how to review a medical research paper

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

• YJBM Updates
• Editorial Board
• Colloquium Series
• Podcast Series
• Open Access
• Call for Papers
• PubMed Publications
• News & Views
• Why Publish in YJBM?
• Types of Articles Published
• Manuscript Submission Guidelines
• YJBM Ethical Guidelines

Points to Consider When Reviewing Articles

• Writing and Submitting a Review
• Join Our Peer Reviewer Database

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

General questions that Reviewers should keep in mind when reviewing articles are the following:

• Is the article of interest to the readers of YJBM ?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript?
• How can the Editors work with the Authors to improve the submitted manuscripts, if the topic and scope of the manuscript is of interest to YJBM readers?

The following contains detailed descriptions as to what should be included in each particular type of article as well as points that Reviewers should keep in mind when specifically reviewing each type of article.

YJBM will ask Reviewers to Peer Review the following types of submissions:

Download PDF

Frequently asked questions.

These manuscripts should present well-rounded studies reporting innovative advances that further knowledge about a topic of importance to the fields of biology or medicine. The conclusions of the Original Research Article should clearly be supported by the results. These can be submitted as either a full-length article (no more than 6,000 words, 8 figures, and 4 tables) or a brief communication (no more than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 2 tables). Original Research Articles contain five sections: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• What is the overall aim of the research being presented? Is this clearly stated?
• Have the Authors clearly stated what they have identified in their research?
• Are the aims of the manuscript and the results of the data clearly and concisely stated in the abstract?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background information to enable readers to better understand the problem being identified by the Authors?
• Have the Authors provided sufficient evidence for the claims they are making? If not, what further experiments or data needs to be included?
• Are similar claims published elsewhere? Have the Authors acknowledged these other publications? Have the Authors made it clear how the data presented in the Author’s manuscript is different or builds upon previously published data?
• Is the data presented of high quality and has it been analyzed correctly? If the analysis is incorrect, what should the Authors do to correct this?
• Do all the figures and tables help the reader better understand the manuscript? If not, which figures or tables should be removed and should anything be presented in their place?
• Is the methodology used presented in a clear and concise manner so that someone else can repeat the same experiments? If not, what further information needs to be provided?
• Do the conclusions match the data being presented?
• Have the Authors discussed the implications of their research in the discussion? Have they presented a balanced survey of the literature and information so their data is put into context?
• Is the manuscript accessible to readers who are not familiar with the topic? If not, what further information should the Authors include to improve the accessibility of their manuscript?
• Are all abbreviations used explained? Does the author use standard scientific abbreviations?

Case reports describe an unusual disease presentation, a new treatment, an unexpected drug interaction, a new diagnostic method, or a difficult diagnosis. Case reports should include relevant positive and negative findings from history, examination and investigation, and can include clinical photographs. Additionally, the Author must make it clear what the case adds to the field of medicine and include an up-to-date review of all previous cases. These articles should be no more than 5,000 words, with no more than 6 figures and 3 tables. Case Reports contain five sections: abstract; introduction; case presentation that includes clinical presentation, observations, test results, and accompanying figures; discussion; and conclusions.

• Does the abstract clearly and concisely state the aim of the case report, the findings of the report, and its implications?
• Does the introduction provide enough details for readers who are not familiar with a particular disease/treatment/drug/diagnostic method to make the report accessible to them?
• Does the manuscript clearly state what the case presentation is and what was observed so that someone can use this description to identify similar symptoms or presentations in another patient?
• Are the figures and tables presented clearly explained and annotated? Do they provide useful information to the reader or can specific figures/tables be omitted and/or replaced by another figure/table?
• Are the data presented accurately analyzed and reported in the text? If not, how can the Author improve on this?
• Do the conclusions match the data presented?
• Does the discussion include information of similar case reports and how this current report will help with treatment of a disease/presentation/use of a particular drug?

Reviews provide a reasoned survey and examination of a particular subject of research in biology or medicine. These can be submitted as a mini-review (less than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 1 table) or a long review (no more than 6,000 words, 6 figures, and 3 tables). They should include critical assessment of the works cited, explanations of conflicts in the literature, and analysis of the field. The conclusion must discuss in detail the limitations of current knowledge, future directions to be pursued in research, and the overall importance of the topic in medicine or biology. Reviews contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Is the review accessible to readers of YJBM who are not familiar with the topic presented?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the review?
• Does the introduction clearly state what the focus of the review will be?
• Are the facts reported in the review accurate?
• Does the Author use the most recent literature available to put together this review?
• Is the review split up under relevant subheadings to make it easier for the readers to access the article?
• Does the Author provide balanced viewpoints on a specific topic if there is debate over the topic in the literature?
• Are the figures or tables included relevant to the review and enable the readers to better understand the manuscript? Are there further figures/tables that could be included?
• Do the conclusions and outlooks outline where further research can be done on the topic?

Perspectives provide a personal view on medical or biomedical topics in a clear narrative voice. Articles can relate personal experiences, historical perspective, or profile people or topics important to medicine and biology. Long perspectives should be no more than 6,000 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Brief opinion pieces should be no more than 2,500 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Perspectives contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Does the abstract accurately and concisely summarize the main points provided in the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information so that the reader can understand the article if he or she were not familiar with the topic?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the Author break up the article under specific topics?
• Do the conclusions follow from the information provided by the Author?
• Does the Author reflect and provide lessons learned from a specific personal experience/historical event/work of a specific person?

Analyses provide an in-depth prospective and informed analysis of a policy, major advance, or historical description of a topic related to biology or medicine. These articles should be no more than 6,000 words with no more than 3 figures and 1 table. Analyses contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information if the readers are not familiar with the topic being addressed?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the Author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?

Profiles describe a notable person in the fields of science or medicine. These articles should contextualize the individual’s contributions to the field at large as well as provide some personal and historical background on the person being described. More specifically, this should be done by describing what was known at the time of the individual’s discovery/contribution and how that finding contributes to the field as it stands today. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words, with up to 6 figures, and 3 tables. The article should include the following: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions.

• Does the Author provide information about the person of interest’s background, i.e., where they are from, where they were educated, etc.?
• Does the Author indicate how the person focused on became interested or involved in the subject that he or she became famous for?
• Does the Author provide information on other people who may have helped the person in his or her achievements?
• Does the Author provide information on the history of the topic before the person became involved?
• Does the Author provide information on how the person’s findings affected the field being discussed?
• Does the introduction provide enough information to the readers, should they not be familiar with the topic being addressed?

Interviews may be presented as either a transcript of an interview with questions and answers or as a personal reflection. If the latter, the Author must indicate that the article is based on an interview given. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words and contain no more than 3 figures and 2 tables. The articles should include: abstract, introduction, questions and answers clearly indicated by subheadings or topics (with heading and subheadings), and conclusions.

• Does the Author provide relevant information to describe who the person is whom they have chosen to interview?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has chosen the person being interviewed?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has decided to focus on a specific topic in the interview?
• Are the questions relevant? Are there more questions that the Author should have asked? Are there questions that the Author has asked that are not necessary?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the author break up the article under specific topics?
• Does the Author accurately summarize the contents of the interview as well as specific lesson learned, if relevant, in the conclusions?

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Publishing nightmare: a researcher’s quest to keep his own work from being plagiarized

News 04 SEP 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Genetic Epidemiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

NOMIS Foundation ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship

The NOMIS Foundation ETH Fellowship Programme supports postdoctoral researchers at ETH Zurich within the Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life ...

Zurich, Canton of Zürich (CH)

Centre for Origin and Prevalence of Life at ETH Zurich

13 PhD Positions at Heidelberg University

GRK2727/1 – InCheck Innate Immune Checkpoints in Cancer and Tissue Damage

Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg (DE) and Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg (DE)

Medical Faculties Mannheim & Heidelberg and DKFZ, Germany

Postdoctoral Associate- Environmental Epidemiology

Open faculty positions at the state key laboratory of brain cognition & brain-inspired intelligence.

The laboratory focuses on understanding the mechanisms of brain intelligence and developing the theory and techniques of brain-inspired intelligence.

Shanghai, China

CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT)

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

Quick links

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

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

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

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

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

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

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
• [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
• How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
• How to write a review article. Williamson RC. Williamson RC. Hosp Med. 2001 Dec;62(12):780-2. doi: 10.12968/hosp.2001.62.12.2389. Hosp Med. 2001. PMID: 11810740 Review.
• A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
• Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
• Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
• Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
• Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
• Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
• Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

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

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Website maintenance is scheduled for Saturday, September 7, and Sunday, September 8. Short disruptions may occur during these days.

The “PP-ICONS” approach will help you separate the clinical wheat from the chaff in mere minutes .

ROBERT J. FLAHERTY, MD

Fam Pract Manag. 2004;11(5):47-52

Keeping up with the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment is a challenge we all face as phycians. We need information that is both valid (that is, accurate and correct) and relevant to our patients and practices. While we have many sources of clinical information, such as CME lectures, textbooks, pharmaceutical advertising, pharmaceutical representatives and colleagues, we often turn to journal articles for the most current clinical information.

Unfortunately, a great deal of research reported in journal articles is poorly done, poorly analyzed or both, and thus is not valid. A great deal of research is also irrelevant to our patients and practices. Separating the clinical wheat from the chaff can take skills that many of us never were taught.

Reading the abstract is often sufficient when evaluating an article using the PP-ICONS approach.

The most relevant studies will involve outcomes that matter to patients (e.g., morbidity, mortality and cost) versus outcomes that matter to physiologists (e.g., blood pressure, blood sugar or cholesterol levels).

Ignore the relative risk reduction, as it overstates research findings and will mislead you.

The article “Making Evidence-Based Medicine Doable in Everyday Practice” in the February 2004 issue of FPM describes several organizations that can help us. These organizations, such as the Cochrane Library, Bandolier and Clinical Evidence, develop clinical questions and then review one or more journal articles to identify the best available evidence that answers the question, with a focus on the quality of the study, the validity of the results and the relevance of the findings to everyday practice. These organizations provide a very valuable service, and the number of important clinical questions that they have studied has grown steadily over the past five years. (See “Four steps to an evidence-based answer.” )

FOUR STEPS TO AN EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

When faced with a clinical question, follow these steps to find an evidence-based answer:

Search the Web site of one of the evidence review organizations, such as Cochrane (http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/mainindex.htm), Bandolier ( http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier ) or Clinical Evidence ( http://www.clinicalevidence.com ), described in “Making Evidence-Based Medicine Doable in Everyday Practice,” FPM, February 2004, page 51 . You can also search the TRIP+ Web site ( http://www.tripdatabase.com ), which simultaneously searches the databases of many of the review organizations. If you find a systematic review or meta-analysis by one of these organizations, you can be confident that you’ve found the best evidence available.

If you don’t find the information you need through step 1, search for meta-analyses and systematic reviews using the PubMed Web site (see the tutorial at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pubmed_tutorial/m1001.html ). Most of the recent abstracts found on PubMed provide enough information for you to determine the validity and relevance of the findings. If needed, you can get a copy of the full article through your hospital library or the journal’s Web site.

If you cannot find a systematic review or meta-analysis on PubMed, look for a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT is the “gold standard” in medical research. Case reports, cohort studies and other research methods simply are not good enough to use for making patient care decisions.

Once you find the article you need, use the PP-ICONS approach to evaluate its usefulness to your patient.

If you find a systematic review or meta-analysis done by one of these organizations, you can feel confident that you have found the current best evidence. However, these organizations have not asked all of the common clinical questions yet, and you will frequently be faced with finding the pertinent articles and determining for yourself whether they are valuable. This is where the PP-ICONS approach can help.

What is PP-ICONS?

When you find a systematic review, meta-analysis or randomized controlled trial while reading your clinical journals or searching PubMed ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi ), you need to determine whether it is valid and relevant. There are many different ways to analyze an abstract or journal article, some more rigorous than others. 1 , 2 I have found a simple but effective way to identify a valid or relevant article within a couple of minutes, ensuring that I can use or discard the conclusions with confidence. This approach works well on articles regarding treatment and prevention, and can also be used with articles on diagnosis and screening.

The most important information to look for when reviewing an article can be summarized by the acronym “PP-ICONS,” which stands for the following:

Patient or population,

Intervention,

Comparison,

Number of subjects,

Statistics.

For example, imagine that you just saw a nine-year-old patient in the office with common warts on her hands, an ideal candidate for your usual cryotherapy. Her mother had heard about treating warts with duct tape and wondered if you would recommend this treatment. You promised to call Mom back after you had a chance to investigate this rather odd treatment.

When you get a free moment, you write down your clinical question: “Is duct tape an effective treatment for warts in children?” Writing down your clinical question is useful, as it can help you clarify exactly what you are looking for. Use the PPICO parts of the acronym to help you write your clinical question; this is actually how many researchers develop their research questions.

You search Cochrane and Bandolier without success, so now you search PubMed, which returns an abstract for the following article: “Focht DR 3rd, Spicer C, Fairchok MP. The efficacy of duct tape vs cryotherapy in the treatment of verruca vulgaris (the common wart). Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med . 2002 Oct;156(10):971-974.”

You decide to apply PP-ICONS to this abstract (see "Abstract from PubMed" ) to determine if the information is both valid and relevant.

ABSTRACT FROM PUBMED

Using the PP-ICONS approach, physicians can evaluate the validity and relevance of clinical articles in minutes using only the abstract, such as this one, obtained free online from PubMed, http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi. The author uses this abstract to evaluate the use of duct tape to treat common warts.

Problem. The first P in PP-ICONS is for “problem,” which refers to the clinical condition that was studied. From the abstract, it is clear that the researchers studied the same problem you are interested in, which is important since flat warts or genital warts may have responded differently. Obviously, if the problem studied were not sufficiently similar to your clinical problem, the results would not be relevant.

Patient or population. Next, consider the patient or population. Is the study group similar to your patient or practice? Are they primary care patients, for example, or are they patients who have been referred to a tertiary care center? Are they of a similar age and gender? In this case, the researchers studied children and young adults in outpatient clinics, which is similar to your patient population. If the patients in the study are not similar to your patient, for example if they are sicker, older, a different gender or more clinically complicated, the results might not be relevant.

Intervention. The intervention could be a diagnostic test or a treatment. Make sure the intervention is the same as what you are looking for. The patient’s mother was asking about duct tape for warts, so this is a relevant study.

Comparison. The comparison is what the intervention is tested against. It could be a different diagnostic test or another therapy, such as cryotherapy in this wart study. It could even be placebo or no treatment. Make sure the comparison fits your question. You usually use cryotherapy for common warts, so this is a relevant comparison.

Outcome. The outcome is particularly important. Many outcomes are “disease-oriented outcomes,” which are based on “disease-oriented evidence” (DOEs). DOEs usually reflect changes in physiologic parameters, such as blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, etc. We have long assumed that improving the physiologic parameters of a disease will result in a better disease outcome, but that is not necessarily true. For instance, finasteride can improve urinary flow rate in prostatic hypertrophy, but it does not significantly change symptom scores. 3

DOEs look at the kinds of outcomes that physiologists care about. More relevant are outcomes that patients care about, often called “patient-oriented outcomes.” These are based on “patient-oriented evidence that matters” (POEMs) and look at outcomes such as morbidity, mortality and cost. Thus, when looking at a journal article, DOEs are interesting but of questionable relevance, whereas POEMs are very interesting and very relevant. In the study on the previous page, the outcome is complete resolution of the wart, which is something your patient is interested in.

Number. The number of subjects is crucial to whether accurate statistics can be generated from the data. Too few patients in a research study may not be enough to show that a difference actually exists between the intervention and comparison groups (known as the “power” of a study). Many studies are published with less than 100 subjects, which is usually inadequate to provide reliable statistics. A good rule of thumb is 400 subjects. 4 Fifty-one patients completed the wart study, which is a pretty small number to generate good statistics.

Statistics. The statistics you are interested in are few in number and easy to understand. Since statistics are frequently misused in journal articles, it is worth a few minutes to learn which to believe and which to ignore.

Relative risk reduction. It is not unusual to find a summary statement in a journal article similar to this one from an article titled “Long-Term Effects of Mammography Screening: Updated Overview of the Swedish Randomised Trials”: 5

“There were 511 breast cancer deaths in 1,864,770 women-years in the invited groups and 584 breast cancer deaths in 1,688,440 women-years in the control groups, a significant 21 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality.”

This 21-percent statistic is the relative risk reduction (RRR), which is the percent reduction in the measured outcome between the experimental and control groups. (See “Some important statistics” for more information on calculating the RRR and other statistics.) The RRR is not a good way to compare outcomes. It amplifies small differences and makes insignificant findings appear significant, and it doesn’t reflect the baseline risk of the outcome event. Nevertheless, the RRR is very popular and will be reported in nearly every journal article, perhaps because it makes weak results look good. Think of the RRR as the “reputation reviving ratio” or the “reporter’s reason for ‘riting.” Ignore the RRR. It will mislead you. In our wart treatment example, the RRR would be (85 percent - 60 percent)/60 percent x 100 = 42 percent. The RRR could thus be interpreted as showing that duct tape is 42 percent more effective than cryotherapy in treating warts.

SOME IMPORTANT STATISTICS

Absolute risk reduction (ARR): The difference between the control group’s event rate (CER) and the experimental group’s event rate (EER).

Control event rate (CER): The proportion of patients responding to placebo or other control treatment. For example, if 25 patients are in a control group and the event being studied is observed in 15 of those patients, the control event rate would be 15/25 = 0.60.

Experimental event rate (EER): The proportion of patients responding to the experimental treatment or intervention. For example, if 26 patients are in an experimental group and the event being studied is observed in 22 of those patients, the experimental event rate would be 22/26 = 0.85.

Number needed to treat (NNT): The number of patients that must be treated to prevent one adverse outcome or for one patient to benefit. The NNT is the inverse of the ARR; NNT = 1/ARR.

Relative risk reduction (RRR): The percent reduction in events in the treated group compared to the control group event rate.

Absolute risk reduction. A better statistic is the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference in the outcome event rate between the control group and the experimental treated group. Thus, in our wart treatment example, the ARR is the outcome event rate (complete resolution of warts) for duct tape (85 percent) minus the outcome event rate for cryotherapy (60 percent) = 25 percent. Unlike the RRR, the ARR does not amplify small differences but shows the true difference between the experimental and control interventions. Using the ARR, it would be accurate to say that duct tape is 25-percent more effective than cryotherapy in treating warts.

Number needed to treat. The single most clinically useful statistic is the number needed to treat (NNT). The NNT is the number of patients who must be treated to prevent one adverse outcome. To think about it another way, the NNT is the number of patients who must be treated for one patient to benefit. (The rest who were treated obtained no benefit, although they still suffered the risks and costs of treatment.) In our wart therapy article, the NNT would tell us how many patients must be treated with the experimental treatment for one to benefit more than if he or she had been treated with the standard treatment.

Now this is a statistic that physicians and their patients can really appreciate! Furthermore, the NNT is easy to calculate, as it is simply the inverse of the ARR. For our wart treatment study, the NNT is 1/25 percent =1/0.25 = 4, meaning that 4 patients need to be treated with duct tape for one to benefit more than if treated by cryotherapy.

Wrapped up in this simple little statistic are some very important concepts. The NNT provides you with the likelihood that the test or treatment will benefit any individual patient, an impression of the baseline risk of the adverse event, and a sense of the cost to society. Thus, it gives perspective and hints at the “reasonableness” of a treatment. The value of this statistic has become appreciated in the last five years, and more journal articles are reporting it.

What is a reasonable NNT? In a perfect world, a treatment would have an NNT of 1, meaning that every patient would benefit from the treatment. Real life is not so kind (see “Examples of NNTs” ). Clearly, an NNT of 1 is great and an NNT of 1,000 is terrible. Although it is hard to come up with firm guidelines, for primary therapies I am satisfied with an NNT of 10 or less and very pleased with an NNT less than 5. Our duct tape NNT of 4 is good, particularly since the treatment is cheap, easy and painless.

EXAMPLES OF NNTS

The number needed to treat (NNT) is one of the most useful statistics for physicians and patients. It calculates the number of patients that must be treated to prevent one adverse event or for one patient to benefit. Note that NNTs for preventive interventions will usually be higher than NNTs for treatment interventions. The lower the NNT, the better.

The following examples of NNTs are borrowed from an excellent list available through the Bandolier Web site at http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band50/b50-8.html .

Note that NNTs for preventive interventions (e.g., the use of aspirin to prevent cardiac problems) will usually be higher than NNTs for treatment interventions (e.g., the use of duct tape to cure warts). Prevention groups contain both higher-risk and lower-risk individuals, so they produce bigger denominators, whereas treatment groups only contain diseased patients. Thus, an NNT for prevention of less than 20 might be particularly good.

When discussing a particular therapy, I explain the NNT to my patient. Since this statistical concept is easy to understand, it can help the patient be a more informed partner in therapeutic decisions.

You will soon start to see a similar statistic, the number needed to screen (NNS), which is the number of patients needed to screen for a particular disease for a given duration for one patient to benefit. 6 Although few NNSs have been calculated, they are likely to involve higher numbers, since the screening population consists of patients with and without the disease. For example, in the article on mammography screening mentioned above, the NNS was 961 for 16 years. In other words, you would need to screen 961 women for 16 years to prevent one breast cancer death.

The good news and the bad

Using PP-ICONS to assess the wart study, the problem, the patient/population, the intervention, the comparison and the outcome are all relevant to your patient. The number of subjects is on the small side, making you a little wary, but the intervention is cheap and low-risk. The statistics, particularly the NNT, are reasonable. On balance, this looks like a fair approach, so you call the patient’s mother and discuss it with her.

The PP-ICONS approach is an easy way to screen an article for validity and relevance, and the abstract often contains all of the information you need. Even the statistics can be done quickly in your head. You can apply PP-ICONS when searching for a particular article, when you come across an article in your reading, when data are presented at lectures, when a pharmaceutical representative hands you an article to support his or her pitch, and even when reading news stories describing medical breakthroughs.

Don’t be discouraged if you find that high-quality articles are rare, even in the most prestigious journals. This seems to be changing for the better, although many careers are still being built on questionable research. Nevertheless, screening articles will help you find the truth that is out there and will help you practice the best medicine. And as we become more discerning end-users of research, we might just stimulate improvements in clinical research in the process.

Miser WF. Critical appraisal of the literature. J Amer Board Fam Pract . 1999;12(4):315-333.

Guyatt GH, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. Are the results of the study valid?. JAMA . 1993;270(21):2598-2601.

Lepor H, et al. The efficacy of terazosin, finasteride or both in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Study Group. N Engl J Med . 1996;335(8):533-539.

Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement . 1970;30:607-610.

Nystrom L, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet . 2002;359(9310):909-919.

Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ . 1998;317:307-312.

Continue Reading

More in fpm, more in pubmed.

Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP.  See permissions  for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Family Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

How To Read A Paper

• Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) Trisha Greenhalgh, Rod Taylor
• Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) Trisha Greenhalgh
• Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses) Trisha Greenhalgh
• Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests Trisha Greenhalgh
• Papers that report drug trials Trisha Greenhalgh
• Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls Trisha Greenhalgh
• Statistics for the non-statistician Trisha Greenhalgh
• Assessing the methodological quality of published papers Trisha Greenhalgh
• Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about) Trisha Greenhalgh
• The Medline database Trisha Greenhalgh

Follow us on

Content links.

• Collections
• Health in South Asia
• Women’s, children’s & adolescents’ health
• News and views
• BMJ Opinion
• Rapid responses
• Editorial staff
• BMJ in the USA
• BMJ in Latin America
• BMJ in South Asia
• Submit your paper
• BMA members
• Subscribers
• Advertisers and sponsors

Explore BMJ

• Our company
• BMJ Careers
• BMJ Learning
• BMJ Masterclasses
• BMJ Journals
• BMJ Student
• Academic edition of The BMJ
• BMJ Best Practice
• The BMJ Awards
• Email alerts
• Activate subscription

Information

Review Paper Format: How To Write A Review Article Fast

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

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

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, these info on review paper format and style will streamline your writing journey.

Research Paper, Review Paper Format

What Is A Review Paper?

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

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

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

• clarify, and
• evaluate previous findings.

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

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

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

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

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

Types Of Review Paper

Not all review articles are created equal. Each type has its methodology, purpose, and format, catering to different research needs and questions. Here’s a couple of types of review paper for you to look at:

Systematic Review Paper

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

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

The aim? To answer a specific research question. Systematic reviews often include meta-analyses , where data from multiple studies are statistically combined to provide more robust conclusions.

This review type is a cornerstone in evidence-based fields like healthcare.

Literature Review Paper

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

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

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

Narrative Reviews

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

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

Scoping Reviews

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

• key concepts,
• theories, and

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

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

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

What Are The Parts In A Review Paper

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

Title & Abstract

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

• analyse, and
• critique existing literature .

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

Discussion & Conclusion

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

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

Review paper format usually includes the citation list – it is your nod to the scholarly community, acknowledging the contributions of others.

Each citation is a thread in the larger tapestry of academic discourse, enabling readers to delve deeper into the research that has shaped your review.

Tips To Write An Review Article Fast

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

Clearly Define Your Research Question

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

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

Efficient Literature Searching

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

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

Organise Your Findings Systematically

Developing a robust organisation strategy is key. As you gather sources, categorize them based on themes or methodologies.

This not only aids in structuring your review but also in identifying areas where research is lacking or abundant. Organize your findings based on the review paper format.

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

Build An Outline Before Writing

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

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

Start Writing With The Easiest Sections

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

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

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

Learn How To Write An Article Review

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

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

A review paper serves to synthesise existing data, offering a panoramic view of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic

A Review Paper Format Usually Contains What Sections?

You usually will see sections like introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis and findings, discussions, citation and conclusion.

How To Write A Review Paper Fast?

The key is to organize, pre-plan things out before writing it.

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

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

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

2024 © Academia Insider

Peer Reviewed

GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.

Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden

Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden

Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Research Questions

• Where are questionable publications produced with generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) that can be found via Google Scholar published or deposited?
• What are the main characteristics of these publications in relation to predominant subject categories?
• How are these publications spread in the research infrastructure for scholarly communication?
• How is the role of the scholarly communication infrastructure challenged in maintaining public trust in science and evidence through inappropriate use of generative AI?

research note Summary

• A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved, downloaded, and analyzed using a combination of qualitative coding and descriptive statistics. All papers contained at least one of two common phrases returned by conversational agents that use large language models (LLM) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google Search was then used to determine the extent to which copies of questionable, GPT-fabricated papers were available in various repositories, archives, citation databases, and social media platforms.
• Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories).
• Two main risks arise from the increasingly common use of GPT to (mass-)produce fake, scientific publications. First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure threatens to overwhelm the scholarly communication system and jeopardize the integrity of the scientific record. A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools and is also optimized to be retrieved by publicly available academic search engines, particularly Google Scholar. However small, this possibility and awareness of it risks undermining the basis for trust in scientific knowledge and poses serious societal risks.

Implications

The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated  (Simon et al., 2023).

Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.

To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.

The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few.  While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.

Evidence hacking and backfiring effects

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.

The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.

However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.

Recommendations

Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of  science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.

Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.

Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.

Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.

Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.

The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs.  Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.

As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.

A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster.  Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”

The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).

Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.

Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.

We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .

We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.

The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.

To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.

We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”

• Artificial Intelligence
• / Search engines

Cite this Essay

Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156

• / Appendix B

Bibliography

Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2

Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024

Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain

Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117

Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801

Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6

Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090

DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/

Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013

Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237

Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217.   https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669

Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/

Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6

Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171

Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518

Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127

Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188

Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/

Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc

The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263

Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879

Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869

Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch

This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.

Review: Application status of antibacterial polyurethane

• Original Paper
• Published: 05 September 2024
• Volume 31 , article number  275 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Zhang Zhijia 1 ,
• Zhou Wenjun 1 ,
• Zhang Songsong 1 ,
• Wang Guojun 1 ,
• Wang Qiang 1 ,
• Ma Teng 1 ,
• Wang Lin 1 &
• Wei Hao 1  

Polyurethane is a kind of synthetic polymer composed of isocyanates, polyols and chain extenders. Due to its excellent mechanical flexibility, biodegradability and physicochemical properties, polyurethane is widely used in biological, medical, food and antifouling fields. With the continuous development of science and technology, ordinary polyurethane materials have been unable to meet people's diverse and high standard aseptic requirements, and the development and application of antibacterial polyurethane is getting more and more attention. In this paper, the antibacterial modification methods of polyurethane materials were introduced, and the application status and antibacterial mechanism of polyurethane materials in medical treatment, food packaging, water treatment and other aspects in recent years were reviewed. At the end, the problems faced in the application of antibacterial polyurethane materials and corresponding improvement measures are discussed.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

Data availability.

  The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ecevit K, Silva E, Rodrigues LC et al (2022) Surface Functionalization of Ureteral Stents-Based Polyurethane: Engineering Antibacterial Coatings [J]. Materials 15(5):1676

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liu Y, Li S (2002) Polyurethane resin and its application [M]. Chemical Industry Press, Beijing

Wang C, Yi Z, Sheng Y et al (2019) Development of a novel biodegradable and anti-bacterial polyurethane coating for biomedical magnesium rods [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 99:344–356

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kasi G, Gnanasekar S, Zhang K et al (2022) Polyurethane-based composites with promising antibacterial properties [J]. J Appl Polym Sci 139(20):52181

Morena AG, Stefanov I, Ivanova K et al (2020) Antibacterial Polyurethane Foams with Incorporated Lignin-Capped Silver Nanoparticles for Chronic Wound Treatment [J]. Ind Eng Chem Res 59(10):4504–4514

Olmos D, Gonzalez-Benito J (2021) Polymeric Materials with Antibacterial Activity: A Review [J]. Polymers 13(4):613

Javed R, Rais F, Fatima H et al (2020) Chitosan encapsulated ZnO nanocomposites: Fabrication, characterization, and functionalization of bio-dental approaches [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 116:111184

Ocsoy I, Paret ML, Ocsoy MA et al (2013) Nanotechnology in Plant Disease Management: DNA-Directed Silver Nanoparticles on Graphene Oxide as an Antibacterial against Xanthomonas perforans [J]. ACS Nano 7(10):8972–8980

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jatoi AW (2020) Polyurethane nanofibers incorporated with ZnAg composite nanoparticles for antibacterial wound dressing applications [J]. Composites Communications 19:103–107

Article   Google Scholar  

Azizi-Lalabadi M, Hashemi H, Feng J et al (2020) Carbon nanomaterials against pathogens; the antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes, graphene/graphene oxide, fullerenes, and their nanocomposites [J]. Adv Coll Interface Sci 284:102250

Bramhecha I, Sheikh J (2021) Antibacterial and waterproof breathable waterborne polyurethane functionalised by graphene to develop UV and NIR-protective cotton fabric [J]. Carbon Trends 4:100067

Azeredo HMCD (2009) Nanocomposites for food packaging applications [J]. Food Res Int 42(9):1240–1253

Chen Y, Liu S, Zhang M et al (2023) Polyurethane dressing based on antimicrobial chitosan/carboxymethyl cellulose composite drug coating [J]. Chin J Appl Chem 40(2):252–260

CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhong Y, Zhang T, Zhang W et al (2023) Antibacterial castor oil-based waterborne polyurethane/gelatin films for packaging of strawberries [J]. Food Packag Shelf Life 36:101055

Sharma S, Mandhani A, Bose S et al (2021) Dynamically crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane-based polyurethanes with contact-killing antimicrobial properties as implantable alloplasts for urological reconstruction [J]. Acta Biomater 129:122–137

Bakhshi H, Yeganeh H, Mehdipour-Ataei S et al (2013) Synthesis and characterization of antibacterial polyurethane coatings from quaternary ammonium salts functionalized soybean oil based polyols [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 33(1):153–164

Lin XB, Xie QY, Ma CF et al (2021) Self-healing, highly elastic and amphiphilic silicone-based polyurethane for antifouling coatings [J]. J Mater Chem B 9(5):1384–1394

Francolini I, Silvestro I, di Lisio V et al (2019) Synthesis, Characterization, and Bacterial Fouling-Resistance Properties of Polyethylene Glycol-Grafted Polyurethane Elastomers [J]. Int J Mol Sci 20(4):1001

Zhao YQ, Sun Y, Zhang Y et al (2020) Well-Defined Gold Nanorod/Polymer Hybrid Coating with Inherent Antifouling and Photothermal Bactericidal Properties for Treating an Infected Hernia [J]. ACS Nano 14(2):2265–75

Standardization Administration of China (2022) Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process [S]. Standards Press of China, Beijing

Technical Committee ISO/TC 194 (2018) Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process [S]. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

Standardization Administration of China (2017) Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 13: Identification and quantification of degradation products from polymeric medical devices [S]. Standards Press of China, Beijing

Technical Committee ISO/TC 194 (2010) Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 13: Identification and quantification of degradation products from polymeric medical devices [S]. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

State Food and Drug Administration (2022) Contacting wound dressing — Part 2: Polyurethane foam dressing [S]. Standards Press of China, Beijing

State Food and Drug Administration (2017) Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) materials for manufacture of infusion, transfusion and injection equipments for medical use [S]. Standards Press of China, Beijing

Yao Q, Li Y, Pan Y et al (2022) A porous fiber membrane of lactic acid and its application [P]. CN202210692870.4

Chen D, Zhu J, Zhu X (2021) An antibacterial polyurethane foam and its preparation method [P]. CN202111669589.0

Li S, Zhang Y, Ma X et al (2022) Antimicrobial Lignin-Based Polyurethane/Ag Composite Foams for Improving Wound Healing [J]. Biomacromol 23(4):1622–1632

Chen S, Li S, Ye Z et al (2022) Superhydrophobic and superhydrophilic polyurethane sponge for wound healing [J]. Chem Eng J 446:136985

Najafabadi SAA, Mohammadi A, Kharazi AZ (2020) Polyurethane nanocomposite impregnated with chitosan-modified graphene oxide as a potential antibacterial wound dressing [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 115:110899

Jian Z, Wang H, Liu M et al (2020) Polyurethane-modified graphene oxide composite bilayer wound dressing with long-lasting antibacterial effect [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 111:110833

Nawalakhe R, Shi Q, Vitchuli N et al (2013) Novel atmospheric plasma enhanced chitosan nanofiber/gauze composite wound dressings [J]. J Appl Polym Sci 129(2):916–923

Zhang M, Yang M, Woo MW et al (2021) High-mechanical strength carboxymethyl chitosan-based hydrogel film for antibacterial wound dressing [J]. Carbohyd Polym 256:117590

Przybyłek I, Karpiński TM (2019) Antibacterial Properties of Propolis [J]. Molecules 24(11):2047

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Khodabakhshi D, Eskandarinia A, Kefayat A et al (2019) In vitro and in vivo performance of a propolis-coated polyurethane wound dressing with high porosity and antibacterial efficacy [J]. Colloids Surf, B 178:177–184

ShieKarizmeh M, Poursamar SA, Kefayat A et al (2022) An in vitro and in vivo study of PCL/chitosan electrospun mat on polyurethane/propolis foam as a bilayer wound dressing [J]. Biomaterials Advances 135:112667

Eskandarinia A, Kefayat A, Agheb M et al (2020) A Novel Bilayer Wound Dressing Composed of a Dense Polyurethane/Propolis Membrane and a Biodegradable Polycaprolactone/Gelatin Nanofibrous Scaffold [J]. Sci Rep 10(1):3063

Eskandarinia A, Kefayat A, Gharakhloo M et al (2020) A propolis enriched polyurethane-hyaluronic acid nanofibrous wound dressing with remarkable antibacterial and wound healing activities [J]. Int J Biol Macromol 149:467–476

Almasian A, Najafi F, Eftekhari M et al (2020) Polyurethane/carboxymethylcellulose nanofibers containing Malva sylvestris extract for healing diabetic wounds: Preparation, characterization, in vitro and in vivo studies [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 114:111039

Feng Y, Xiao K, He Y et al (2021) Tough and biodegradable polyurethane-curcumin composited hydrogel with antioxidant, antibacterial and antitumor properties [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 121:111820

Yue Y, Gong X, Jiao W et al (2021) In-situ electrospinning of thymol-loaded polyurethane fibrous membranes for waterproof, breathable, and antibacterial wound dressing application [J]. J Colloid Interface Sci 592:310–318

Guo FC, Chen CY (2022) Zwitterionic Core-Sheath Nanofibers in Antibacterial Photodynamic Therapy [J]. ACS Appl Polym Mater 4(6):4576–87

Hosseini Salekdeh SS, Daemi H, Zare-Gachi M et al (2020) Assessment of the Efficacy of Tributylammonium Alginate Surface-Modified Polyurethane as an Antibacterial Elastomeric Wound Dressing for both Noninfected and Infected Full-Thickness Wounds [J]. ACS Appl Mater Interf 12(3):3393–406

Zhou A, Zhang Y, Zhang X et al (2022) Quaternized chitin/tannic acid bilayers layer-by-layer deposited poly(lactic acid)/polyurethane nanofibrous mats decorated with photoresponsive complex and silver nanoparticles for antibacterial activity [J]. Int J Biol Macromol 201:448–457

Kucinska-Lipka J, Gubanska I, Lewandowska A et al (2019) Antibacterial polyurethanes, modified with cinnamaldehyde, as potential materials for fabrication of wound dressings [J]. Polym Bull 76(6):2725–2742

Li C, Chen C, Zhao J et al (2021) Electrospun Fibrous Membrane Containing a Cyclodextrin Covalent Organic Framework with Antibacterial Properties for Accelerating Wound Healing [J]. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 7(8):3898–3907

Liu Y, Zou Y, Wang J et al (2021) A novel cationic waterborne polyurethane coating modified by chitosan biguanide hydrochloride with application potential in medical catheters [J]. J Appl Polym Sci 138(17):50290

Rodrigues L R (2011) Inhibition of Bacterial Adhesion on Medical Devices [J]. Bacterial Adhesion: Chemistry, Biology and Physics 351–367

Tenke P, Mezei T, Bőde I et al (2017) Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infections [J]. Eur Urol Suppl 16(4):138–143

Campoccia D, Montanaro L, Speziale P et al (2010) Antibiotic-loaded biomaterials and the risks for the spread of antibiotic resistance following their prophylactic and therapeutic clinical use [J]. Biomaterials 31(25):6363–6377

Guo Y, Zhang H, Duan S et al (2021) Bulk Modification of Thermoplastic Polyurethanes for Self-Sterilization of Trachea Intubation [J]. Macromol Biosci 21(2):2000318

Yuan H, Xue C, Zhu J et al (2021) Preparation and Antifouling Property of Polyurethane Film Modified by PHMG and HA Using Layer-by-Layer Assembly [J]. Polymers 13(6):934

Gharibi R, Agarwal S (2021) Favorable Antibacterial, Antibiofilm, Antiadhesion to Cells, and Biocompatible Polyurethane by Facile Surface Functionalization [J]. ACS Appl Bio Mater 4(5):4629–4640

Wang Y, Liu S, Ding K et al (2021) Quaternary tannic acid with improved leachability and biocompatibility for antibacterial medical thermoplastic polyurethane catheters [J]. J Mater Chem B 9(23):4746–4762

Liu F, Qu W, Zhang J et al (2021) Cationic Alternating Polypeptide Fixed on Polyurethane at Multiple Sites for Excellent Antibacterial and Antifouling Properties [J]. Langmuir 37(36):10657–10667

Cao W, Wei D, Zheng A et al (2019) Surface enrichment and nonleaching antimicrobial performance of polypropylene grafted poly(hexamethylene guanidine) (PP-g-PHMG) in poly(ethylene terephthalate)/PP-g-PHMG [J]. Eur Polymer J 118:231–238

Tischer M, Pradel G, Ohlsen K et al (2012) Quaternary Ammonium Salts and Their Antimicrobial Potential: Targets or Nonspecific Interactions? [J]. ChemMedChem 7(1):22–31

Liu H, Shukla S, Vera-González N et al (2019) Auranofin releasing antibacterial and antibiofilm polyurethane intravascular catheter coatings [J]. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 9:37

Nikam SP, Chen P, Nettleton K et al (2020) Zwitterion Surface-Functionalized Thermoplastic Polyurethane for Antifouling Catheter Applications [J]. Biomacromol 21(7):2714–2725

Zhang YD, Zhang X, Zhao YQ et al (2020) Self-adaptive antibacterial surfaces with bacterium-triggered antifouling-bactericidal switching properties [J]. Biomater Sci 8(3):997–1006

Xiu Z, Yang M, Wu R et al (2023) Scalable anti-infection polyurethane catheters with long-acting and autoclavable properties [J]. Chem Eng J 451:138495

Kang Y, Wang C, Qiao Y et al (2019) Tissue-Engineered Trachea Consisting of Electrospun Patterned sc-PLA/GO-g-IL Fibrous Membranes with Antibacterial Property and 3D-Printed Skeletons with Elasticity [J]. Biomacromol 20(4):1765–1776

Pandey A, Sahoo S (2023) Progress on Medical Implant: A Review and Prospects [J]. J Bionic Eng 20(2):470–494

Lei XY, Wang J, Chen J et al (2021) The in vitro evaluation of antibacterial efficacy optimized with cellular apoptosis on multi-functional polyurethane sealers for the root canal treatment [J]. J Mater Chem B 9(5):1370–1383

Liu J, Cui T, Xu X et al (2023) Robust Alcohol Soluble Polyurethane/Chitosan/Silk Sericin (APU/CS/SS) Nanofiber Scaffolds Toward Artificial Skin Extracellular Matrices via Microfluidic Blow-Spinning [J]. Adv Fiber Mater 5(1):349–361

Luo K, Gao P, Yang W et al (2023) Antibacterial polyurethane composite scaffolds for minimally invasive alveolar bone repair [J]. Appl Mater Today 31:101752

Zhu J, Yuan H, Zhang S et al (2022) Construction of antifouling and antibacterial polyhexamethylguanidine/chondroitin sulfate coating on polyurethane surface based on polydopamine rapid deposition [J]. J Appl Polym Sci 139(42):e53009

Trad M, Miled W, Benltoufa S et al (2018) Chitosan hydrogel-coated cotton fabric: Antibacterial, pH-responsiveness, and physical properties [J]. J Appl Polym Sci 135(34):46645

Kuang Z, Dai G, Wan R et al (2021) Osteogenic and antibacterial dual functions of a novel levofloxacin loaded mesoporous silica microspheres/nano-hydroxyapatite/polyurethane composite scaffold [J]. Genes Dis 8(2):193–202

Guo X, Cheng Q, Yu G et al (2020) The functions of hydrophobic elastic polyurethane combined with an antibacterial triclosan derivative in the dentin restoration interface [J]. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 102:103471

Iga C, Agata T, Marcin Ł et al (2020) Ciprofloxacin-Modified Degradable Hybrid Polyurethane-Polylactide Porous Scaffolds Developed for Potential Use as an Antibacterial Scaffold for Regeneration of Skin [J]. Polymers 12(1):171

Drago L, de Vecchi E, Mombelli B et al (2001) Activity of levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin against urinary pathogens [J]. J Antimicrob Chemother 48(1):37–45

Chitichotpanya P, Inprasit T, Chitichotpanya C (2019) In vitro assessment of antibacterial potential and mechanical properties of Ag-TiO2/WPU on medical cotton optimized with response surface methodology [J]. J Nat Fibers 16(1):88–99

Xia Y, He L, Feng J et al (2022) Waterproof and Moisture-Permeable Polyurethane Nanofiber Membrane with High Strength, Launderability, and Durable Antimicrobial Properties [J]. Nanomaterials 12(11):1813

Alshabanah LA, Omran N, Elwakil BH et al (2021) Elastic Nanofibrous Membranes for Medical and Personal Protection Applications: Manufacturing, Anti-COVID-19, and Anti-Colistin Resistant Bacteria Evaluation [J]. Polymers 13(22):3987

Mu C, Ren J, Chen H et al (2021) Graphitic Carbon Nitride/Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework-8 Nanoparticles with Antibacterial Properties for Textile Coating [J]. ACS Appl Nano Mater 4(10):10634–10644

Arshad N, Zia KM, Hussain MT et al (2022) Synthesis of novel curcumin-based aqueous polyurethane dispersions for medical textile diligences with potential of antibacterial activities [J]. Polym Bull 79(9):7711–7727

Joshi S, Midha V, Rajendran S (2023) Multifunctional waterproof breathable coating on polyester-based woven protective clothing for healthcare application [J]. Prog Org Coat 178:107482

Shiu BC, Hsu PW, Lin JH et al (2022) A Study on Preparation and Property Evaluations of Composites Consisting of TPU/Triclosan Membranes and Tencel®/LMPET Nonwoven Fabrics [J]. Polymers 14(12):2514

Zhang Y, Li TT, Shiu BC et al (2021) Eco-friendly versatile protective polyurethane/triclosan coated polylactic acid nonwovens for medical covers application [J]. J Clean Prod 282:124455

Liu R, Qu M, Qiu X et al (2022) Poly (ethylene terephthalate) nonwoven fabrics-based membranes modified by electrospinning of thermoplastic polyurethane, nano SiO2 and Ag particles as medical packing materials [J]. Packag Technol Sci 35(7):557–567

Gardiner J, Freeman S, Leach M et al (2008) PAMAM dendrimers for the delivery of the antibacterial Triclosan [J]. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem 23(5):623–628

Ozkan E, Mondal A, Singha P et al (2020) Fabrication of Bacteria- and Blood-Repellent Superhydrophobic Polyurethane Sponge Materials [J]. ACS Appl Mater Interf 12(46):51160–51173

Zhang Y, Jiang W, Lei L et al (2022) Mussel-Inspired Multicomponent Codeposition Strategy toward Antibacterial and Lubricating Multifunctional Coatings on Bioimplants [J]. Langmuir 38(23):7157–7167

Wang HF, Christiansen DE, Mehraeen S et al (2020) Winning the fight against biofilms: the first six-month study showing no biofilm formation on zwitterionic polyurethanes [J]. Chem Sci 11(18):4709–4721

Reshmi CR, Sundaran SP et al (2021) β-Cyclodextrin functionalized polyurethane nano fibrous membranes for drug delivery [J]. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol 65:102759

Xu Q, Xu Z, Jiang X et al (2021) Antibacterial coatings based on polycaprolactone and polyurethane with prolonged release of ciprofloxacin [J]. Surf Coat Technol 405:126584

Wang C, Xue Y, Tian H et al (2022) Tri-functional unit groups contained polyurethane composites with excellent antibacterial property and biocompatibility [J]. J Polym Sci 60(15):2383–2394

Liu Q, Zhang Y, Liu W et al (2021) A Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial and Antiviral Membrane Inactivates SARS-CoV-2 in Minutes [J]. Adv Func Mater 31(47):2103477

Adetunji CO, Olaniyan OT, Anani OA et al (2021) Environmental Impact of Polyurethane Chemistry [M]. Renewable Polyols and Isocyanates. American Chemical Society, Polyurethane Chemistry, pp 393–411

Google Scholar  

Indumathi MP, Rajarajeswari GR (2019) Mahua oil-based polyurethane/chitosan/nano ZnO composite films for biodegradable food packaging applications [J]. Int J Biol Macromol 124:163–74

Kasi G, Viswanathan K, Sadeghi K et al (2019) Optical, thermal, and structural properties of polyurethane in Mg-doped zinc oxide nanoparticles for antibacterial activity [J]. Prog Org Coat 133:309–315

Athir N, Shah SAA, Shehzad FK et al (2020) Rutile TiO2 integrated zwitterion polyurethane composite films as an efficient photostable food packaging material [J]. React Funct Polym 157:104733

Lee JY, Lee J, Ko SW et al (2020) Fabrication of Antibacterial Nanofibrous Membrane Infused with Essential Oil Extracted from Tea Tree for Packaging Applications [J]. Polymers 12(1):125

Wang W, Zhang W, Li L et al (2023) Biodegradable starch-based packaging films incorporated with polyurethane-encapsulated essential-oil microcapsules for sustained food preservation [J]. Int J Biol Macromol 235:123889

Cheng Y, Wei Y, Fang C et al (2021) Facile synthesis of chitosan/Ag-waterborne polyurethane composite films with a high stability and controllable water resistance for potential application in antibacterial materials [J]. J Market Res 15:5316–5325

Jiao X, Xie J, Du H et al (2023) Antibacterial smart absorbent pad with Janus structure for meat preservation [J]. Food Packag Shelf Life 37:101066

Huang H, Huang X, Zhang L et al (2023) Chlorine dioxide/water-borne polyurethane antibacterial film activated by carboxyl group [J]. Polym Testing 121:107980

Espitia PJP, Soares NDFF, Coimbra JSDR et al (2012) Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Antimicrobial Activity and Food Packaging Applications [J]. Food Bioprocess Technol 5(5):1447–1464

Vandebriel RJ, De Jong WH (2012) A review of mammalian toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles [J]. Nanotechnol, Sci Appl 5:61–71

Cox SD, Mann CM, Markham JL et al (2000) The mode of antimicrobial action of the essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree oil) [J]. J Appl Microbiol 88(1):170–175

Fan Q, Ma J, Xu Q et al (2018) Multifunctional coatings crafted via layer-by-layer spraying method [J]. Prog Org Coat 125:215–221

Feng J, Feng L, Xu S et al (2022) Universal Preparation Strategy for Ultradurable Antibacterial Fabrics through Coating an Adhesive Nanosilver Glue [J]. Nanomaterials 12(14):2429

Cai X, Gao L, Wang J et al (2023) MOF-Integrated Hierarchical Composite Fiber for Efficient Daytime Radiative Cooling and Antibacterial Protective Textiles [J]. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 15(6):8537–8545

Muzaffar S, Abbas M, Siddiqua UH et al (2021) Enhanced mechanical, UV protection and antimicrobial properties of cotton fabric employing nanochitosan and polyurethane based finishing [J]. J Market Res 11:946–956

Yan K, Liu C, Ma J (2021) Dendritic fibrous nanosilica loaded chitosan for improving water vapor permeability and antibacterial properties of waterborne polyurethane acrylate membranes [J]. J Clean Prod 291:125922

Zhao B, Ni Y, Chen K et al (2023) Double-shell lignin microcapsules were prepared by one - step method for fabric coatings with UV resistance and durable antibacterial activity [J]. Prog Org Coat 179:107518

Bramhecha I, Sheikh J (2019) Development of Sustainable Citric Acid-Based Polyol To Synthesize Waterborne Polyurethane for Antibacterial and Breathable Waterproof Coating of Cotton Fabric [J]. Ind Eng Chem Res 58(47):21252–21261

Kim JH, Lee H, Lee JS et al (2020) Preparation and characterization of Juniperus chinensis extract-loaded polyurethane nanofiber laminate with polyurethane resin on polyethylene terephthalate fabric [J]. Polym Bullet 77(2):919–28

Chen X, Wang X, Yu X et al (2022) Application of Novel Azetidinium Cationic Polyurethane Dispersion Finishing Agent for Wool Fabrics [J]. ACS Omega 7(49):45014–45022

Li S, Lin X, Gong S (2022) Waterborne polyurethane assembly multifunctional coating for hydrophobic and antibacterial fabrics [J]. Cellulose 29(13):7397–7411

Guo YH, Dundas CM, Zhou XY et al (2021) Molecular Engineering of Hydrogels for Rapid Water Disinfection and Sustainable Solar Vapor Generation [J]. Adv Mater 33(35):2102994

Geise GM, Lee HS, Miller DJ et al (2010) Water purification by membranes: The role of polymer science [J]. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 48(15):1685–718

Sundaran SP, Reshmi CR, Sagitha P et al (2019) Multifunctional graphene oxide loaded nanofibrous membrane for removal of dyes and coliform from water [J]. J Environ Manage 240:494–503

Herath KH, Kim HJ, Kim A et al (2020) The Role of Fucoidans Isolated from the Sporophylls of Undaria pinnatifida against Particulate-Matter-Induced Allergic Airway Inflammation: Evidence of the Attenuation of Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Responses [J]. Molecules 25(12):2869

Wu B, Meng K, Wei L et al (2017) Seasonal fluctuations of microbial aerosol in live poultry markets and the detection of endotoxin [J]. Front Microbiol 8:551

Xu M, Luo H, Rong H et al (2023) Calcium alginate gels-functionalized polyurethane foam decorated with silver nanoparticles as an antibacterial agent for point-of-use water disinfection [J]. Int J Biol Macromol 231:123289

Ahmad A, Sabir A, Iqbal SS et al (2022) Novel antibacterial polyurethane and cellulose acetate mixed matrix membrane modified with functionalized TiO2 nanoparticles for water treatment applications [J]. Chemosphere 301:134711

Jiang G, Li X, Che Y et al (2019) Antibacterial and anticorrosive properties of CuZnO@RGO waterborne polyurethane coating in circulating cooling water [J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(9):9027–9040

Ungur G, Hrůza J (2021) Modified Nanofibrous Filters with Durable Antibacterial Properties [J]. Molecules 26(5):1255

Xie L, Shu Y, Hu Y et al (2020) SWNTs-PAN/TPU/PANI composite electrospun nanofiber membrane for point-of-use efficient electrochemical disinfection: New strategy of CNT disinfection [J]. Chemosphere 251:126286

Tian C, Wu F, Jiao W et al (2021) Antibacterial and antiviral N-halamine nanofibrous membranes with nanonet structure for bioprotective applications [J]. Compos Commun 24:100668

Tan P, Jiang Y, Gong D et al (2022) Synthetic polyurethane nanofibrous membrane with sustained rechargeability for integrated air cleaning [J]. Polymer 258:125279

Shao W, Zhang Y, Sun N et al (2022) Polystyrene/Fluorinated Polyurethane Electrospinning Nanofiber Membranes Incorporated with Graphene Oxide-Halamine as Mask Filter Materials for Reusable Antibacterial Applications [J]. ACS Appl Nano Mater 5(9):13573–13582

Wan L, Yan S, Fang L et al (2023) Liquefied-chitin polyurethane foam construction of high-efficiency solar evaporator for seawater purification [J]. J Appl Polym Sci 140(21):e53879

Wang F, Zhang H, Sun Y et al (2023) Superhydrophilic quaternized calcium alginate based aerogel membrane for oil-water separation and removal of bacteria and dyes [J]. Int J Biol Macromol 227:1141–1150

Callow JA, Callow ME (2011) Trends in the development of environmentally friendly fouling-resistant marine coatings [J]. Nat Commun 2(1):244

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Deng R, Shen T, Chen HL et al (2020) Slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces (SLIPSs): a perfect solution to both marine fouling and corrosion? [J]. J Mater Chem A 8(16):7536–7547

Wang X, Yang J, Jiang X et al (2022) Preparation and Properties of Environmentally Friendly Marine Antifouling Coatings Based on a Collaborative Strategy [J]. Langmuir 38(21):6676–6689

Montemor MF (2014) Functional and smart coatings for corrosion protection: A review of recent advances [J]. Surf Coat Technol 258:17–37

Gao M, Zhao J, Wang G et al (2023) High adhesive and mechanically stable SR/PU IPNs coating with dual-functional antifouling/anticorrosive performances [J]. Prog Org Coat 176:107385

Ali A, Amin BU, Yu W et al (2023) Eco-friendly biodegradable polyurethane based coating for antibacterial and antifouling performance [J]. Chinese J Chem Eng 54:80–8

Tong Z, Guo H, Di Z et al (2022) Squid inspired elastomer marine coating with efficient antifouling strategies: Hydrophilized defensive surface and lower modulus [J]. Colloids Surf, B 213:112392

Guo H, Song L, Hu J et al (2021) Enhanced antifouling strategy with a strong synergistic effect of fluorescent antifouling and contact bacteriostasis using 7-amino-4-methylcoumarin [J]. Chem Eng J 420:127676

Ali A, Xiao Y, Song L et al (2021) Biodegradable polyurethane based clay composite and their anti-biofouling properties [J]. Colloids Surf, A 625:126946

Sha J, Liu X, Chen R et al (2023) Surface hydrolysis-anchored eugenol self-polishing marine antifouling coating [J]. J Colloid Interface Sci 637:67–75

Wang Y, Hao D, Yang M et al (2022) Polyurethane antifouling coatings with various antifouling strategies in the side chain [J]. Prog Org Coat 173:107225

Wen C, Guo H, Yang J et al (2021) Zwitterionic hydrogel coated superhydrophilic hierarchical antifouling floater enables unimpeded interfacial steam generation and multi-contamination resistance in complex conditions [J]. Chem Eng J 421:130344

Song L, Zhao J, Jin J et al (2014) Fabricating antigen recognition and anti-bioadhesion polymeric surface via a photografting polymerization strategy [J]. Mater Sci Eng, C 36:57–64

Ronad PM, Noolvi MN, Sapkal S et al (2010) Synthesis and antimicrobial activity of 7-(2-substituted phenylthiazolidinyl)-benzopyran-2-one derivatives [J]. Eur J Med Chem 45(1):85–89

Luo L, Luo X, Li M (2017) Research progress on the antibacterial activity and action mechanism of coumarin compounds [J]. Shandong Medical Journal 28:102–105

Hu P, Greiner A, Agarwal S (2019) Synthesis and properties evaluation of quaternized polyurethanes as antibacterial adhesives [J]. J Polym Sci, Part A: Polym Chem 57(6):752–757

Cheng L, Ren S, LU X. Application of Eco-Friendly Waterborne Polyurethane Composite Coating Incorporated with Nano Cellulose Crystalline and Silver Nano Particles on Wood Antibacterial Board [J/OL] 2020, 12(2): https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12020407 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51803041).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Qingdao Innovation and Development Center of Harbin Engineering University, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China

Cai Bo, Zhang Zhijia, Zhou Wenjun, Zhang Songsong, Wang Guojun, Wang Qiang, Ma Teng, Wang Lin & Wei Hao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhang Zhijia or Wei Hao .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bo, C., Zhijia, Z., Wenjun, Z. et al. Review: Application status of antibacterial polyurethane. J Polym Res 31 , 275 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-024-04092-3

Download citation

Received : 09 April 2024

Accepted : 31 July 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-024-04092-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Polyurethane
• Antibacterial
• Antibacterial polyurethane
• Application
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

• The question(s) to be dealt with
• Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
• To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.

How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin and Slouching Towards Utopia, by J. Bradford DeLong: A Review Essay

This essay provides a review of two important recent books on economic growth: How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin and Slouching Towards Utopia, by J. Bradford DeLong. Each book is noteworthy for its erudition and breadth. I explore strengths and weaknesses of these books and make some proposals on new ways to conceptualize and study long run socioeconomic development. My discussion emphasizes the importance of contingency in determining long run inequalities across countries as well the potential for ideas from complexity theory to augment standard growth modelling.

Financial support from the James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Foundation is appreciated. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .