The commonest weakness examiners flag in a literature review is that it *describes* studies one after another instead of *building an argument*. A strong review synthesises the field into a story that ends exactly where your study begins.
Describe less, synthesise more
Summarising is 'Author A found X. Author B found Y.' Synthesis is 'While most studies find X, they share a limitation Z — which my study addresses.' Every paragraph should make a point about the *body* of work, not just relay one paper.
A workable process
- 1Search systematically and keep a synthesis matrix — one row per source.
- 2Group sources by theme, method or theory, not chronologically.
- 3Within each theme, compare, contrast and evaluate — where do studies agree, clash, or fall silent?
- 4Surface the pattern of limitations that points to your research gap.
- 5End by stating how your study answers what the literature leaves open.
Build a synthesis matrix before you write a word of prose: columns for author, method, sample, key finding and limitation. When you write, every claim traces back to a row — and the empty spaces in that table reveal your gap.
Narrative or systematic?
A narrative review argues thematically; a systematic review follows a transparent, reproducible protocol like PRISMA. Match the type to your aim. For guided help, see the literature review hub, literature review mentoring, or systematic literature review support.
Frequently asked
How many sources should a literature review include?+
There's no fixed number — it depends on your field and the maturity of the topic. Coverage of the key, current and seminal works matters far more than hitting a count. Relevance beats volume.
What's the difference between a narrative and a systematic review?+
A narrative review synthesises the literature thematically to build an argument; a systematic review uses a pre-defined, reproducible protocol (search strings, inclusion criteria, a flow diagram) so anyone could repeat it and reach the same set of studies.
phdguide's mentors are senior academics, former supervisors, statisticians and publication specialists with 25+ years of combined experience guiding MBA, MPhil and PhD scholars from topic to viva.
Ethical, compliant guidance: We provide academic support, mentoring, analysis, editing and structuring — not authorship. Your work stays compliant with university policies.