendly Bath Tissue scored very high in comfort among test tushies, but it’s expensive and dusty.

Neither Amazon’s Presto! Ultra-Strong nor its thicker three-ply option were worth the additional expense over our budget pick , the same brand’s Ultra-Soft.

Costco’s Kirkland Signature was the widest toilet paper in our test pool (the rolls often don’t fit on regular holders). But that was the most impressive feature of this otherwise-mediocre paper. It was neither the softest nor the strongest in our testing pool, and it was rather dusty. This was surprising given the longstanding reputation of this toilet paper; diehard Costco toilet paper users on Reddit theorize that pandemic-related supply-chain issues have caused the company’s bath tissues to devolve.

Charmin Essentials Strong and Charmin Essentials Soft felt scratchy and seemed to require a lot more paper to finish the task than our picks.

When directly compared with our top picks, Charmin Ultra Soft , Quilted Northern Ultra Soft & Strong , and Quilted Northern Ultra Plush were not ultra-soft, ultra-plush, or ultra-anything to our testers.

Charmin Ultra Gentle and Scott ComfortPlus were linty and ripped too easily.

Scott 1000 was translucent and easily ripped.

Great Value’s Soft & Strong , Walmart’s Cascades , Cottonelle Ultra CleanCare , Virtue , and  Angel Soft were not as soft or sturdy as our picks.

Amazon Solimo , Kirkland Signature Ultra Soft , Scott Extra Soft , Scott Naturals Tube-Free, and White Cloud Ultra Strong & Soft were tested (and dismissed) in an earlier round of testing. They have since been discontinued.

—additional reporting by Kevin Purdy

This guide was edited by Ellen Lee and Kalee Thompson.

Emily Flitter, My Tireless Quest for a Tubeless Wipe , The New York Times , February 28, 2020

Olivia Young, Eco-Friendly Toilet Paper: Bamboo vs. Recycled , Treehugger.com , December 6, 2021

Shelley Vinyard, co-author of The Issue With Tissue report (PDF) , phone interview , December 1, 2021

Chris McLaren, chief marketing officer at the US Forest Stewardship Council , phone interview , February 9, 2022

Meet your guide

Nancy Redd is a senior staff writer covering health and grooming at Wirecutter. She is a GLAAD Award–nominated on-air host and a New York Times best-selling author. Her latest nonfiction book, The Real Body Manual , is a visual health and wellness guide for young adults of all genders. Her other books include Bedtime Bonnet and Pregnancy, OMG!

Further reading

There’s a Toilet Paper Calculator That Cuts Through ‘Mega’ and ‘Jumbo’ Marketing Claims

by Elissa Sanci

Frustrated by confusing toilet paper marketing language, these amateur deal finders created a calculator to help sort the deals from the duds.

The Best Toilet Seat Risers

by Anna Wenner

If you or a loved one find it hard to stand up after using the toilet, it may be time to add one of these toilet seat risers to the bathroom.

Out of Toilet Paper? You Have Other Options. Just Don’t Flush Them!

by Doug Mahoney

Here’s how to handle TP scarcity without ruining your local water treatment systems.

Are Bidets Better for You Than Toilet Paper?

by Shannon Palus

Bidets are often marketed for their so-called medical benefits. They’ll clean your butt, sure. Can they—and should they—really do any more than that?

Physical Review Research

• Collections
• Editorial Team
• Accepted Paper

Understanding multiple timescales in quantum dissipative dynamics: Insights from quantum trajectories

Phys. rev. research, matthew gerry, michael j. kewming, and dvira segal.

Open quantum systems with nearly degenerate energy levels have been shown to exhibit long-lived metastable states in the approach to equilibrium, even when modelled with certain Lindblad-form quantum master equations. This is a result of dramatic separation of timescales due to differences between Liouvillian eigenvalues. These metastable states often have nonzero coherences which die off only in the long time limit once the system reaches thermal equilibrium. We examine two distinct situations that give rise to this effect: one in which dissipative dynamics couple together states only within a nearly degenerate subspace, and one in which they give rise to jumps over finite energy splittings, between {} nearly degenerate subspaces. We find, in each case, that a change of basis can often lead to a representation which more naturally captures the impact of the system-bath interaction than does the energy eigenbasis, revealing that separate timescales are associated with separate processes (e.g. decoherence into a non-energy eigenbasis, decay of population correlations to the initial state). This approach is paired with the inspection of quantum trajectories, which further provide intuition as to how open system evolution is characterized when coherent oscillations, thermal relaxation, and decoherence all occur simultaneously.

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Research

• Forgot your username/password?
• Create an account

Article Lookup

Paste a citation or doi, enter a citation.