The Structure and Conduct of a Narrative Literature Review
Abstract
Writing a narrative literature review requires careful planning. This chapter summarizes some key steps in reviewing the literature. First, a team needs to be formed. Second, a topic needs to be chosen. This needs to be relevant to the author's research/teaching interests and a well-defined issue. Third, a thorough search strategy using a variety of pertinent keywords and databases is needed. Inspecting papers cited in and citing the retrieved material is helpful. Fourth, efficient reading is required. My advice is to start taking notes alongside the literature search. Fifth, a decision is needed on whether to write a mini- or a full review. Sixth, whilst revising and restructuring the first draft, it is important to keep the review focused, but to make it interesting for a broad audience. Seventh, a good review of the literature does not just list the main achievements in the field but is also critical, consistent, and objective. Eighth, the sections of the review need to be linked in a logical way. Ninth, it is helpful to obtain peer feedback on the manuscript before submitting it for peer-review. Finally, dissemination of the review on social media and online repositories can help increase the review's audience.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A structured narrative review approach can overcome the fragmented nature of empirical data on AI adoption in developing economies.
“this study employs a structured narrative review approach (Pautasso, 2019) to overcome the fragmented nature of empirical data on AI adoption in developing economies.”
From Artificial Intelligence Adoption for Sustainable Development in SMEs: Challenges, Strategic Pathways, and Lessons for Developing Economies (2026) · cites this paper as Pautasso, 2019
Cites
Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples
Torraco, R. J. (2005) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484305278283 · Cited by 3,534 · see citing works
Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/130001 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach
Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M., & Anderson, P. (2013) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-115 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Roberts, P. D., Stewart, G. B., & Pullin, A. S. (2006) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases
Pautasso, M. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Self-citationBite-size science and its undesired side effects
Bertamini, M., & Munafò, M. R. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611429353 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Holland, J. (2026) · International Journal of Sustainability in Business and Economics · doi:10.51137/wrp.ijsbe.502 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Alam, S., Asmawi, A., Ullah, M., & Fatema, S. (2025) · Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities · doi:10.55544/ijrah.5.6.13 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pautasso, M.
- Affiliations
- European Food Safety Authority (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Pautasso, Marco
- ORCID
- Pautasso, Marco
- Venue
- A Guide to the Scientific Career
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-10-18
- Pages
- 299-310
- OpenAlex
- W2980655164
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 7
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- literature review writing, literature search strategies, critical review, peer feedback, peer review, research dissemination, writing process
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review