Literature Review Examples: Five Annotated Samples Across Disciplines

A good way to learn how to write a literature review is to study strong ones. This guide presents five complete literature review examples drawn from common disciplines: quantitative social science, education, nursing, humanities, and STEM. Each example shows a focused passage from a real-style review with annotations that explain what the writer is doing and why. The goal is to give you readable models you can compare against your own draft.


These samples are written to illustrate strong technique, not to be copied. Use them to see how successful reviewers handle synthesis, transitions, citation density, and the framing of research gaps. For a step-by-step walkthrough of the writing process, read our guide on how to write a literature review.


Quick Answer

A literature review synthesizes existing research to build an argument for a new study. Strong examples share five qualities: a clear thesis or gap statement, thematic rather than article-by-article organization, integrated citations from multiple sources in the same paragraph, evaluative language that judges the literature rather than just summarizing it, and a closing argument that justifies the proposed study. This article shows all five qualities at work in five different disciplines.


What Makes a Literature Review Example Strong

Before reading the samples, it's worth naming what to look for. A weak literature review reads like a string of single-source summaries: "Smith (2018) found X. Jones (2019) found Y. Brown (2020) found Z." A strong review groups studies thematically, compares their findings, identifies patterns and contradictions, and uses that synthesis to build toward a research gap.


The five qualities below appear in every strong example in this article. As you read each sample, look for them.


  • Thematic organization. Studies are grouped by topic, finding, or method, not by author or publication date.
  • Multi-source paragraphs. Each paragraph cites two or more studies and shows how they relate to each other.
  • Evaluative language. The writer judges the literature ("limited," "contested," "well-established") rather than describing it neutrally.
  • Visible gap statements. The review names what is unknown, contradictory, or understudied, not just what is known.
  • Forward connection. The closing paragraph or sentence connects the synthesis to the proposed study or research question.

Example 1: Quantitative Social Science

Sample passage on gender differences in financial risk tolerance

This passage is drawn from a literature review on financial risk tolerance, a topic with a well-developed empirical literature in consumer economics and behavioral finance. The writer is building toward a study that examines whether the gender gap in risk tolerance has narrowed in recent cohorts.


A consistent finding across studies of financial risk tolerance is that women, on average, report lower willingness to accept investment risk than men (Bajtelsmit and Bernasek, 1996; Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998; Sundén and Surette, 1998). This pattern has been observed across age groups, education levels, and household compositions, and replicates in both survey data and behavioral experiments. The size of the gap, however, varies considerably by measurement approach. Studies using single-item self-report scales tend to report larger differences than those using multi-item validated instruments or behavioral measures (Grable and Lytton, 1999; Yao and Hanna, 2005). Fisher and Yao (2017) extended this work using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances and found that the gender gap persists after controlling for income, wealth, education, and marital status, but is partially mediated by differences in financial knowledge.


Most of this literature, however, treats gender as a fixed individual characteristic rather than a cohort-specific variable. Few studies have examined whether the gender gap in risk tolerance differs across birth cohorts, despite the substantial changes in women's labor force participation, educational attainment, and financial autonomy over the past four decades (Goldin, 2014). If the gender gap reflects historical differences in financial exposure rather than stable preferences, more recent cohorts of women would be expected to show smaller differences than earlier cohorts. No published study to date has tested this hypothesis directly using nationally representative data.


What this passage does well. The first paragraph groups six studies thematically around a single finding (women report lower risk tolerance) and immediately complicates the finding with a methodological observation (the gap size depends on the measurement approach). The second paragraph identifies a clear gap (no cohort analysis) and explains why the gap matters (women's financial circumstances have changed). The phrase "no published study to date has tested this hypothesis directly" is a strong gap statement: it names what's missing and signals the contribution the new study will make.


For more on how to frame contributions like this, read our guide on how to write an abstract, which covers the parallel structure of literature gap, study aim, and findings.


Example 2: Education Research

Sample passage on reading interventions for struggling readers

This passage comes from a literature review on reading interventions in upper elementary classrooms. The writer is preparing to study a multi-component intervention combining vocabulary instruction and fluency practice.


Research on reading interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 5 has produced converging evidence in some areas and unresolved debate in others. Phonics-based interventions show consistent positive effects on word reading accuracy across multiple meta-analyses (National Reading Panel, 2000; Galuschka et al., 2014; Wanzek et al., 2018). Effects on reading comprehension, however, are smaller and more variable. Wanzek and colleagues (2018) found that the comprehension effects of intensive intervention diminished when interventions were implemented for shorter durations or with less qualified personnel, while studies using highly trained interventionists in controlled conditions continued to show meaningful gains.


A separate strand of research has examined vocabulary instruction as a comprehension lever. Beck and McKeown's robust vocabulary instruction framework has been tested in multiple trials (Beck and McKeown, 2007; Lesaux et al., 2014), with effect sizes for comprehension typically in the range of 0.20 to 0.40 standard deviations. Fluency interventions have shown similar but slightly smaller effects on comprehension when implemented alone (Stevens et al., 2017). What remains less clear is whether combining vocabulary and fluency instruction produces additive effects, multiplicative effects, or simply substitutes one form of practice for another. Few intervention studies have directly compared multi-component approaches against well-implemented single-component conditions in upper elementary classrooms, leaving the question of optimal intervention design largely unresolved.


What this passage does well. The writer organizes by intervention type (phonics, vocabulary, fluency, multi-component) rather than by author or year. Effect sizes are cited where useful, signaling the writer's familiarity with the quantitative literature. The qualifier "in controlled conditions" shows the writer is reading methodology carefully, not just abstracts. The closing gap statement is precise: it identifies which specific comparison has not been made, which directly motivates the study design.


Example 3: Nursing and Health Sciences

Sample passage on nurse-led discharge planning in heart failure care

This passage is drawn from a literature review on transitional care interventions for patients with heart failure. The writer is building toward an implementation study of a nurse-led discharge protocol in a community hospital.


Heart failure remains one of the leading causes of 30-day hospital readmission in the United States, and transitional care interventions have been studied extensively as a potential mitigation strategy (Naylor et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2011). Nurse-led discharge planning, in particular, has been associated with reduced readmission rates in several randomized trials. Naylor and colleagues (2004) reported a 36 percent reduction in 12-week readmissions among older adults receiving advanced practice nurse follow-up, and similar effects have been replicated in smaller trials (Coleman et al., 2006; Stauffer et al., 2011). Meta-analyses of these interventions, however, report more modest pooled effects, with substantial heterogeneity across study sites (Feltner et al., 2014).


Several factors appear to drive this heterogeneity. Interventions delivered in academic medical centers with high baseline staffing levels have produced larger effects than those implemented in community hospitals with limited nurse capacity (Albert et al., 2015). Patient population also matters: trials enrolling older adults with multiple comorbidities have shown stronger effects than those enrolling broader heart failure populations. The implementation question, then, is not whether nurse-led discharge planning works in principle but whether it can be adapted to settings with different resource constraints and patient populations. Implementation research in community hospital settings, where the majority of US heart failure admissions occur, remains limited.


What this passage does well. The writer establishes the clinical significance of the topic in the first sentence, then moves quickly to the empirical literature. Specific effect sizes (36 percent reduction) build credibility. The acknowledgment of meta-analytic heterogeneity signals methodological sophistication. The second paragraph reframes the question from "does it work" to "where does it work and for whom," which is exactly the angle that justifies an implementation study. This reframing is what separates a publishable review from a generic summary.


For longer reviews intended for thesis chapters or peer-reviewed publication, our dissertation editing services and journal article editing services can help you tighten the synthesis and prepare the manuscript for submission.


Example 4: Humanities

Sample passage on memory and the postwar American novel

Literature reviews in the humanities differ from those in the empirical sciences. They typically engage with theoretical traditions, critical debates, and primary texts rather than empirical studies. The passage below is drawn from a humanities review on memory in postwar American fiction.


Scholarship on memory in postwar American fiction has moved through three identifiable phases. Early criticism, exemplified by Wright (1960) and Trilling (1965), treated memory primarily as a thematic concern, examining how novelists depicted characters' relationships to personal and historical pasts. This approach produced careful readings of individual works but rarely connected memory to broader cultural or political formations. Beginning in the late 1980s, a second wave of scholarship influenced by trauma studies and the work of Caruth (1996) repositioned memory as a site where personal experience and collective history intersect. Hartman (2002) and Whitehead (2009) developed this framework into sustained readings of canonical postwar texts, arguing that the novel form is uniquely suited to representing the temporal disorder of traumatic experience.


More recent criticism has questioned both the universalizing tendencies of trauma theory and its near-exclusive focus on canonical white-authored texts. Scholars working in African American and Asian American literary studies have argued that postwar memory must be theorized differently when the subject is collective racial trauma rather than individual psychological injury (Eng and Han, 2018; Rothberg, 2019). This shift has opened productive new readings but has also produced a theoretical impasse: contemporary scholarship lacks a shared vocabulary for discussing memory across these different traditions. The present study contributes to this conversation by reading three understudied postwar novels through a framework that holds individual and collective memory in productive tension.


What this passage does well. The chronological framing ("three identifiable phases") is appropriate here because the development of the field is itself part of the argument. The writer is doing more than describing the scholarship; the writer is making a claim about how the field has evolved. The gap statement at the end is theoretical rather than empirical: it identifies a shared-vocabulary problem and positions the new study as a contribution to resolving it. Humanities reviews often end this way, with the writer's intervention framed as a productive synthesis of competing traditions rather than the filling of an empirical hole.


Example 5: STEM Research

Sample passage on solid-state battery electrolyte stability

STEM literature reviews are typically shorter than those in the social sciences and humanities. They appear most often in the introduction of a journal article and are tightly focused on the specific scientific question the paper addresses. The passage below is from the introduction of a materials science paper on solid-state battery electrolytes.


Solid-state batteries have attracted significant research attention as potential successors to conventional lithium-ion technology, with the promise of higher energy density and improved safety characteristics (Janek and Zeier, 2016; Manthiram et al., 2017). A central challenge in solid-state battery development is the stability of the solid electrolyte at the interface with lithium metal anodes. Sulfide-based electrolytes such as Li10GeP2S12 offer high ionic conductivity but exhibit poor electrochemical stability against lithium metal, leading to interfacial decomposition and capacity fade (Wenzel et al., 2016). Oxide-based electrolytes such as Li7La3Zr2O12 show greater interfacial stability but suffer from lower ionic conductivity at room temperature and persistent challenges with dendrite formation under high current densities (Cheng et al., 2017; Han et al., 2019).


Recent work has explored composite electrolyte designs that combine polymer and ceramic phases to balance these tradeoffs (Zhao et al., 2020). While promising, the long-term cycling performance of these composites remains poorly characterized, particularly under conditions relevant to electric vehicle applications. This study examines the cycling stability of a polymer-ceramic composite electrolyte over 500 cycles at automotive-relevant current densities, addressing a gap in the existing literature on long-term composite electrolyte performance.


What this passage does well. The writer establishes the technological motivation in a single sentence and moves immediately to the specific scientific problem. The contrast between sulfide and oxide electrolytes is structured by material class, making the tradeoff legible to readers familiar with the field. The gap statement is concrete and quantifiable: 500 cycles at automotive-relevant current densities. STEM reviewers reward this kind of specificity because it signals that the proposed experiments will produce actionable data.


A Note on AI Disclosure and Literature Reviews

Most major journals and university committees now require disclosure when AI tools are used in any phase of research and writing. Literature reviews are a common pressure point because tools like ChatGPT, Elicit, and Consensus can generate fluent-sounding text that looks like a synthesis but contains hallucinated citations, inaccurate effect sizes, or misattributed claims. Several high-profile retractions in 2023 and 2024 traced back to AI-generated literature reviews with fabricated references.


If you use AI tools in any part of the search or drafting process, document this in your methods or acknowledgments section per your target journal's policy. Editor World does not use AI at any stage of the editing process. All editing is performed by native English-speaking editors based in the USA, UK, and Canada, with an average of 15 years of professional experience. For sensitive submissions where AI involvement could disqualify the manuscript, Editor World provides a certificate of editing as an optional add-on documenting human-only editing.


Why Researchers Choose Editor World for Literature Review Editing

Editor World has supported academic writers since 2010, with editors who specialize in dissertations, journal articles, and grant applications across the social sciences, education, health sciences, humanities, and STEM fields. The trust signals below reflect what sets Editor World apart from generic editing services.


  • 100% human editing, no AI at any stage. Every edit is performed by a native English-speaking editor from the USA, UK, or Canada.
  • 15 years of experience. Editor World was founded in 2010 by Patti Fisher, PhD, a professor of consumer economics, and has edited more than 100 million words for over 8,000 clients across 65+ countries.
  • Editors average 15 years of professional experience. Many hold advanced degrees in the fields they edit.
  • Recommended by Boston University Economics Department. The department lists Editor World as a recommended editing resource for its graduate students.
  • Choose your editor. Clients browse editor profiles, review credentials and ratings, and select the editor who best fits the document.
  • BBB A+ accredited since 2010. 5.0 / 5 on Google Reviews and Facebook Reviews, with a 4.9 / 5 average editor rating.

FAQs About Literature Review Examples

What does a good literature review example look like?

A good literature review example organizes studies thematically rather than by author or date, integrates multiple sources within each paragraph, uses evaluative language to judge the existing research, names specific gaps or contradictions, and connects the synthesis to the proposed study. The five samples in this article demonstrate these qualities across different disciplines.


Are literature reviews different across disciplines?

Yes. Quantitative social science reviews typically cite effect sizes and methodological details. Education and health sciences reviews often reference meta-analyses and treatment fidelity. Humanities reviews engage with theoretical traditions and critical debates rather than empirical studies. STEM reviews tend to be shorter and tightly focused on the specific scientific problem the paper addresses. The samples in this article show all of these conventions at work.


Can I copy a literature review example for my own work?

No. Copying any part of a published or sample literature review constitutes plagiarism and will be detected by standard plagiarism checkers used by universities and journals. Examples are meant as models to study, not as text to reuse. The right way to use a strong example is to identify the techniques the writer is using, then apply those techniques to your own sources and topic.


How many sources should a literature review include?

The right number depends on the scope of the project. A literature review section in a journal article might cite fifteen to forty sources. A dissertation literature review chapter might draw on fifty to two hundred or more. A systematic review may include several hundred. What matters is that the sources are relevant to the specific focus of the review, represent the key debates and findings in the field, and are integrated through synthesis rather than listed.


What is the difference between a literature review and a summary?

A summary describes what individual sources say. A literature review synthesizes multiple sources to build a new argument: what is collectively known, where the literature disagrees, what remains unstudied, and how the proposed research contributes. The samples in this article show this distinction clearly: each passage cites multiple sources within a single paragraph and uses them to develop a claim, rather than describing each source in turn.


How long should a literature review example be?

Example passages used for learning are typically one to three paragraphs, long enough to show technique without overwhelming the reader. Full literature reviews vary widely by context. A journal article literature review may be one to three pages. A dissertation chapter may be twenty to sixty pages. Length should match the scope of the project and the conventions of the target journal or program.


Do literature reviews need a thesis statement?

Yes, though the form varies by discipline. In the empirical sciences the thesis is usually a gap statement that justifies the new study. In the humanities the thesis is often an argument about how the field has developed or how a body of work should be read. In every case the review should be doing more than reporting what others have written: it should advance a position the reader can identify.


Should I use direct quotes in a literature review?

Sparingly, and only when the exact wording matters. Most strong literature reviews paraphrase and synthesize rather than quote, because synthesis requires putting findings into your own framing. Reserve direct quotation for cases where the original phrasing carries weight, such as a key theoretical definition or a contested statement that you intend to analyze closely.


How can I tell if my literature review is strong enough to submit?

Test your draft against the five qualities listed in this article: thematic organization, multi-source paragraphs, evaluative language, visible gap statements, and a forward connection to your study. If any of these are weak, revise before submitting. Professional editing can also help. Editor World offers academic editing, dissertation editing, and journal article editing performed entirely by human editors with subject-matter experience.


Does Editor World edit literature reviews specifically?

Yes. Editor World's academic editors regularly work on standalone literature reviews, dissertation literature review chapters, and the literature review sections of journal articles. Clients choose their editor based on subject-matter expertise and prior client ratings. Editing covers language, structure, synthesis quality, citation consistency, and adherence to the target style guide.


About Editor World: Editing Services for Literature Reviews

Editor World helps academic writers move through the research, writing, and publishing process more easily by providing fast, affordable editing and proofreading services. All editors on the Editor World team are native English speakers from the USA, UK, or Canada who have passed a stringent editing test. Academic editors are available 24/7, 365 days a year. For literature review work specifically, our academic editing services, dissertation editing services, and journal article editing services are the most commonly requested. Our prices are transparent and among the lowest in the industry. Editor World is BBB A+ accredited since 2010 and is woman-founded by Patti Fisher, PhD.


Content reviewed by the Editor World editorial team. Editor World has edited more than 100 million words for 8,000+ clients in 65+ countries since 2010. BBB A+ accredited. 5.0 / 5 Google Reviews. Recommended by the Boston University Economics Department. 100% human editing, no AI at any stage.