{"id":3286,"date":"2020-01-09T10:04:03","date_gmt":"2020-01-09T10:04:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/what-a-journal-editor-expects-to-see-in-a-literature-review\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:31:07","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:31:07","slug":"what-a-journal-editor-expects-to-see-in-a-literature-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/what-a-journal-editor-expects-to-see-in-a-literature-review","title":{"rendered":"What a journal editor expects to see in a literature review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Selecting an appropriate set of prior literature to review and then developing focused hypotheses to fill the gaps left by prior research helps push forward the frontiers of science. The foundation of an article\u2019s results derives entirely from the focus of prior research. Without a strong analysis of prior literature, there can be no certainty that an article addresses important principles. As a journal editor, I always urge authors to ensure that they build their research investigation on the strongest of foundations, that is, present<\/i> a systematic and transparent review of previous, similar studies<\/i> before they embark on any new investigations. Doing so is the initial step in reflecting \u2018evidence-based research.\u2019 \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It may be a surprise to learn that regardless of your specialty-in-science there is a great deal of commonality of concerns, expectations and requirements held by journal editors specific to the quality of literature reviews in submissions to their journals. I will here represent editors\u2019 expectations which I believe to be universal in publication. I plan to discuss this in two parts. The first segment will deal with a description of the justification and rationale<\/i> for a strong literature review, and this will be followed by a far briefer description of how to frame<\/i> the literature review in a way that a journal editor will most likely find scientifically justifiable. It is perhaps because I\u2019m a university professor and a journal editor that I will use more words in the justification and rationale segment<\/i> than in presenting an actual solution to how an author might construct a literature review<\/i>. However, please follow my argument in Part One before jumping forward to the action plan<\/i><\/b> in Part Two.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Why you need a strong literature review:<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s remind ourselves where in the entire article-components the literature review fits. The sequence is: <\/b>Title, Abstract, Topic Introduction, Literature Review, <\/b>Methodology, Body of the text, Results, Discussion, Limitations, Conclusions & Implications. Notice, please, the pivotal point at which the Literature Review resides ~ the junction between the justification for conducting research and the next step of research design and hypotheses. Clearly, this focal placement means that unless the literature review is targeted upon appropriate issues, everything that follows is of severely compromised value. For this reason it is critical that the literature that gets cited in the review is: (1) Compelling <\/b>(i.e., the most appropriate); <\/b>(2) Novel <\/b>(i.e., addresses all possible explanations for the phenomenon under investigation); <\/b>(3) Timely <\/b>(i.e., systematically reviews the history of the investigations of the phenomena with particular reference to the most recent evidence); and <\/b>(4) Accurate <\/b>(i.e., precisely and correctly represent prior findings). <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Editors and thesis advisors want to be sure that the literature meets the test of being compelling, novel, timely, and accurate. If any of these standards are not met, then the structure might be viewed as inadequate. For example, if editors spot citations to references that are incomplete, or in error, they might reasonably presume that the rest of the paper is riddled with error.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The relevance and completeness of the literature review is not a trivial matter. <\/b>Editors expect authors to capture their interest by providing a rationale for why the study should be viewed as current. And, if you cannot do so, they will wonder if it might be equally obscure for the journal\u2019s readership. If the justification for your article\u2019s main-points fail to jump out and help the editor visualize the research-context for your argument, then the submission may be sidelined simply because you have not provided strong enough groundwork.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In What Editors Want (2012)<\/i>: Philippa J. Benson & Susan C. Silver shared that \u201csince editors cannot be experts in every area that their journal covers,\u2026the author\u2019s task is to intrigue the editor and later on the reviewers and readers and convince them of the relevance of your work.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The editor and the journal\u2019s peer reviewers will carefully assess which literature set you have chosen to showcase because this emphasizes where and how the research fits<\/i> within the wider scholarly landscape, and which gaps in knowledge<\/i> your investigation will attempt to address.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Your credibility as a researcher will, in part, be evaluated by your ability to frame an appropriate literature review. Your literature review serves three purposes:<\/i> It demonstrates (1) your grasp of relevant works; (2) your skill in identifying & discussing the most significant ideas and findings in earlier works; and (3) illustrates from a selection of prior research who<\/i> did what<\/i>, when<\/i> and why<\/i> and how<\/i> they did it.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Your literature review tells what others have found on your topic, provides a context to illustrate how the work documented in your paper advances scientific understanding, demonstrates that you are familiar with past and present thinking on your topic and that you understand where your work fits in the scientific landscape. But, it must be said and clearly understood that a comprehensive review does not<\/b> mean that everything that has ever been investigated gets cited, since a strong review is also systematic. That is, the review is highly selective and specific, referring only to work that is directly relevant to the argument you choose to make. Extensive literature reviews can swamp and drown your ideas.\u00a0 If you don\u2019t get to the point quickly readers will lose interest, so your selectivity of prior literature can work to promptly engage your readers.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A good literature review does the following:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n