sources of information used in literature review

Literature review sources

Sources for literature review can be divided into three categories as illustrated in table below. In your dissertation you will need to use all three categories of literature review sources:

Sources for literature review and examples

Generally, your literature review should integrate a wide range of sources such as:

• Books . Textbooks remain as the most important source to find models and theories related to the research area. Research the most respected authorities in your selected research area and find the latest editions of books authored by them. For example, in the area of marketing the most notable authors include Philip Kotler, Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell, Emanuel Rosen and others.
• Magazines . Industry-specific magazines are usually rich in scholarly articles and they can be effective source to learn about the latest trends and developments in the research area. Reading industry magazines can be the most enjoyable part of the literature review, assuming that your selected research area represents an area of your personal and professional interests, which should be the case anyways.
• Newspapers can be referred to as the main source of up-to-date news about the latest events related to the research area. However, the proportion of the use of newspapers in literature review is recommended to be less compared to alternative sources of secondary data such as books and magazines. This is due to the fact that newspaper articles mainly lack depth of analyses and discussions.
• Online articles . You can find online versions of all of the above sources. However, note that the levels of reliability of online articles can be highly compromised depending on the source due to the high levels of ease with which articles can be published online. Opinions offered in a wide range of online discussion blogs cannot be usually used in literature review. Similarly, dissertation assessors are not keen to appreciate references to a wide range of blogs, unless articles in these blogs are authored by respected authorities in the research area.

Your secondary data sources may comprise certain amount of grey literature as well. The term grey literature refers to type of literature produced by government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, which is not controlled by commercial publishers. It is called ‘grey’ because the status of the information in grey literature is not certain. In other words, any publication that has not been peer reviewed for publication is grey literature.

The necessity to use grey literature arises when there is no enough peer reviewed publications are available for the subject of your study.

John Dudovskiy

• Library Guides

The Literature Review

Primary and secondary sources, the literature review: primary and secondary sources.

• Searching the literature
• Grey literature
• Organising and analysing
• Systematic Reviews
• The Literature Review Toolbox

On this page

• Primary vs secondary sources: The differences explained 

Can something be both a primary and secondary source?

Research for your literature review can be categorised as either primary or secondary in nature. The simplest definition of primary sources is either original information (such as survey data) or a first person account of an event (such as an interview transcript). Whereas secondary sources are any publshed or unpublished works that describe, summarise, analyse, evaluate, interpret or review primary source materials. Secondary sources can incorporate primary sources to support their arguments.

Ideally, good research should use a combination of both primary and secondary sources. For example, if a researcher were to investigate the introduction of a law and the impacts it had on a community, he/she might look at the transcripts of the parliamentary debates as well as the parliamentary commentary and news reporting surrounding the laws at the time. 

Examples of primary and secondary sources

Primary vs secondary sources: The differences explained

Finding primary sources

• VU Special Collections  - The Special Collections at Victoria University Library are a valuable research resource. The Collections have strong threads of radical literature, particularly Australian Communist literature, much of which is rare or unique. Women and urban planning also feature across the Collections. There are collections that give you a picture of the people who donated them like Ray Verrills, John McLaren, Sir Zelman Cowen, and Ruth & Maurie Crow. Other collections focus on Australia's neighbours – PNG and Timor-Leste.
• POLICY - Sharing the latest in policy knowledge and evidence, this database supports enhanced learning, collaboration and contribution.
• Indigenous Australia  -  The Indigenous Australia database represents the collections of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Library.
• Australian Heritage Bibliography - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Subset (AHB-ATSIS)  - AHB is a bibliographic database that indexes and abstracts articles from published and unpublished material on Australia's natural and cultural environment. The AHB-ATSIS subset contains records that specifically relate to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.include journal articles, unpublished reports, books, videos and conference proceedings from many different sources around Australia. Emphasis is placed on reports written or commissioned by government and non-government heritage agencies throughout the country.
• ATSIhealth  - The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Bibliography (ATSIhealth), compiled by Neil Thomson and Natalie Weissofner at the School of Indigenous Australian Studies, Kurongkurl Katitjin, Edith Cowan University, is a bibliographic database that indexes published and unpublished material on Australian Indigenous health. Source documents include theses, unpublished articles, government reports, conference papers, abstracts, book chapters, books, discussion and working papers, and statistical documents. 
• National Archive of Australia  - The National Archives of Australia holds the memory of our nation and keeps vital Australian Government records safe. 
• National Library of Australia: Manuscripts  - Manuscripts collection that is wide ranging and provides rich evidence of the lives and activities of Australians who have shaped our society.
• National Library of Australia: Printed ephemera  - The National Library has been selectively collecting Australian printed ephemera since the early 1960s as a record of Australian life and social customs, popular culture, national events, and issues of national concern.
• National Library of Australia: Oral history and folklore - The Library’s Oral History and Folklore Collection dates back to the 1950’s and includes a rich and diverse collection of interviews and recordings with Australians from all walks of life.
• Historic Hansard - Commonwealth of Australia parliamentary debates presented in an easy-to-read format for historians and other lovers of political speech.
• The Old Bailey Online - A fully searchable edition of the largest body of texts detailing the lives of non-elite people ever published, containing 197,745 criminal trials held at London's central criminal court.

Whether or not a source can be considered both primary and  secondary, depends on the context. In some instances, material may act as a secondary source for one research area, and as a primary source for another. For example, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince , published in 1513, is an important secondary source for any study of the various Renaissance princes in the Medici family; but the same book is also a primary source for the political thought that was characteristic of the sixteenth century because it reflects the attitudes of a person living in the 1500s.

Source: Craver, 1999, as cited in University of South Australia Library. (2021, Oct 6).  Can something be a primary and secondary source?.  University of South Australia Library. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/historycultural/sourcetypes

• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Searching the literature >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 2:06 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/the-literature-review

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

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.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Literature Review: Lit Review Sources

• Lit Review Types
• GRADE System
• Do a Lit Review
• Citation Justice
• Lit Review Sources
• AI for Research This link opens in a new window

Where do I find information for a literature review?

Research is done by...

...by way of...

...communicated through...

...and organized in...

Types of sources for a review...

• Primary source: Usually a report by the original researchers of a study (unfiltered sources)
• Secondary source: Description or summary by somebody other than the original researcher, e.g. a review article (filtered sources)
• Conceptual/theoretical: Papers concerned with description or analysis of theories or concepts associated with the topic
• Anecdotal/opinion/clinical: Views or opinions about the subject that are not research, review or theoretical (case studies or reports from clinical settings)

A Heirarchy of research information:

Source: SUNY Downstate Medical Center. Medical Research Library of Brooklyn. Evidence Based Medicine Course. A Guide to Research Methods: The Evidence Pyramid: http://library.downstate.edu/EBM2/2100.htm

Life Cycle of Publication

Click image to enlarge

Scientific information has a ‘life cycle’ of its own… it is born as an idea, and then matures and becomes more available to the public. First it appears within the so-called ‘invisible college’ of experts in the field, discussed at conferences and symposia or posted as pre-prints for comments and corrections. Then it appears in the published literature (the primary literature), often as a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal.

Researchers can use the indexing and alerting services of the secondary literature to find out what has been published in a field. Depending on how much information is added by the indexer or abstracter, this may take a few months (though electronic publication has sped up this process). Finally, the information may appear in more popular or reference sources, sometimes called the tertiary literature.

The person beginning a literature search may take this process in reverse: using tertiary sources for general background, then going to the secondary literature to survey what has been published, following up by finding the original (primary) sources, and generating their own research Idea.

(Original content by Wade Lee-Smith)

• << Previous: Citation Justice
• Next: Readings >>
• Last Updated: May 24, 2024 9:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utoledo.edu/litreview

• Subject guides
• Researching for your literature review
• Literature sources

Researching for your literature review: Literature sources

• Literature reviews
• Before you start
• Develop a search strategy
• Keyword search activity
• Subject search activity
• Combined keyword and subject searching
• Online tutorials
• Apply search limits
• Run a search in different databases
• Supplementary searching
• Save your searches
• Manage results

Scholarly databases

It's important to make a considered decision as to where to search for your review of the literature. It's uncommon for a disciplinary area to be covered by a single publisher, so searching a single publisher platform or database is unlikely to give you sufficient coverage of studies for a review. A good quality literature review involves searching a number of databases individually.

The most common method is to search a combination of large inter-disciplinary databases such as Scopus & Web of Science Core Collection, and some subject-specific databases (such as PsycInfo or EconLit etc.). The Library databases are an excellent place to start for sources of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Depending on disciplinary expectations, or the topic of our review, you may also need to consider sources or search methods other than database searching. There is general information below on searching grey literature. However, due to the wide varieties of grey literature available, you may need to spend some time investigating sources relevant for your specific need.

Grey literature

Grey literature is information which has been published informally or non-commercially (where the main purpose of the producing body is not commercial publishing) or remains unpublished. One example may be Government publications.

Grey literature may be included in a literature review to minimise publication bias . The quality of grey literature can vary greatly - some may be peer reviewed whereas some may not have been through a traditional editorial process.

See the Grey Literature guide for further information on finding and evaluating grey sources.

See the Moodle book MNHS: Systematically searching the grey literature for a comprehensive module on grey literature for systematic reviews.

In certain disciplines (such as physics) there can be a culture of preprints being made available prior to submissions to journals. There has also been a noticeable rise in preprints in medical and health areas in the wake of Covid-19.

If preprints are relevant for you, you can search preprint servers directly. A workaround might be to utilise a search engine such as Google Scholar to search specifically for preprints, as Google Scholar has timely coverage of most preprint servers including ArXiv, RePec, SSRN, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv.

Articles in Press are not preprints, but are accepted manuscripts that are not yet formally published. Articles in Press have been made available as an early access online version of a paper that may not yet have received its final formatting or an allocation of a volume/issue number. As well as being available on a journal's website, Articles in Press are available in databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, and so (unlike preprints) don't necessarily require a separate search.

Conference papers

Conference papers are typically published in conference proceedings (the collection of papers presented at a conference), and may be found on an organisation or Society's website, as a journal, or as a special issue of journal.

In certain disciplines (such as computer science), conference papers may be highly regarded as a form of scholarly communication; the conferences are highly selective, the papers are generally peer reviewed, and papers are published in proceedings affiliated with high-quality publishing houses.

Conference papers may be indexed in a range of scholarly databases. If you only want to see conference papers, database limits can be used to filter results, or try a specific index such as the examples below:

• Conference proceedings citation index. Social science & humanities (CPCI-SSH)
• Conference proceedings citation index. Science (CPCI-S)
• ASME digital library conference proceedings

Honours students and postgraduates may request conference papers through Interlibrary Loans . However, conference paper requests may take longer than traditional article requests as they can be difficult to locate; they may have been only supplied to attendees or not formally published. Sometimes only the abstract is available.

If you are specifically looking for statistical data, try searching for the keyword statistics in a Google Advanced Search and limiting by a relevant site or domain. Below are some examples of sites, or you can try a domain such as .gov for government websites.

Statistical data can be found in the following selected sources:

• Australian Bureau of Statistics
• World Health Organization: Health Data and statistics
• Higher Education Statistics
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics
• Tourism Australia Statistics

For a list of databases that include statistics see: Databases by Subject: Statistics .

If you are specifically looking for information found in newspapers, the library has a large collection of Australian and overseas newspapers, both current and historical.

To search the full-text of newspapers in electronic format use a database such as  Newsbank.

Alternatively, see the Newspapers subject guide for comprehensive information on newspaper sources available via Monash University library and open source databases, as well as searching tips, online videos and more.

Dissertations and theses

The Monash University Library Theses subject guide provides resources and guidelines for locating and accessing theses (dissertations) produced by Monash University as well as other universities in Australia and internationally.  

International theses:

There are a number of theses databases and repositories.

A popular source is:

• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global  which predominantly, covers North American masters and doctoral theses. Full text is available for theses added since 1997. 

Australia and New Zealand theses:

Theses that are available in the library can be found using the  Search catalogue.

These include:

• Monash doctoral, masters and a small number of honours theses 
• other Australian and overseas theses that have been purchased for the collection.

Formats include print (not available for loan), microfiche and online (some may have access restrictions).

Trove includes doctoral, masters and some honours theses from all Australian and New Zealand universities, as well as theses awarded elsewhere but held by Australian institutions.

Tips:  

• Type in the title, author surname and/or keywords. Then on the results page refine your search to 'thesis'.
• Alternatively, use the Advanced search and include 'thesis' as a keyword or limi t your result to format = thesis
• << Previous: Literature reviews
• Next: Before you start >>

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Strategies to Find Sources

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Strategies to Find Sources

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

The Research Process

Planning : Before searching for articles or books, brainstorm to develop keywords that better describe your research question.

Searching : While searching, take note of what other keywords are used to describe your topic, and use them to conduct additional searches

     ♠ Most articles include a keyword section

     ♠ Key concepts may change names throughout time so make sure to check for variations

Organizing : Start organizing your results by categories/key concepts or any organizing principle that make sense for you . This will help you later when you are ready to analyze your findings

Analyzing : While reading, start making notes of key concepts and commonalities and disagreement among the research articles you find.

♠ Create a spreadsheet  to record what articles you are finding useful and why.

♠ Create fields to write summaries of articles or quotes for future citing and paraphrasing .

Writing : Synthesize your findings. Use your own voice to explain to your readers what you learned about the literature on your topic. What are its weaknesses and strengths? What is missing or ignored?

Repeat : At any given time of the process, you can go back to a previous step as necessary.

Advanced Searching

All databases have Help pages that explain the best way to search their product. When doing literature reviews, you will want to take advantage of these features since they can facilitate not only finding the articles that you really need but also controlling the number of results and how relevant they are for your search. The most common features available in the advanced search option of databases and library online catalogs are:

• Boolean Searching (AND, OR, NOT): Allows you to connect search terms in a way that can either limit or expand your search results 
• Proximity Searching (N/# or W/#): Allows you to search for two or more words that occur within a specified number of words (or fewer) of each other in the database
• Limiters/Filters : These are options that let you control what type of document you want to search: article type, date, language, publication, etc.
• Question mark (?) or a pound sign (#) for wildcard: Used for retrieving alternate spellings of a word: colo?r will retrieve both the American spelling "color" as well as the British spelling "colour." 
• Asterisk (*) for truncation: Used for retrieving multiple forms of a word: comput* retrieves computer, computers, computing, etc.

Want to keep track of updates to your searches? Create an account in the database to receive an alert when a new article is published that meets your search parameters!

• EBSCOhost Advanced Search Tutorial Tips for searching a platform that hosts many library databases
• Library's General Search Tips Check the Search tips to better used our library catalog and articles search system
• ProQuest Database Search Tips Tips for searching another platform that hosts library databases

There is no magic number regarding how many sources you are going to need for your literature review; it all depends on the topic and what type of the literature review you are doing:

► Are you working on an emerging topic? You are not likely to find many sources, which is good because you are trying to prove that this is a topic that needs more research. But, it is not enough to say that you found few or no articles on your topic in your field. You need to look broadly to other disciplines (also known as triangulation ) to see if your research topic has been studied from other perspectives as a way to validate the uniqueness of your research question.

► Are you working on something that has been studied extensively? Then you are going to find many sources and you will want to limit how far back you want to look. Use limiters to eliminate research that may be dated and opt to search for resources published within the last 5-10 years.

• << Previous: How to Pick a Topic
• Next: Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources | Difference & Examples

Primary vs. Secondary Sources | Difference & Examples

Published on June 20, 2018 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on May 31, 2023.

When you do research, you have to gather information and evidence from a variety of sources.

Primary sources provide raw information and first-hand evidence. Examples include interview transcripts, statistical data, and works of art. Primary research gives you direct access to the subject of your research.

Secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other researchers. Examples include journal articles, reviews, and academic books . Thus, secondary research describes, interprets, or synthesizes primary sources.

Primary sources are more credible as evidence, but good research uses both primary and secondary sources.

Table of contents

What is a primary source, what is a secondary source, primary and secondary source examples, how to tell if a source is primary or secondary, primary vs secondary sources: which is better, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about primary and secondary sources.

A primary source is anything that gives you direct evidence about the people, events, or phenomena that you are researching. Primary sources will usually be the main objects of your analysis.

If you are researching the past, you cannot directly access it yourself, so you need primary sources that were produced at the time by participants or witnesses (e.g. letters, photographs, newspapers ).

If you are researching something current, your primary sources can either be qualitative or quantitative data that you collect yourself (e.g. through interviews , surveys , experiments ) or sources produced by people directly involved in the topic (e.g. official documents or media texts).

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

A secondary source is anything that describes, interprets, evaluates, or analyzes information from primary sources. Common examples include:

• Books , articles and documentaries that synthesize information on a topic
• Synopses and descriptions of artistic works
• Encyclopedias and textbooks that summarize information and ideas
• Reviews and essays that evaluate or interpret something

When you cite a secondary source, it’s usually not to analyze it directly. Instead, you’ll probably test its arguments against new evidence or use its ideas to help formulate your own.

Examples of sources that can be primary or secondary

A secondary source can become a primary source depending on your research question . If the person, context, or technique that produced the source is the main focus of your research, it becomes a primary source.

Documentaries

If you are researching the causes of World War II, a recent documentary about the war is a secondary source . But if you are researching the filmmaking techniques used in historical documentaries, the documentary is a primary source .

Reviews and essays

If your paper is about the novels of Toni Morrison, a magazine review of one of her novels is a secondary source . But if your paper is about the critical reception of Toni Morrison’s work, the review is a primary source .

Newspaper articles

If your aim is to analyze the government’s economic policy, a newspaper article about a new policy is a secondary source . But if your aim is to analyze media coverage of economic issues, the newspaper article is a primary source .

To determine if something can be used as a primary or secondary source in your research, there are some simple questions you can ask yourself:

• Does this source come from someone directly involved in the events I’m studying (primary) or from another researcher (secondary)?
• Am I interested in evaluating the source itself (primary) or only using it for background information (secondary)?
• Does the source provide original information (primary) or does it comment upon information from other sources (secondary)?

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Most research uses both primary and secondary sources. They complement each other to help you build a convincing argument. Primary sources are more credible as evidence, but secondary sources show how your work relates to existing research. Tertiary sources are often used in the first, exploratory stage of research.

What do you use primary sources for?

Primary sources are the foundation of original research. They allow you to:

• Make new discoveries
• Provide credible evidence for your arguments
• Give authoritative information about your topic

If you don’t use any primary sources, your research may be considered unoriginal or unreliable.

What do you use secondary sources for?

Secondary sources are good for gaining a full overview of your topic and understanding how other researchers have approached it. They often synthesize a large number of primary sources that would be difficult and time-consuming to gather by yourself. They allow you to:

• Gain background information on the topic
• Support or contrast your arguments with other researchers’ ideas
• Gather information from primary sources that you can’t access directly (e.g. private letters or physical documents located elsewhere)

When you conduct a literature review or meta analysis, you can consult secondary sources to gain a thorough overview of your topic. If you want to mention a paper or study that you find cited in a secondary source, seek out the original source and cite it directly.

Remember that all primary and secondary sources must be cited to avoid plagiarism . You can use Scribbr’s free citation generator to do so!

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Common examples of primary sources include interview transcripts , photographs, novels, paintings, films, historical documents, and official statistics.

Anything you directly analyze or use as first-hand evidence can be a primary source, including qualitative or quantitative data that you collected yourself.

Common examples of secondary sources include academic books, journal articles , reviews, essays , and textbooks.

Anything that summarizes, evaluates or interprets primary sources can be a secondary source. If a source gives you an overview of background information or presents another researcher’s ideas on your topic, it is probably a secondary source.

To determine if a source is primary or secondary, ask yourself:

• Was the source created by someone directly involved in the events you’re studying (primary), or by another researcher (secondary)?
• Does the source provide original information (primary), or does it summarize information from other sources (secondary)?
• Are you directly analyzing the source itself (primary), or only using it for background information (secondary)?

Some types of source are nearly always primary: works of art and literature, raw statistical data, official documents and records, and personal communications (e.g. letters, interviews ). If you use one of these in your research, it is probably a primary source.

Primary sources are often considered the most credible in terms of providing evidence for your argument, as they give you direct evidence of what you are researching. However, it’s up to you to ensure the information they provide is reliable and accurate.

Always make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

A fictional movie is usually a primary source. A documentary can be either primary or secondary depending on the context.

If you are directly analyzing some aspect of the movie itself – for example, the cinematography, narrative techniques, or social context – the movie is a primary source.

If you use the movie for background information or analysis about your topic – for example, to learn about a historical event or a scientific discovery – the movie is a secondary source.

Whether it’s primary or secondary, always properly cite the movie in the citation style you are using. Learn how to create an MLA movie citation or an APA movie citation .

Articles in newspapers and magazines can be primary or secondary depending on the focus of your research.

In historical studies, old articles are used as primary sources that give direct evidence about the time period. In social and communication studies, articles are used as primary sources to analyze language and social relations (for example, by conducting content analysis or discourse analysis ).

If you are not analyzing the article itself, but only using it for background information or facts about your topic, then the article is a secondary source.

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.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, May 31). Primary vs. Secondary Sources | Difference & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/primary-and-secondary-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, the basics of in-text citation | apa & mla examples, how to quote | citing quotes in apa, mla & chicago, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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.

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Strategies to Finding Sources

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

Useful Tool to Develop your Topic

Watch this video about Concept Mapping to become a Research Pro!

• Mind Mapping (also known as Concept Mapping) A helpful handout to show step by step how to create a concept map to map out a topic.

The Research Process

Planning : Before searching for articles or books, brainstorm to develop keywords that best describe your research question.

Searching : While searching take note of what other keywords are used to describe your topic  and use them to do more searches

     ♠ Most articles include a keyword section

     ♠ Key concepts names may change through time so make sure to check for variations

Organizing : Start organizing your results by categories/key concepts or any organizing principle that make sense for you. This will help you later when you are ready to analyze your findings

Analyzing : While reading, start making notes of key concepts and commonalities and disagreement among the research articles you find.

♠ Create a spreadsheet document to record what articles you are finding useful and why.

♠ Create fields to write summaries of articles or quotes for future citing and paraphrasing .

Writing : Synthesize your findings. Use your own voice to explain to your readers what you learned about the literature your search; its weaknesses and strengths; what is missing or ignored

Repeat : at any given time of the process you can go back to a previous step as necessary

Advanced Searching

• Boolean Searching (AND, OR, NOT): Words that help you connect your terms in a logical way for the system understand you 
• Proximity Searching (N/# or W/#): It allows you to search for two or more words that occur within a specified number of words (or fewer) of each other in the databases.
• Limiters/Filters : These are options available on the advanced page to let you control what type of document you want to search (articles), dates, language, peer-review, etc...
• Question mark (?) or a pound sign (#) for wildcard: useful when you don't know how something is spelled out, e.g. if you are looking about articles about color, if you want to find articles with the spelling colour (British English), you can use colo?r to find either spelling.
• Asterisk (*) for truncation: useful for getting results with keywords with multiple endings, e.g. comput* for computer, computers, computing , etc.
• UC Library Search Explained! Check the Search tips to better used our library catalog and articles search system
• EBSCOhost Searching Tips An useful guide about how to best search EBSCOhost databases
• ProQuest Database Search Tips An useful guide about how to best search ProQuest databases
• Are you working on an emerging topic? You are not likely to find many sources, which is good because you are trying to prove that this is a topic that needs more research. But, it is not enough to say that you found few or no articles on your topic in your field. You need to look broadly to other disciplines (also known as triangulation ) to see if your research topic has been studied from other perspectives as a way to validate the uniqueness of your research question.
• Are you working on something that has been studied extensively? Then you are going to find many sources and you will want to limit how far you want to look back. Use limiters to eliminate research that may be dated and opt to search for resources published within the last 5-10 years.
• Want to keep track of your searches , send alerts to your email when new articles in your topic are available? Create an account in any of our databases!

Following the Citation Trail!

Many databases today have special featured that show you how many times an article was cited by and by who and offer you links to those articles.

See below some recommended resources:

The UC has partnered with Google Scholar to allow our users to click on the familiar "Get it at UC" button to reach full text of some items indexed. Use the "Scholar Preferences" link and select "University of California, Santa Barbara - Get it at UC" before saving your preferences.

• << Previous: Literature Reviews?
• Next: Keeping up with Research! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

• Strategies to Find Sources

Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources

Reading critically, tips to evaluate sources.

• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

A good literature review evaluates a wide variety of sources (academic articles, scholarly books, government/NGO reports). It also evaluates literature reviews that study similar topics. This page offers you a list of resources and tips on how to evaluate the sources that you may use to write your review.

• A Closer Look at Evaluating Literature Reviews Excerpt from the book chapter, “Evaluating Introductions and Literature Reviews” in Fred Pyrczak’s Evaluating Research in Academic Journals: A Practical Guide to Realistic Evaluation , (Chapter 4 and 5). This PDF discusses and offers great advice on how to evaluate "Introductions" and "Literature Reviews" by listing questions and tips. First part focus on Introductions and in page 10 in the PDF, 37 in the text, it focus on "literature reviews".
• Tips for Evaluating Sources (Print vs. Internet Sources) Excellent page that will guide you on what to ask to determine if your source is a reliable one. Check the other topics in the guide: Evaluating Bibliographic Citations and Evaluation During Reading on the left side menu.

To be able to write a good Literature Review, you need to be able to read critically. Below are some tips that will help you evaluate the sources for your paper.

Reading critically (summary from How to Read Academic Texts Critically)

• Who is the author? What is his/her standing in the field.
• What is the author’s purpose? To offer advice, make practical suggestions, solve a specific problem, to critique or clarify?
• Note the experts in the field: are there specific names/labs that are frequently cited?
• Pay attention to methodology: is it sound? what testing procedures, subjects, materials were used?
• Note conflicting theories, methodologies and results. Are there any assumptions being made by most/some researchers?
• Theories: have they evolved overtime?
• Evaluate and synthesize the findings and conclusions. How does this study contribute to your project?

Useful links:

• How to Read a Paper (University of Waterloo, Canada) This is an excellent paper that teach you how to read an academic paper, how to determine if it is something to set aside, or something to read deeply. Good advice to organize your literature for the Literature Review or just reading for classes.

Criteria to evaluate sources:

• Authority : Who is the author? what is his/her credentials--what university he/she is affliliated? Is his/her area of expertise?
• Usefulness : How this source related to your topic? How current or relevant it is to your topic?
• Reliability : Does the information comes from a reliable, trusted source such as an academic journal?

Useful site - Critically Analyzing Information Sources (Cornell University Library)

• << Previous: Strategies to Find Sources
• Next: Tips for Writing Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 11, 2024 12:14 PM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

Does your assignment or publication require that you write a literature review? This guide is intended to help you understand what a literature is, why it is worth doing, and some quick tips composing one.

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about  a particular subject area or topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: 

A summary of sources An organized presentation of sources A synthesis or interpretation of sources An evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product. It may be:

A part of your research process A part of your final research publication An independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context. It will help you and your readers:  

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process. It will help you to:

Establish your knowledge Understand what has been said Define your questions Establish a relevant methodology Refine your voice Situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization may include sections such as:  

An introduction or overview A body or organizational sub-divisions A conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized in several ways, including:

Chronologically: organized by date of publication Methodologically: organized by type of research method used Thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme Ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

• Find a focus
• Find models
• Review your target publication
• Track citations
• Read critically
• Manage your citations
• Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Additional Sources

• Reviewing the literature. Project Planner.
• Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
• PhD on Track
• CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation Guidance
• CU Honors Thesis Guidance

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

• University of La Verne
• Subject Guides

Literature Review Basics

• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Literature Review Introduction
• Writing Literature Reviews
• Tutorials & Samples

The Literature

The Literature refers to the collection of scholarly writings on a topic. This includes peer-reviewed articles, books, dissertations and conference papers.

• When reviewing the literature, be sure to include major works as well as studies that respond to major works. You will want to focus on primary sources, though secondary sources can be valuable as well.

Primary Sources

The term primary source is used broadly to embody all sources that are original. P rimary sources provide first-hand information that is closest to the object of study. Primary sources vary by discipline.

• In the natural and social sciences, original reports of research found in academic journals detailing the methodology used in the research, in-depth descriptions, and discussions of the findings are considered primary sources of information.
• Other common examples of primary sources include speeches, letters, diaries, autobiographies, interviews, official reports, court records, artifacts, photographs, and drawings.  

Galvan, J. L. (2013). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences . Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Secondary Sources

A secondary source is a source that provides non-original or secondhand data or information. 

• Secondary sources are written about primary sources.
• Research summaries reported in textbooks, magazines, and newspapers are considered secondary sources. They typically provide global descriptions of results with few details on the methodology. Other examples of secondary sources include biographies and critical studies of an author's work.

Secondary Source. (2005). In W. Paul Vogt (Ed.), Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology. (3 rd ed., p. 291). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Weidenborner, S., & Caruso, D. (1997). Writing research papers: A guide to the process . New York: St. Martin's Press.

More Examples of Primary and Secondary Sources

• << Previous: Writing Literature Reviews
• Next: Tutorials & Samples >>
• Last Updated: Jun 28, 2023 9:19 AM
• URL: https://laverne.libguides.com/litreviews

How to Write a Literature Review

• What Is a Literature Review

What Is the Literature

• Writing the Review

The "literature" that is reviewed is the collection of publications (academic journal articles, books, conference proceedings, association papers, dissertations, etc) written by scholars and researchers for scholars and researchers. The professional literature is one (very significant) source of information for researchers, typically referred to as the secondary literature, or secondary sources. To use it, it is useful to know how it is created and how to access it.

The "Information Cycle"

The diagram below is a brief general picture of how scholarly literature is produced and used. Research does not have a beginning or an end; researchers build on work that has already been done in order to add to it, thus providing more resources for other researchers to build on. They read the professional literature of their field to see what issues, questions, and problems are current, then formulate a plan to address one or a few of those issues. Then they make a more focused review of the literature, which they use to refine their research plan. After carrying out the research, they present their results (presentations at conferences, published articles, etc) to other scholars in the field, i.e. they add to the general subject reading ("the literature").

  Research may not have a beginning or an end, but researchers have to begin somewhere. As noted above, the professional literature is typically referred to as secondary sources. Primary and tertiary sources also play important roles in research. Note, though, that these labels are not rigid distinctions; the same resource can overlap categories.

• Lab reports (yours or someone else's) - Records of the results of experiments.
• Field notes, measurements, etc (yours or someone else's) - Records of observations of the natural world (electrons, elephants, earthquakes, etc).
• Journal articles, conference proceedings , and similar publications reporting results of original research.
• Historical documents - Official papers, maps, treaties, etc.
• Government publications - Census statistics, economic data, court reports, etc.
• Statistical data - Measurements (counts, surveys, etc.) compiled by researchers.
• First-person accounts - Diaries, memoirs, letters, interviews, speeches
• Newspapers - Some types of articles, e.g. stories on a breaking issue, or journalists reporting the results of their investigations.
• Published writings - Novels, stories, poems, essays, philosophical treatises, etc
• Works of art - Paintings, sculptures, etc.
• Recordings - audio, video, photographic
• Conference proceedings - Scholars and researchers getting together and presenting their latest ideas and findings
• Internet - Web sites that publish the author's findings or research; e.g. your professor's home page listing research results. Note: use extreme caution when using the Internet as a primary source … remember, anyone with internet access can post whatever they want.
• Archives - Records (minutes of meetings, purchase invoices, financial statements, etc.) of an organization (e.g. The Nature Conservancy), institution (e.g. Wesleyan University), business, or other group entity (even the Grateful Dead has an archivist on staff).
• Artifacts - manufactured items such as clothing, furniture, tools, buildings
• Manuscript collections - Collected writings, notes, letters, diaries, and other unpublished works.
• Books or articles - Depending on the purpose and perspective of your project, works intended as secondary sources -- analyzing or critiquing primary sources -- can serve as primary sources for your research.
• Secondary - Books, articles, and other writings by scholars and researchers reporting their analysis of their primary sources to others. They may be reporting the results of their own primary research or critiquing the work of others. As such, these sources are usually a major focus of a literature review: this is where you go to find out in detail what has been and is being done in a field, and thus to see how your work can contribute to the field.   
• Summaries / Introductions - Encyclopedias, dictionaries, textbooks, yearbooks, and other sources which provide an introductory or summary state of the art of the research in the subject areas covered. They are an efficient means to quickly build a general framework for understanding a field.
• Indexes to publications - Provide lists of primary and secondary sources of more extensive information. They are an efficient means of finding books, articles, conference proceedings, and other publications in which scholars report the results of their research.

Work backwards . Usually, your research should begin with tertiary sources:

• Tertiary - Start by finding background information on your topic by consulting reference sources for introductions and summaries, and to find bibliographies or citations of secondary and primary sources.
• Secondary - Find books, articles, and other sources providing more extensive and thorough analyses of a topic. Check to see what other scholars have to say about your topic, find out what has been done and where there is a need for further research, and discover appropriate methodologies for carrying out that research. 
• Primary - Now that you have a solid background knowledge of your topic and a plan for your own research, you are better able to understand, interpret, and analyze the primary source information. See if you can find primary source evidence to support or refute what other scholars have said about your topic, or posit an interpretation of your own and look for more primary sources or create more original data to confirm or refute your thesis. When you present your conclusions, you will have produced another secondary source to aid others in their research.

Publishing the Literature

There are a variety of avenues for scholars to report the results of their research, and each has a role to play in scholarly communication. Not all of these avenues result in official or easily findable publications, or even any publication at all. The categories of scholarly communication listed here are a general outline; keep in mind that they can vary in type and importance between disciplines.

Peer Review - An important part of academic publishing is the peer review, or refereeing,  process. When a scholar submits an article to an academic journal or a book manuscript to a university publisher, the editors or publishers will send copies to other scholars and experts in that field who will review it. The reviewers will check to make sure the author has used methodologies appropriate to the topic, used those methodologies properly, taken other relevant work into account, and adequately supported the conclusions, as well as consider the relevance and importance to the field. A submission may be rejected, or sent back for revisions before being accepted for publication.

Peer review does not guarantee that an article or book is 100% correct. Rather, it provides a "stamp of approval" saying that experts in the field have judged this to be a worthy contribution to the professional discussion of an academic field.

Peer reviewed journals typically note that they are peer reviewed, usually somewhere in the first few pages of each issue. Books published by university presses typically go through a similar review process. Other book publishers may also have a peer review process. But the quality of the reviewing can vary among different book or journal publishers. Use academic book reviews or check how often and in what sources articles in a journal are cited, or ask a professor or two in the field, to get an idea of the reliability and importance of different authors, journals, and publishers.

Informal Sharing - In person or online, researchers discuss their ongoing projects to let others know what they are up to or to give or receive assistance in their work. Conferences, listservs, and online discussion boards are common avenues for these discussions. Increasingly, scholars are using personal web sites to present their work.

Conference Presentations - Many academic organizations sponsor conferences at which scholars read papers, display at poster sessions, or otherwise present the results of their work. To give a presentation, scholars must submit a proposal which is reviewed by those sponsoring the conference. Unless a presentation is published in another venue, it will likely be difficult to find a copy, or even to know what was presented. Some subject specific indexes and other sources list conference proceedings along with the author and contact information.

Conference Papers / Association Papers / Working Papers - Papers presented at a conference, submitted but not yet accepted for publication, works in progress, or not otherwise published are sometimes made available by academic associations. These are often not easy to find, but many are indexed in subject specific indexes or available in subject databases. Sometimes a collection of papers presented at a conference will be published in a book.

Journals - Articles in journals contain specific analyses of particular aspects of a topic. Journal articles can be written and published more quickly than books, academic libraries subscribe to many journals, and the contents of these journals are indexed in a variety of sources so others can easily find them. So, researchers commonly use articles to report their findings to a wide audience, and journals are a good readily available source for anyone researching current information on a topic.

• Research journals - Articles reporting in detail the results of research.
• Review journals - Articles reviewing the literature and work done on particular topics.
• News/Letters journals - News reports, brief research reports, short discussions of current issues.
• Proceedings/Transactions journals - A common venue for publishing conference papers or other proceedings of academic conferences.
• General interest magazines - News and other magazines that report scholarly findings for a general, nonacademic audience. These are usually written by journalists (who are usually not academically trained in the field), but sometimes are written by researchers (or at least by journalists with training in the field). Magazines are not peer reviewed, and are usually not academically useful sources of information for research purposes, but they can alert you to work being done in your field and give you a quick summary.
• Trade journals and magazines - These are written for people working in a particular industry or profession, such as advertising, banking, construction, dentistry, education. Articles are generally written by and for people working in that trade, and focus on current topics and developments in the trade. They do not present academic analyses of their topics, but they can provide useful background or context for academic work if the articles are relevant to your research.

Books - Books take a longer time than articles or conference presentations to get from research to publication, but they can cover a broader range of topics, or cover a topic much more thoroughly. University press books typically go through some sort of a peer review process. There is a wide range of review processes (from rigorous to none at all) among other book publishers.

Dissertations/Theses - Graduate students working on advanced degrees typically must perform a substantial piece of original work, and then present the results in the form of a thesis or dissertation. A master's thesis is typically somewhere between an article and a book in length, and a doctoral dissertation is typically about the length of a book. Both should include extensive bibliographies of their topics. 

Web sites - In addition to researchers informally presenting and discussing their work on personal web pages, there are an increasing number of peer reviewed web sites publishing academic work. The rigor, and even existence, of peer reviewing can vary widely on the web, and it can be difficult to determine the reliability of information presented on the web, so always be careful in relying on a web-based information source. Do your own checking and reviewing to make sure the web site and the information it presents are reliable.

Reference Sources - Subject encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other reference sources present brief introductions to or summaries of the current work in a field or on a topic. These are typically produced by a scholar and/or publisher serving as an editor who invites submissions for articles from experts on the topics covered.

How to Find the Literature

Just as there are many avenues for the literature to be published and disseminated, there are many avenues for searching for and finding the literature. There are, for example, a variety of general and subject specific indexes which list citations to publications (books, articles, conference proceedings, dissertations, etc). The Wesleyan Library web site has links to the library catalog and many indexes and databases in which to search for resources, along with subject guides to list resources appropriate for specific academic disciplines. When you find some appropriate books, articles, etc, look in their bibliographies for other publications and also for other authors writing about the same topics. For research assistance tailored to your topic, you can sign up for a Personal Research Session with a librarian.

• << Previous: What Is a Literature Review
• Next: Writing the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

Using Information Sources

Introduction

Using information sources in a systematic and structured manner will save you a great deal of time and frustration.  Developing a search strategy is vital, as it provides you with an overall structure for your search, and provides a record of your search history.  This is an extremely useful record to have as you find yourself needing to refine or change the focus of your searching as your research develops.  It can also improve the relevancy of results obtained as you have thought about keywords and synonyms and how these relate to each other.

1. Defining the Information Need and Stating it as a Question

Start by expressing your information need in words. This will assist you in thinking about what you need and determining terms to be used later.  You may need to consult dictionaries or encyclopedia to clarify the topic.

2. Breaking the Need into Components

From the title and abstract of your topic it is possible to identify various concepts and keywords.  A concept map / mind map is a useful way to plot ideas.

For example: Title: Attitudes and levels of knowledge of Hepatitis B in Aboriginal women

Here are some additional resources on Concept Mapping for research.

• Basic Introduction to Concept Mapping (YouTube video)
• Concept Mapping (Social Sciences)
• Using Concept Maps in Qualitative Research by Prof. Barbara Daley, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

3. Identifying Synonyms and Prioritizing Keywords

At this stage you need to identify synonyms for the keywords and concepts you have previously developed .  You should choose words that uniquely describe the topic, and you should also list words and concepts you do not want included.  You may also need to think about the discipline area and database(s) you will be searching, as there may be a subject specific or database-specific thesaurus that will help you further identify keywords. One way of listing keywords and alternate terms is in a table.

For example: Title: Some aspects of the lattice of all radical classes Description: Identify examples of pseudocomplements and complements in the lattice of all radical classes and its sublattice, the lattice of all hereditary radical classes, and describe explicitly radical classes complemented and pseudocomplemented in these structures.

4. Searching Specific Sources

Selection of an information source that best matches your information need is important. It will not matter how carefully you have thought out your keywords etc if you are not using an appropriate source. All libraries offer a range of sources. Discipline Research Guides have been created by BU librarians to give guidance as to the most appropriate sources. It is also important that you ascertain the scope (content, years covered, etc. ) of each source and learn the features (e.g. Is truncation used? Is boolean logic supported? etc). It is well worth the effort of reading the HELP screens available on each information source and using the advanced searching  feature whenever  available.

5. Evaluating the Information

As sources are accessed and retrieved, look at each work closely.  Read the abstract, introduction and conclusion.  Before assessing the relevance of the item to your topic, it is vital that the scope, integrity and standing of the source is ascertained. As you retrieve sources:

• assess the standing of the author - is he/she an academic? a journalist? another student? a researcher?
• look at the date of publication - is the topic representative of thinking at that time?
• ascertain the intended audience - was the material written for a general audience? other researchers? particular groups with particular views?
• notice the writing style - is it conversational? academic? provocative? sensational? descriptive?
• look at the presentation - does the author use tables, graphs, diagrams, illustrations appropriately?  are the descriptive details sufficient?
• refer to the bibliography and references - has the author referred to the the work of others?  have all ideas been acknowledged and cited? are there any citations listed which would further your work?
• look at the type of publication and its' purpose - is it a scholarly journal? a popular journal? a refereed publication? a book? conference proceedings?
• identify the seminal works

As sources are selected and used, critically analyze the content. As you use resources:

• determine the facts / arguments / points of view
• look at any new findings - is there clear evidence to support each finding?
• ascertain the reliability and accuracy of the document - are all assumptions valid? are there any flaws in the methodology? is the research based on established fact?
• determine the significance of work - is it a landmark article? does it merely discuss what is already known? what does it contribute to accepted theory?
• ascertain the limitations, flaws, weaknesses, strengths and underlying assumptions of the analysis in relation to the related literature and current thought.
• contextualize the work within the discipline - where does it fit?  which thoughts and ideas relate/contradict/support current thought?
• study the methodology - is it appropriate to the type of study?

6. Evaluating the Search Process

At all stages of the process it is vital that the search process is evaluated.  Sometimes the inability to find relevant information can be attributed to a poorly constructed search strategy, inappropriate search terms, poor retrieval methods or inappropriate source.  This can also apply to instances where too much material is retrieved. Too few, too many or inappropriate search results could mean:

• you need to re-evaluate the search terms
• you need to narrow/ broaden the scope of your search(es)
• you need to try different types of sources
• you need to explore other disciplines

It may be helpful to keep a list of keywords, search strategies and techniques along the way. Also keep a list of those that didn’t work. By adding a date to all your searching activity you will be prompted when searches need updating.

• Bibliographies and references usually found in sources often prove useful when looking for further information.
• It is useful to identify researchers who have worked in the selected field, ascertain exactly what they have done and if possible, contact them to discuss further ideas.
• Not all the required sources will be readily available - at some stage you may need to use interlibrary loan or document delivery services.
• After your initial search you may find it useful to develop a current awareness system to keep you up to date with developments in the area. Ask a librarian for assistance with this.
• << Previous: 3. Types of Information Sources
• Next: 5. Get the Information >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 5: The Literature Review

5.3 Acceptable sources for literature reviews

Following are a few acceptable sources for literature reviews, listed in order from what will be considered most acceptable to less acceptable sources for your literature review assignments:

• Peer reviewed journal articles.
• Edited academic books.
• Articles in professional journals.
• Statistical data from government websites.
• Website material from professional associations (use sparingly and carefully). The following sections will explain and provide examples of these various sources.

Peer reviewed journal articles (papers)

A peer reviewed journal article is a paper that has been submitted to a scholarly journal, accepted, and published. Peer review journal papers go through a rigorous, blind review process of peer review. What this means is that two to three experts in the area of research featured in the paper have reviewed and accepted the paper for publication. The names of the author(s) who are seeking to publish the research have been removed (blind review), so as to minimize any bias towards the authors of the research (albeit, sometimes a savvy reviewer can discern who has done the research based upon previous publications, etc.). This blind review process can be long (often 12 to 18 months) and may involve many back and forth edits on the behalf of the researchers, as they work to address the edits and concerns of the peers who reviewed their paper. Often, reviewers will reject the paper for a variety of reasons, such as unclear or questionable methods, lack of contribution to the field, etc. Because peer reviewed journal articles have gone through a rigorous process of review, they are considered to be the premier source for research. Peer reviewed journal articles should serve as the foundation for your literature review.

The following link will provide more information on peer reviewed journal articles. Make sure you watch the little video on the upper left-hand side of your screen, in addition to reading the material at the following website:    http://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288333&p=1922599

Edited academic books

An edited academic book is a collection of scholarly scientific papers written by different authors. The works are original papers, not published elsewhere (“Edited volume,” 2018). The papers within the text also go through a process of review; however, the review is often not a blind review because the authors have been invited to contribute to the book. Consequently, edited academic books are fine to use for your literature review, but you also want to ensure that your literature review contains mostly peer reviewed journal papers.

Articles in professional journals

Articles from professional journals should be used with caution for your literature review. This is because articles in trade journals are not usually peer reviewed, even though they may appear to be. A good way to find out is to read the “About Us” section of the professional journal, which should state whether or not the papers are peer reviewed. You can also find out by Googling the name of the journal and adding “peer reviewed” to the search.

Statistical data from governmental websites

Governmental websites can be excellent sources for statistical data, e.g, Statistics Canada collects and publishes data related to the economy, society, and the environment (see https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start ).

Website material from professional associations

Material from other websites can also serve as a source for statistics that you may need for your literature review. Since you want to justify the value of the research that interests you, you might make use of a professional association’s website to learn how many members they have, for example. You might want to demonstrate, as part of the introduction to your literature review, why more research on the topic of PTSD in police officers is important. You could use peer reviewed journal articles to determine the prevalence of PTSD in police officers in Canada in the last ten years, and then use the Ontario Police Officers´ Association website to determine the approximate number of police officers employed in the Province of Ontario over the last ten years. This might help you estimate how many police officers could be suffering with PTSD in Ontario. That number could potentially help to justify a research grant down the road. But again, this type of website- based material should be used with caution and sparingly.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Communicative Sciences and Disorders

• Online Learners: Quick Links
• ASHA Journals
• Research Tip 1: Define the Research Question
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Drug Information
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images/Streaming Video
• Database Tutorials
• Crafting a Search
• Cited Reference Searching
• Research Tip 4: Find Grey Literature
• Research Tip 5: Save Your Work
• Cite and Manage Your Sources
• Critical Appraisal
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
• Point of Care Tools (Mobile Apps)

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

• "What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
• Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
• What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
• Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic.  While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.  

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.  

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

• A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
• Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
• Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
• Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
• Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
• Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
• Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
• Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would 
• May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

• Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
• Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews

• A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
• Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

• The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

• Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
• Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
• Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference? 

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews. 

• Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
• What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
• Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
• NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
• << Previous: Literature Reviews
• Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 3:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/speech

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of semantic segmentation models in land cover mapping.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. research questions (rqs).

• RQ1. What are the emerging patterns in land cover mapping?
• RQ2. What are the domain studies of semantic segmentation models in land cover mapping?
• RQ3. What are the data used in semantic segmentation models for land cover mapping?
• RQ4. What are the architecture and performances of semantic segmentation methodologies used in land cover mapping?

2.2. Search Strategy

2.3. study selection criteria, 2.4. eligibility and data analysis, 2.5. data synthesis, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. rq1. what are the emerging patterns in land cover mapping.

• Annual distribution of research studies
• Leading Journals
• Geographic distribution of studies
• Leading Themes and Timelines

3.2. RQ2. What Are Domain Studies of Semantic Segmentation Models in Land Cover Mapping?

• Land Cover Studies
• Precision Agriculture
• Environment
• Coastal Areas

3.3. RQ3. What Are the Data Used in Semantic Segmentation Models for Land Cover Mapping?

• Study Locations
• Data Sources
• Benchmark datasets

3.4. RQ4. What Are the Architecture and Performances of Semantic Segmentation Methodologies Used in Land Cover Mapping?

• Encoder-Decoder based structure
• Transformer-based structure
• Hybrid-based structure
• Performance analysis of semantic segmentation model structures on ISPRS 2-D labelling Potsdam and Vaihingen datasets
• Common experimental training settings

4. Challenges, Future Insights and Directions

4.1. land cover mapping.

• Extracting boundary information
• Generating Precise Land Cover Maps

4.2. Semantic Segmentation Methodologies

• Enhancing deep learning model performance
• Analysis of RS images
• Unlabeled and Imbalance RS data

5. Conclusions

Author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Vali, A.; Comai, S.; Matteucci, M. Deep Learning for Land Use and Land Cover Classification Based on Hyperspectral and Multispectral Earth Observation Data: A Review. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 2495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, J.; Wu, L.; Tang, X.; Liu, F.; Zhang, X.; Jiao, L. Building Extraction of Aerial Images by a Global and Multi-Scale Encoder-Decoder Network. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 2350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pourmohammadi, P.; Adjeroh, D.A.; Strager, M.P.; Farid, Y.Z. Predicting Developed Land Expansion Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Environ. Model. Softw. 2020 , 134 , 104751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Pilato, A.; Taggio, N.; Pompili, A.; Iacobellis, M.; Di Florio, A.; Passarelli, D.; Samarelli, S. Deep Learning Approaches to Earth Observation Change Detection. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 4083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, P.; Chai, D.; Lin, T.; Tang, C.; Du, M.; Huang, J. Large-Scale Rice Mapping under Different Years Based on Time-Series Sentinel-1 Images Using Deep Semantic Segmentation Model. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021 , 174 , 198–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dal Molin Jr., R.; Rizzoli, P. Potential of Convolutional Neural Networks for Forest Mapping Using Sentinel-1 Interferometric Short Time Series. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 1381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Zhang, X.; Huang, J.; Wang, H.; Xin, Q. Fine-Grained Building Change Detection from Very High-Spatial-Resolution Remote Sensing Images Based on Deep Multitask Learning. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 , 8000605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trenčanová, B.; Proença, V.; Bernardino, A. Development of Semantic Maps of Vegetation Cover from UAV Images to Support Planning and Management in Fine-Grained Fire-Prone Landscapes. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 1262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wei, A. MSANet: An Improved Semantic Segmentation Method Using Multi-Scale Attention for Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 13 , 1249–1259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scepanovic, S.; Antropov, O.; Laurila, P.; Rauste, Y.; Ignatenko, V.; Praks, J. Wide-Area Land Cover Mapping with Sentinel-1 Imagery Using Deep Learning Semantic Segmentation Models. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021 , 14 , 10357–10374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Oerlemans, A.; Lao, S.; Wu, S.; Lew, M.S. Deep Learning for Visual Understanding: A Review. Neurocomputing 2016 , 187 , 27–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, J.; Weng, L.; Chen, B.; Xia, M. DFFAN: Dual Function Feature Aggregation Network for Semantic Segmentation of Land Cover. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2021 , 10 , 125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, S.; Wu, C.; Mukherjee, M.; Zheng, Y. Ha-Mppnet: Height Aware-Multi Path Parallel Network for High Spatial Resolution Remote Sensing Image Semantic Seg-Mentation. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2021 , 10 , 672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hao, S.; Zhou, Y.; Guo, Y. A Brief Survey on Semantic Segmentation with Deep Learning. Neurocomputing 2020 , 406 , 302–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, G.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Q.; Dai, F.; Gong, Y.; Zhu, K. Symmetrical Dense-Shortcut Deep Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation of Very-High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2018 , 11 , 1633–1644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Munich, Germany, 5–9 October 2015; Volume 9351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, B.; Xia, M.; Huang, J. Mfanet: A Multi-Level Feature Aggregation Network for Semantic Segmentation of Land Cover. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 731. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weng, L.; Pang, K.; Xia, M.; Lin, H.; Qian, M.; Zhu, C. Sgformer: A Local and Global Features Coupling Network for Semantic Segmentation of Land Cover. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2023 , 16 , 6812–6824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, L.; Li, R.; Zhang, C.; Fang, S.; Duan, C.; Meng, X.; Atkinson, P.M. UNetFormer: A UNet-like Transformer for Efficient Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Urban Scene Imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022 , 190 , 196–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, D.; Kang, Z.; Fu, Y.; Li, Z.; Ran, M. Csswin-Unet: A Swin-Unet Network for Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Images by Aggregating Contextual Information and Extracting Spatial Information. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2023 , 44 , 7598–7625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garcia-Garcia, A.; Orts-Escolano, S.; Oprea, S.; Villena-Martinez, V.; Martinez-Gonzalez, P.; Garcia-Rodriguez, J. A Survey on Deep Learning Techniques for Image and Video Semantic Segmentation. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2018 , 70 , 41–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lateef, F.; Ruichek, Y. Survey on Semantic Segmentation Using Deep Learning Techniques. Neurocomputing 2019 , 338 , 321–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, X.; Shi, J.; Gu, L. A Review of Deep Learning Methods for Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Imagery. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2021 , 169 , 114417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Manley, K.; Nyelele, C.; Egoh, B.N. A Review of Machine Learning and Big Data Applications in Addressing Ecosystem Service Research Gaps. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022 , 57 , 101478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, T.; Chu, Z.; Hu, Q.; Ma, L. Class-Wise Fully Convolutional Network for Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wan, L.; Tian, Y.; Kang, W.; Ma, L. D-TNet: Category-Awareness Based Difference-Threshold Alternative Learning Network for Remote Sensing Image Change Detection. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 5633316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Picon, A.; Bereciartua-Perez, A.; Eguskiza, I.; Romero-Rodriguez, J.; Jimenez-Ruiz, C.J.; Eggers, T.; Klukas, C.; Navarra-Mestre, R. Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Damaged Vegetation Segmentation from RGB Images Based on Virtual NIR-Channel Estimation. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2022 , 6 , 199–210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Z.; Huang, X.; Li, J. DWin-HRFormer: A High-Resolution Transformer Model With Directional Windows for Semantic Segmentation of Urban Construction Land. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2023 , 61 , 5400714. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, L.; Li, R.; Wang, D.; Duan, C.; Wang, T.; Meng, X. Transformer Meets Convolution: A Bilateral Awareness Network for Semantic Segmentation of Very Fine Resolution Urban Scene Images. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3065. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akcay, O.; Kinaci, A.C.; Avsar, E.O.; Aydar, U. Semantic Segmentation of High-Resolution Airborne Images with Dual-Stream DeepLabV3+. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2022 , 11 , 23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Z.; Zhou, W.; Ding, C.; Xia, M. Multi-Resolution Transformer Network for Building and Road Segmentation of Remote Sensing Image. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2022 , 11 , 165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.-H.K.; Qiu, C.; Schmitt, M.; Zhu, X.X.; Sabel, C.E.; Prishchepov, A.V. Mapping Horizontal and Vertical Urban Densification in Denmark with Landsat Time-Series from 1985 to 2018: A Semantic Segmentation Solution. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020 , 251 , 112096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, F.; Wang, C.; Zhang, H.; Li, J.; Li, L.; Chen, W.; Zhang, B. Built-up Area Mapping in China from GF-3 SAR Imagery Based on the Framework of Deep Learning. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021 , 262 , 112515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, S.; Zhang, S.; Zeng, J.; Li, T.; Guo, Q.; Jin, S. A Framework for Land Use Scenes Classification Based on Landscape Photos. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2020 , 13 , 6124–6141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, L.; Shi, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wang, D.; Zhang, L.; Liang, W.; Chen, H. A Large-Scale Remote Sensing Scene Dataset Construction for Semantic Segmentation. Int. J. Image Data Fusion 2023 , 14 , 299–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sirous, A.; Satari, M.; Shahraki, M.M.; Pashayi, M. A Conditional Generative Adversarial Network for Urban Area Classification Using Multi-Source Data. Earth Sci. Inf. 2023 , 16 , 2529–2543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vasavi, S.; Sri Somagani, H.; Sai, Y. Classification of Buildings from VHR Satellite Images Using Ensemble of U-Net and ResNet. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2023 , 26 , 937–953. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, J.; Fernandez-Beltran, R.; Sun, X.; Ni, J.; Plaza, A. Deep Learning-Based Building Footprint Extraction with Missing Annotations. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 , 3002805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, J.; Zeng, P.; Yu, Y.; Yu, H.; Huang, L.; Zhou, D. A Combined Convolutional Neural Network for Urban Land-Use Classification with GIS Data. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 1128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, P.; Chai, D.; Huang, R.; Peng, D.; Lin, T.; Sha, J.; Sun, W.; Huang, J. Rice Mapping Based on Sentinel-1 Images Using the Coupling of Prior Knowledge and Deep Semantic Segmentation Network: A Case Study in Northeast China from 2019 to 2021. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022 , 112 , 102948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.; Peng, D.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Z.; Yu, L.; Chen, J.; Pan, Y.; Zheng, S.; Hu, J.; Lou, Z.; et al. The Accuracy of Winter Wheat Identification at Different Growth Stages Using Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bem, P.P.D.; de Carvalho Júnior, O.A.; Carvalho, O.L.F.D.; Gomes, R.A.T.; Guimarāes, R.F.; Pimentel, C.M.M. Irrigated Rice Crop Identification in Southern Brazil Using Convolutional Neural Networks and Sentinel-1 Time Series. Remote Sens. Appl. 2021 , 24 , 100627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, B.; Feng, Q.; Su, S.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, S.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, J.; Gong, J. Semantic Segmentation for Plastic-Covered Greenhouses and Plastic-Mulched Farmlands from VHR Imagery. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2023 , 16 , 4553–4572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sykas, D.; Sdraka, M.; Zografakis, D.; Papoutsis, I. A Sentinel-2 Multiyear, Multicountry Benchmark Dataset for Crop Classification and Segmentation With Deep Learning. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2022 , 15 , 3323–3339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Descals, A.; Wich, S.; Meijaard, E.; Gaveau, D.L.A.; Peedell, S.; Szantoi, Z. High-Resolution Global Map of Smallholder and Industrial Closed-Canopy Oil Palm Plantations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2021 , 13 , 1211–1231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, J.; Lyu, D.; He, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, X.; Yi, H.; Tian, Q.; Liu, B.; Zhang, X. Combining Object-Oriented and Deep Learning Methods to Estimate Photosynthetic and Non-Photosynthetic Vegetation Cover in the Desert from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Images with Consideration of Shadows. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wan, L.; Li, S.; Chen, Y.; He, Z.; Shi, Y. Application of Deep Learning in Land Use Classification for Soil Erosion Using Remote Sensing. Front. Earth Sci. 2022 , 10 , 849531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cho, A.Y.; Park, S.-E.; Kim, D.-J.; Kim, J.; Li, C.; Song, J. Burned Area Mapping Using Unitemporal PlanetScope Imagery With a Deep Learning Based Approach. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2023 , 16 , 242–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bergado, J.R.; Persello, C.; Reinke, K.; Stein, A. Predicting Wildfire Burns from Big Geodata Using Deep Learning. Saf. Sci. 2021 , 140 , 105276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Yang, P.; Liang, H.; Zheng, C.; Yin, J.; Tian, Y.; Cui, W. Semantic Segmentation and Analysis on Sensitive Parameters of Forest Fire Smoke Using Smoke-Unet and Landsat-8 Imagery. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.-C.; Zhang, Y.-C.; Chen, P.-Y.; Lai, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-H.; Cheng, J.-H.; Ko, M.-H. Clouds Classification from Sentinel-2 Imagery with Deep Residual Learning and Semantic Image Segmentation. Remote Sens. 2019 , 11 , 119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, W.; Chen, Y.; Li, K.; Dai, X. Multicascaded Feature Fusion-Based Deep Learning Network for Local Climate Zone Classification Based on the So2Sat LCZ42 Benchmark Dataset. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2023 , 16 , 449–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ayhan, B.; Kwan, C. Tree, Shrub, and Grass Classification Using Only RGB Images. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 1333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maxwell, A.E.; Bester, M.S.; Guillen, L.A.; Ramezan, C.A.; Carpinello, D.J.; Fan, Y.; Hartley, F.M.; Maynard, S.M.; Pyron, J.L. Semantic Segmentation Deep Learning for Extracting Surface Mine Extents from Historic Topographic Maps. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 4145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, G.; Xu, J.; Chen, W.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Wang, L. Deep Feature Enhancement Method for Land Cover With Irregular and Sparse Spatial Distribution Features: A Case Study on Open-Pit Mining. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2023 , 61 , 4401220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, S.-H.; Han, K.-J.; Lee, K.; Lee, K.-J.; Oh, K.-Y.; Lee, M.-J. Classification of Landscape Affected by Deforestation Using High-resolution Remote Sensing Data and Deep-learning Techniques. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 3372. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, T.; Wu, W.; Gong, C.; Li, X. Residual Multi-Attention Classification Network for a Forest Dominated Tropical Landscape Using High-Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2021 , 10 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pashaei, M.; Kamangir, H.; Starek, M.J.; Tissot, P. Review and Evaluation of Deep Learning Architectures for Efficient Land Cover Mapping with UAS Hyper-Spatial Imagery: A Case Study over a Wetland. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, B.; Chen, G.; Chen, J.; Ouyang, G.; Kou, R.; Wang, L. Cct: Conditional Co-Training for Truly Unsupervised Remote Sensing Image Segmentation in Coastal Areas. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buchsteiner, C.; Baur, P.A.; Glatzel, S. Spatial Analysis of Intra-Annual Reed Ecosystem Dynamics at Lake Neusiedl Using RGB Drone Imagery and Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 3961. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Mahmoudian, N. Aerial Fluvial Image Dataset for Deep Semantic Segmentation Neural Networks and Its Benchmarks. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2023 , 16 , 4755–4766. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Chen, G.; Wang, L.; Fang, B.; Zhou, P.; Zhu, M. Coastal Land Cover Classification of High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images Using Attention-Driven Context Encoding Network. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 7032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, L.; Wang, J.; Chen, J. DKDFN: Domain Knowledge-Guided Deep Collaborative Fusion Network for Multimodal Unitemporal Remote Sensing Land Cover Classification. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022 , 186 , 170–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tzepkenlis, A.; Marthoglou, K.; Grammalidis, N. Efficient Deep Semantic Segmentation for Land Cover Classification Using Sentinel Imagery. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 2027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Billson, J.; Islam, M.D.S.; Sun, X.; Cheng, I. Water Body Extraction from Sentinel-2 Imagery with Deep Convolutional Networks and Pixelwise Category Transplantation. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 1253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bergamasco, L.; Bovolo, F.; Bruzzone, L. A Dual-Branch Deep Learning Architecture for Multisensor and Multitemporal Remote Sensing Semantic Segmentation. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2023 , 16 , 2147–2162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Z.; Bai, Y.; Chen, P. A Multi-Temporal Network for Improving Semantic Segmentation of Large-Scale Landsat Imagery. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 5062. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, B.; Li, B.; Bai, Y.; Chen, P. A Block Shuffle Network with Superpixel Optimization for Landsat Image Semantic Segmentation. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 1432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boonpook, W.; Tan, Y.; Nardkulpat, A.; Torsri, K.; Torteeka, P.; Kamsing, P.; Sawangwit, U.; Pena, J.; Jainaen, M. Deep Learning Semantic Segmentation for Land Use and Land Cover Types Using Landsat 8 Imagery. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2023 , 12 , 14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bergado, J.R.; Persello, C.; Stein, A. Recurrent Multiresolution Convolutional Networks for VHR Image Classification. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2018 , 56 , 6361–6374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karila, K.; Matikainen, L.; Karjalainen, M.; Puttonen, E.; Chen, Y.; Hyyppä, J. Automatic Labelling for Semantic Segmentation of VHR Satellite Images: Application of Airborne Laser Scanner Data and Object-Based Image Analysis. ISPRS Open J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2023 , 9 , 100046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Du, L.; Tan, S.; Wu, F.; Zhu, L.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, B. Land Use and Land Cover Mapping Using Rapideye Imagery Based on a Novel Band Attention Deep Learning Method in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 1225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Y.; Geis, C.; So, E.; Jin, Y. Multitemporal Relearning with Convolutional LSTM Models for Land Use Classification. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021 , 14 , 3251–3265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, Z.; Zhan, T.; Gao, Z.; Li, R.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Jin, Z.; Xu, S. Land Cover Classification of Resources Survey Remote Sensing Images Based on Segmentation Model. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 56267–56281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clark, A.; Phinn, S.; Scarth, P. Pre-Processing Training Data Improves Accuracy and Generalisability of Convolutional Neural Network Based Landscape Semantic Segmentation. Land 2023 , 12 , 1268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammadimanesh, F.; Salehi, B.; Mahdianpari, M.; Gill, E.; Molinier, M. A New Fully Convolutional Neural Network for Semantic Segmentation of Polarimetric SAR Imagery in Complex Land Cover Ecosystem. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019 , 151 , 223–236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wenger, R.; Puissant, A.; Weber, J.; Idoumghar, L.; Forestier, G. Multimodal and Multitemporal Land Use/Land Cover Semantic Segmentation on Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Imagery: An Application on a MultiSenGE Dataset. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xia, J.; Yokoya, N.; Adriano, B.; Zhang, L.; Li, G.; Wang, Z. A Benchmark High-Resolution GaoFen-3 SAR Dataset for Building Semantic Segmentation. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021 , 14 , 5950–5963. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kotru, R.; Turkar, V.; Simu, S.; De, S.; Shaikh, M.; Banerjee, S.; Singh, G.; Das, A. Development of a Generalized Model to Classify Various Land Covers for ALOS-2 L-Band Images Using Semantic Segmentation. Adv. Space Res. 2022 , 70 , 3811–3821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mehra, A.; Jain, N.; Srivastava, H.S. A Novel Approach to Use Semantic Segmentation Based Deep Learning Networks to Classify Multi-Temporal SAR Data. Geocarto Int. 2022 , 37 , 163–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pešek, O.; Segal-Rozenhaimer, M.; Karnieli, A. Using Convolutional Neural Networks for Cloud Detection on VENμS Images over Multiple Land-Cover Types. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 5210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jing, H.; Wang, Z.; Sun, X.; Xiao, D.; Fu, K. PSRN: Polarimetric Space Reconstruction Network for PolSAR Image Semantic Segmentation. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021 , 14 , 10716–10732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, R.; Chen, J.; Feng, L.; Li, S.; Yang, W.; Guo, D. A Refined Pyramid Scene Parsing Network for Polarimetric SAR Image Semantic Segmentation in Agricultural Areas. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 , 4014805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garg, R.; Kumar, A.; Bansal, N.; Prateek, M.; Kumar, S. Semantic Segmentation of PolSAR Image Data Using Advanced Deep Learning Model. Sci. Rep. 2021 , 11 , 15365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, N.-R.; Yang, Z.-A.; Shi, X.-Z.; Zhou, R.-Y.; Wang, F. Land Cover Classification of Synthetic Aperture Radar Images Based on Encoder—Decoder Network with an Attention Mechanism. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2022 , 16 , 014520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, X.; Fu, S.; Chen, J.; Wang, F.; Xu, F. Object-Level Semantic Segmentation on the High-Resolution Gaofen-3 FUSAR-Map Dataset. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021 , 14 , 3107–3119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoshida, K.; Pan, S.; Taniguchi, J.; Nishiyama, S.; Kojima, T.; Islam, M.T. Airborne LiDAR-Assisted Deep Learning Methodology for Riparian Land Cover Classification Using Aerial Photographs and Its Application for Flood Modelling. J. Hydroinformatics 2022 , 24 , 179–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arief, H.A.; Strand, G.-H.; Tveite, H.; Indahl, U.G. Land Cover Segmentation of Airborne LiDAR Data Using Stochastic Atrous Network. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 973. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Z.; Su, C.; Zhang, X. A Semantic Segmentation Method with Category Boundary for Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Mapping of Very-High Resolution (VHR) Remote Sensing Image. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2021 , 42 , 3146–3165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, M.; Zhang, P.; Shi, Q.; Liu, M. An Adversarial Domain Adaptation Framework with KL-Constraint for Remote Sensing Land Cover Classification. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 , 3002305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, D.G.; Shin, Y.H.; Lee, D.C. Land Cover Classification Using SegNet with Slope, Aspect, and Multidirectional Shaded Relief Images Derived from Digital Surface Model. J. Sens. 2020 , 2020 , 8825509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Shi, H.; Zhuang, Y.; Sang, Q.; Chen, L. Bidirectional Grid Fusion Network for Accurate Land Cover Classification of High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2020 , 13 , 5508–5517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, H.; Fan, J.; Wang, Y.; Chen, L. Dual Attention Feature Fusion and Adaptive Context for Accurate Segmentation of Very High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, S.; Lu, X.; Gu, J.; Tang, H.; Yu, Q.; Liu, K.; Ding, H.; Chang, C.; Wang, N. RSI-Net: Two-Stream Deep Neural Network for Remote Sensing Images-Based Semantic Segmentation. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 34858–34871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, N.; Tang, H. Semantic Segmentation of Satellite Images: A Deep Learning Approach Integrated with Geospatial Hash Codes. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 2723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boguszewski, A.; Batorski, D.; Ziemba-Jankowska, N.; Dziedzic, T.; Zambrzycka, A. LandCover.Ai: Dataset for Automatic Mapping of Buildings, Woodlands, Water and Roads from Aerial Imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Nashville, TN, USA, 20–25 June 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao, J.; Weng, L.; Xia, M.; Lin, H. MLNet: Multichannel Feature Fusion Lozenge Network for Land Segmentation. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2022 , 16 , 016513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demir, I.; Koperski, K.; Lindenbaum, D.; Pang, G.; Huang, J.; Basu, S.; Hughes, F.; Tuia, D.; Raska, R. DeepGlobe 2018: A Challenge to Parse the Earth through Satellite Images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–23 June 2018; Volume 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wei, H.; Xu, X.; Ou, N.; Zhang, X.; Dai, Y. Deanet: Dual Encoder with Attention Network for Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Imagery. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maggiori, E.; Tarabalka, Y.; Charpiat, G.; Alliez, P. Can Semantic Labeling Methods Generalize to Any City? The Inria Aerial Image Labeling Benchmark. In Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Fort Worth, TX, USA, 23–28 July 2017; Volume 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, W.; He, C.; Fang, J.; Zheng, J.; Fu, H.; Yu, L. Semantic Segmentation-Based Building Footprint Extraction Using Very High-Resolution Satellite Images and Multi-Source GIS Data. Remote Sens. 2019 , 11 , 403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, S.; Wang, D.; Luo, M. Generative Adversarial Network-Based Full-Space Domain Adaptation for Land Cover Classification from Multiple-Source Remote Sensing Images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2021 , 59 , 3816–3828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Q.; Wang, L.; Wu, Y.; Wu, G.; Guo, Z.; Waslander, S.L. Aerial Imagery for Roof Segmentation: A Large-Scale Dataset towards Automatic Mapping of Buildings. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019 , 147 , 42–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Audebert, N.; Le Saux, B.; Lefèvre, S. Segment-before-Detect: Vehicle Detection and Classification through Semantic Segmentation of Aerial Images. Remote Sens. 2017 , 9 , 368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdollahi, A.; Pradhan, B.; Shukla, N.; Chakraborty, S.; Alamri, A. Multi-Object Segmentation in Complex Urban Scenes from High-Resolution Remote Sensing Data. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, S.D.; Alarabi, L.; Basalamah, S. Deep Hybrid Network for Land Cover Semantic Segmentation in High-Spatial Resolution Satellite Images. Information 2021 , 12 , 230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, R.; Tao, F.; Liu, X.; Na, J.; Leng, H.; Wu, J.; Zhou, T. RAANet: A Residual ASPP with Attention Framework for Semantic Segmentation of High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 3109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sang, Q.; Zhuang, Y.; Dong, S.; Wang, G.; Chen, H. FRF-Net: Land Cover Classification from Large-Scale VHR Optical Remote Sensing Images. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2020 , 17 , 1057–1061. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Y.; Wang, F.; Xiang, Y.; You, H. Article Dgfnet: Dual Gate Fusion Network for Land Cover Classification in Very High-Resolution Images. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3755. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niu, X.; Zeng, Q.; Luo, X.; Chen, L. FCAU-Net for the Semantic Segmentation of Fine-Resolution Remotely Sensed Images. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, M.; Zhang, C.; Liu, J.; Zhou, L.; Li, X. Towards Accurate High Resolution Satellite Image Semantic Segmentation. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 55609–55619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, J.; Wang, H.; Zhang, A.; Liu, Y. Semantic Segmentation of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Images Based on PSE-UNet Model. Sensors 2022 , 22 , 9678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salgueiro, L.; Marcello, J.; Vilaplana, V. SEG-ESRGAN: A Multi-Task Network for Super-Resolution and Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 5862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marsocci, V.; Scardapane, S.; Komodakis, N. MARE: Self-Supervised Multi-Attention REsu-Net for Semantic Segmentation in Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.; Mu, X.; Yang, D.; He, H.; Zhao, P. Attention Guided Encoder-Decoder Network with Multi-Scale Context Aggregation for Land Cover Segmentation. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 215299–215309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, D.; Zhang, Z.; Yan, K. A Semantic Segmentation Method for Remote Sensing Images Based on the Swin Transformer Fusion Gabor Filter. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 77432–77451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, J.; Wen, Z.; Xiao, Z.; Ye, F.; Zhu, Y.; Alazab, M.; Jiao, L. Hyperspectral Image Classification Based on Multibranch Attention Transformer Networks. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 3196661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, X.; Yang, Y.; Wang, L.; Wang, T.; Li, R.; Zhang, C. Class-Guided Swin Transformer for Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Imagery. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 , 6517505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, D.; Yang, R.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; Tan, J.; Li, S.; Yang, X.; Wang, X.; Tang, K.; Qiao, Y.; et al. P-Swin: Parallel Swin Transformer Multi-Scale Semantic Segmentation Network for Land Cover Classification. Comput. Geosci. 2023 , 175 , 105340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, R.; Fang, W.; Fu, H.; Gan, L.; Wang, J.; Gong, P. High-Resolution Land Cover Mapping through Learning with Noise Correction. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 4402013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, X.; Weng, L.; Xia, M.; Lin, H. Multi-Scale Feature Aggregation Network for Semantic Segmentation of Land Cover. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 6156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, Y.; Wang, J.; Yang, X.; Yu, Z.; Tan, Z. Pixel Representation Augmented through Cross-Attention for High-Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery Segmentation. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 5415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, X.; Chen, Z.; Chen, N.; Gong, J. Land Cover Classification Based on the PSPNet and Superpixel Segmentation Methods with High Spatial Resolution Multispectral Remote Sensing Imagery. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2021 , 15 , 034511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, C.; Yue, P.; Tapete, D.; Shangguan, B.; Wang, M.; Wu, Z. A Multi-Level Context-Guided Classification Method with Object-Based Convolutional Neural Network for Land Cover Classification Using Very High Resolution Remote Sensing Images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020 , 88 , 102086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van den Broeck, W.A.J.; Goedemé, T.; Loopmans, M. Multiclass Land Cover Mapping from Historical Orthophotos Using Domain Adaptation and Spatio-Temporal Transfer Learning. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 5911. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, B.; Chen, T.; Wang, B. Curriculum-Style Local-to-Global Adaptation for Cross-Domain Remote Sensing Image Segmentation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 5611412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, A.; Jiao, L.; Zhu, H.; Li, L.; Liu, F. Multitask Semantic Boundary Awareness Network for Remote Sensing Image Segmentation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 5400314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shan, L.; Wang, W. DenseNet-Based Land Cover Classification Network with Deep Fusion. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Safarov, F.; Temurbek, K.; Jamoljon, D.; Temur, O.; Chedjou, J.C.; Abdusalomov, A.B.; Cho, Y.-I. Improved Agricultural Field Segmentation in Satellite Imagery Using TL-ResUNet Architecture. Sensors 2022 , 22 , 9784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, Z.-Q.; Tang, P.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Z. CNN-Enhanced Heterogeneous Graph Convolutional Network: Inferring Land Use from Land Cover with a Case Study of Park Segmentation. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 5027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, D.; Yang, R.; Liu, H.; He, H.; Tan, J.; Li, S.; Qiao, Y.; Tang, K.; Wang, X. HFENet: Hierarchical Feature Extraction Network for Accurate Landcover Classification. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 4244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Liu, M.; Wang, Y.; Shang, J.; Liu, X.; Li, B.; Song, A.; Li, Q. Automated Delineation of Agricultural Field Boundaries from Sentinel-2 Images Using Recurrent Residual U-Net. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021 , 105 , 102557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maggiolo, L.; Marcos, D.; Moser, G.; Serpico, S.B.; Tuia, D. A Semisupervised CRF Model for CNN-Based Semantic Segmentation with Sparse Ground Truth. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 5606315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barthakur, M.; Sarma, K.K.; Mastorakis, N. Modified Semi-Supervised Adversarial Deep Network and Classifier Combination for Segmentation of Satellite Images. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 117972–117985. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Q.; Luo, X.; Feng, J.; Li, S.; Yin, J. CCENet: Cascade Class-Aware Enhanced Network for High-Resolution Aerial Imagery Semantic Segmentation. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2022 , 15 , 6943–6956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, B.Y.J.; Sun, J.; Dong, S.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Xu, J.; Chu, W.; Dong, Y.; et al. Land Cover Classification in a Mixed Forest-Grassland Ecosystem Using LResU-Net and UAV Imagery. J. Res. 2022 , 33 , 923–936. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Wu, L.; Xie, Z.; Chen, Z. Building Extraction in Very High Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery Using Deep Learning and Guided Filters. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.; Yao, J.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, W.; Shi, S.; Yuan, S. Optimal Seamline Detection for Orthoimage Mosaicking by Combining Deep Convolutional Neural Network and Graph Cuts. Remote Sens. 2017 , 9 , 701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cecili, G.; De Fioravante, P.; Congedo, L.; Marchetti, M.; Munafò, M. Land Consumption Mapping with Convolutional Neural Network: Case Study in Italy. Land 2022 , 11 , 1919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abadal, S.; Salgueiro, L.; Marcello, J.; Vilaplana, V. A Dual Network for Super-Resolution and Semantic Segmentation of Sentinel-2 Imagery. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 4547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henry, C.J.; Storie, C.D.; Palaniappan, M.; Alhassan, V.; Swamy, M.; Aleshinloye, D.; Curtis, A.; Kim, D. Automated LULC Map Production Using Deep Neural Networks. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2019 , 40 , 4416–4440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shojaei, H.; Nadi, S.; Shafizadeh-Moghadam, H.; Tayyebi, A.; Van Genderen, J. An Efficient Built-up Land Expansion Model Using a Modified U-Net. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2022 , 15 , 148–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Fang, L.; Yan, Y. A Deep Learning Based Framework for Remote Sensing Image Ground Object Segmentation. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022 , 130 , 109695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, X.; Chen, Z.; Wang, C. Fully Convolutional Densenet with Adversarial Training for Semantic Segmentation of High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2021 , 15 , 016520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, B.; Wan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y. JSH-Net: Joint Semantic Segmentation and Height Estimation Using Deep Convolutional Networks from Single High-Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2022 , 43 , 6307–6332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Chen, K.; Shi, Z. Geographical Supervision Correction for Remote Sensing Representation Learning. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 5411520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, W.; Qin, W.; Chen, A. Towards Robust Semantic Segmentation of Land Covers in Foggy Conditions. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 4551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, W.; Tang, P.; Zhao, L. Fast and Accurate Land Cover Classification on Medium Resolution Remote Sensing Images Using Segmentation Models. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2021 , 42 , 3277–3301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dechesne, C.; Mallet, C.; Le Bris, A.; Gouet-Brunet, V. Semantic Segmentation of Forest Stands of Pure Species Combining Airborne Lidar Data and Very High Resolution Multispectral Imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2017 , 126 , 129–145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Z.; Lu, W.; Cao, J.; Xie, G. MKANet: An Efficient Network with Sobel Boundary Loss for Land-Cover Classification of Satellite Remote Sensing Imagery. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 4514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Chen, K.; Chen, H.; Shi, Z. Geographical Knowledge-Driven Representation Learning for Remote Sensing Images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022 , 60 , 5405516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, W.; Liu, J.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, H.; Gao, K.; Li, J. Weakly Supervised High Spatial Resolution Land Cover Mapping Based on Self-Training with Weighted Pseudo-Labels. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022 , 112 , 102931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Q.; Kampffmeyer, M.; Jenssen, R.; Salberg, A.-B. Dense Dilated Convolutions Merging Network for Land Cover Classification. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2020 , 58 , 6309–6320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Zhang, H.; Lu, F.; Xue, R.; Yang, G.; Zhang, L. Breaking the Resolution Barrier: A Low-to-High Network for Large-Scale High-Resolution Land-Cover Mapping Using Low-Resolution Labels. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022 , 192 , 244–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, Q.; Mohd Shafri, H.Z. Multi-Modal Feature Fusion Network with Adaptive Center Point Detector for Building Instance Extraction. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 4920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mboga, N.; D’aronco, S.; Grippa, T.; Pelletier, C.; Georganos, S.; Vanhuysse, S.; Wolff, E.; Smets, B.; Dewitte, O.; Lennert, M.; et al. Domain Adaptation for Semantic Segmentation of Historical Panchromatic Orthomosaics in Central Africa. ISPRS Int. J. Geoinf. 2021 , 10 , 523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Z.; Doi, K.; Iwasaki, A.; Xu, G. Unsupervised Domain Adaptation of High-Resolution Aerial Images via Correlation Alignment and Self Training. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2021 , 18 , 746–750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simms, D.M. Fully Convolutional Neural Nets In-the-Wild. Remote Sens. Lett. 2020 , 11 , 1080–1089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Du, S.; Lu, H.; Li, D.; Cao, Z. Multispectral Semantic Land Cover Segmentation from Aerial Imagery with Deep Encoder-Decoder Network. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2022 , 19 , 5000105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, P.; Lu, Y.; Zhai, J. Mapping Land Cover Using a Developed U-Net Model with Weighted Cross Entropy. Geocarto Int. 2022 , 37 , 9355–9368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Sun, B.; Wang, L.; Fang, B.; Chang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Lyu, X.; Chen, G. Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation Framework with Pseudo Supervisions for Land-Use/Land-Cover Mapping in Coastal Areas. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022 , 112 , 102881. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ajibola, S.; Cabral, P. A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Semantic Segmentation Models in Land Cover Mapping. Remote Sens. 2024 , 16 , 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122222

Ajibola S, Cabral P. A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Semantic Segmentation Models in Land Cover Mapping. Remote Sensing . 2024; 16(12):2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122222

Ajibola, Segun, and Pedro Cabral. 2024. "A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Semantic Segmentation Models in Land Cover Mapping" Remote Sensing 16, no. 12: 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16122222

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advertisement

Supported by

Ukraine Urges Allies to Allow Their Weapons to Target Russian Air Power

After bombs again rained on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-biggest city, President Volodymyr Zelensky asked Western partners to permit the use of their weapons against air bases inside Russia.

• Share full article

By Marc Santora

Reporting from Kyiv, Ukraine

As bombs dropped by Russian warplanes tore through residential districts in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv this weekend, killing at least four people and injuring dozens more, President Volodymyr Zelensky on Sunday called on allies to further ease restrictions on the use of Western weapons so that his forces could use them against Russian air bases.

The Biden administration’s recent decision to allow Ukraine to use certain weapons to hit forces inside Russia has had an immediate impact, helping Ukraine thwart Moscow’s offensive north of Kharkiv and slowing the bombardment of the city, Ukraine’s second-largest, which is only about 25 miles from the border.

But the lifting of U.S. restrictions does not apply to the use of Army Tactical Missile Systems, known as ATACMS, some of which have a range of around 190 miles. Those longer-range weapons would be needed to hit air bases deep in Russian territory that are used by the bombers. Kyiv has been left to rely largely on its own expanding fleet of domestically produced drones to go after those bases.

Ukraine’s air defenses are gradually being strengthened after months of delays in American military assistance, but Russia continues to mount daily bombardments and Mr. Zelensky is desperate to find ways to thwart the attacks before they begin.

“We have enough determination to destroy terrorists on their territory — it is only fair — and we need the same determination from our partners,” he said in a post on social media on Sunday.

“Just this day alone, our warriors shot down two Russian Kalibr missiles,” he wrote. “Yesterday — 12 Russian missiles and 13 attack drones. And so on — every night and every day.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .