Literature Review Template

Literature review: scope and questions, documented search strategy, screening counts, thematic synthesis, synthesis matrix, gaps

학술표준literature review업데이트됨 2026. 10. 20.

에디터에서 열기.md 다운로드

사용법: Use for a review article, thesis chapter or proposal background. Record the search strings and dates as you run them, then fill the synthesis matrix before writing themes. Main pitfall: summarising studies one by one instead of comparing them.

미리보기

Literature Review: [Topic]

Literature review template for a stand-alone review article, a thesis chapter or the background of a proposal: scope and review questions, a documented search strategy, screening summary, thematic synthesis, a synthesis matrix, gaps and conclusions. Based on common academic practice for narrative and structured reviews. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Field	Value
Review title	[Title]
Review type	[Narrative / Scoping / Integrative / Systematic]
Author(s)	[@name]
Purpose	[Thesis chapter 2 / Journal article / Proposal background]
Search period	YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD
Citation style	[APA 7 / Harvard / Vancouver]
Version / status	[0.1, Draft]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD

1. Introduction, scope and review questions

[Introduce the topic and why a review is needed now: a growing but scattered literature, conflicting findings, or a new policy question.]

Key concepts. [Define the central terms as used in this review. Example: "Remote work: paid work performed away from the employer's premises for at least one full day per week."]

ID	Review question
RQ1	Example: What effects of remote work on employee well-being have been reported in empirical studies since 2015?
RQ2	Example: Which organisational practices moderate those effects?
RQ3	[Question]

Scope. [Population, context, time period, study designs and languages included, with reasons for each boundary.]

2. Search strategy

2.1 Sources searched

Source	Type	Date searched	Results
Example: Scopus	Bibliographic database	YYYY-MM-DD	842
Example: PsycINFO	Bibliographic database	YYYY-MM-DD	516
Example: Web of Science Core Collection	Bibliographic database	YYYY-MM-DD	611
Example: Google Scholar (first 200 results)	Search engine	YYYY-MM-DD	200
Example: Reference lists of included studies	Citation chasing	YYYY-MM-DD	37
[Source]	[Type]	YYYY-MM-DD	[n]

2.2 Search terms

Combine concept blocks with AND and synonyms within a block with OR. Adapt the syntax for each database and record each version.

Concept	Terms
Example: Remote work	"remote work" OR telework OR "work from home" OR "home-based work" OR "hybrid work*"
Example: Well-being	wellbeing OR "well-being" OR burnout OR stress OR "job satisfaction" OR "mental health"
[Concept]	[Terms]

Example full string (Scopus): TITLE-ABS-KEY(("remote work*" OR telework* OR "work from home") AND (wellbeing OR "well-being" OR burnout OR stress)) AND PUBYEAR > 2014

2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criterion	Include	Exclude
Population	Example: Employed adults	Students, self-employed freelancers
Exposure / topic	Example: Remote or hybrid work arrangements	Gig work platforms
Outcomes	Example: Any measured well-being outcome	Productivity only
Study design	Example: Empirical quantitative, qualitative or mixed	Opinion pieces, editorials
Publication	Example: Peer-reviewed, 2015 onwards, English	Conference abstracts without full text
[Criterion]	[Include]	[Exclude]

3. Screening and selection summary

Stage	Records	Notes
Identified through database searches	[2,169]	All sources in 2.1
Duplicates removed	[612]	Reference manager plus manual check
Titles and abstracts screened	[1,557]	[Two reviewers, kappa = 0.81]
Excluded at title/abstract	[1,401]	Off-topic or wrong population
Full texts assessed	[156]
Excluded at full text	[98]	No well-being outcome (41), not empirical (33), other (24)
Included in review	[58]	[41 quantitative, 12 qualitative, 5 mixed]

[Describe how study quality was appraised, if at all, and with which tool, for example the CASP checklists or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.]

4. Thematic synthesis

4.1 [Theme 1, stated as a finding]

[Example heading: "Remote work reduces commuting stress but increases boundary strain." Synthesise the studies that support and qualify the finding, comparing samples, designs and measures. Point to the strongest evidence and explain inconsistent results.]

4.2 [Theme 2]

[Same approach. Note where evidence comes mostly from one country, sector or method.]

4.3 [Theme 3]

[Same approach.]

4.4 Methodological observations

[Patterns in how the field studies the topic: dominant designs, common measures, typical sample sizes and recurring weaknesses such as reliance on cross-sectional self-report data.]

5. Synthesis matrix

Source	Context and sample	Design	Key findings	Theme(s)	Quality / notes
Example: [Author, 2021]	1,240 office workers, Germany	Longitudinal survey, 3 waves	Remote days linked to lower exhaustion, effect fades after 12 months	4.1	High; attrition 22%
Example: [Author, 2022]	28 managers, UK public sector	Semi-structured interviews	Managers report difficulty spotting distress remotely	4.2	Moderate; single organisation
Example: [Author, 2023]	3,500 employees, 5 countries	Cross-sectional survey	Hybrid workers report highest job satisfaction	4.1, 4.3	Moderate; self-report only
[Source]	[Context]	[Design]	[Findings]	[Theme]	[Quality]

6. Gaps and future research

ID	Gap	Evidence from the review	Suggested research
G-01	Example: Few studies follow workers beyond one year	4 of 58 studies longer than 12 months	Multi-year cohort studies
G-02	Example: Low-income and frontline workers under-represented	49 of 58 samples are knowledge workers	Studies of mixed-role organisations
G-03	[Gap]	[Evidence]	[Research]

7. Conclusion

[Answer RQ1 to RQ3 in turn in one paragraph each. State how confident one can be in the conclusions and why, then summarise the implications for research and practice.]

References

Example (APA 7): [Author, A. A.] ([2021]). [Title of article]. [Journal], [26]([4]), [345-360]. https://doi.org/[10.xxxx/xxxxx]
[Reference]

Standard and licence note

Based on common academic practice for literature reviews. Systematic reviews should additionally follow the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting, cited here as a reference only. Original text written for this collection; example data are illustrative. Template licence: MIT.