Literature Review Outline: A Complete Template With Section-by-Section Guidance

A well-built literature review outline turns a daunting pile of sources into a sequence of writable sections. This guide provides a complete outline template you can apply to your own draft, explains what belongs in each section, and shows how the basic structure adapts for empirical social science, health sciences, and humanities reviews. By the end, you'll know exactly what each part of your literature review should contain and what it should not.


Quick Answer

A literature review outline has five main parts: an introduction that establishes scope and purpose, a methods or search-strategy section (required for dissertation chapters and systematic reviews, optional for shorter reviews), a thematically organized body that synthesizes sources around major themes or claims, a conclusion that names the research gap or contribution, and a reference list. The body is the longest section and should be organized around themes, not around individual sources or publication dates.


The Standard Literature Review Outline

The template below works for most empirical literature reviews in the social sciences, education, and health sciences. Adjustments for humanities and STEM reviews are covered in later sections.


I. Introduction

  • State the topic and its significance
  • Define the scope of the review (what is included, what is excluded, and why)
  • State the research question or argument the review will address
  • Preview the organization of the review (which themes appear in what order)

II. Search Strategy and Methods (dissertation chapters and systematic reviews)

  • Databases searched and date range covered
  • Search terms and Boolean strings used
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Screening and selection process
  • Quality appraisal approach (for systematic reviews)

III. Body, Organized Thematically

  • Theme 1: A major finding, debate, or sub-topic in the field
    • Synthesis of studies supporting the main pattern
    • Studies that complicate or contradict the pattern
    • Methodological strengths and limitations across the studies
    • Transition to Theme 2
  • Theme 2: A second major finding or angle
    • Synthesis, complications, methodological assessment, transition
  • Theme 3 (and beyond, as the topic requires)

IV. Conclusion

  • Summary of what the literature collectively shows
  • Specific research gap identified
  • Justification for the proposed study or contribution
  • Brief transition to the next chapter or section

V. References

  • Every source cited in the body, formatted in the required style (APA, MLA, Chicago, or other)
  • Alphabetical by first author surname

The five sections above form a complete outline for most literature reviews. The body section is where most writers struggle, and where the choice of organizational approach matters most.


Three Ways to Organize the Body

The body of a literature review can be organized thematically, chronologically, or methodologically. Each approach produces a different argument and serves a different purpose. Most strong literature reviews are organized thematically, but the other two approaches are right for specific situations.


Thematic Organization

Sources are grouped by theme, finding, or sub-topic. This is the most common approach for empirical literature reviews because it produces the strongest synthesis. Each section makes a claim about the field and uses multiple sources to support, complicate, or contradict that claim.


Use thematic organization when your topic has clearly identifiable themes that emerge from the literature, when you're building toward a research gap, and when most of the sources you're reviewing speak to overlapping questions.


Chronological Organization

Sources are organized by date or by the development of the field over time. The argument traces how understanding of the topic has evolved, often through identifiable phases or paradigm shifts.


Use chronological organization when the historical development of the field is itself significant to your argument, when you're documenting a paradigm shift, or when older foundational work needs to be distinguished from current research. Chronological organization is more common in humanities reviews and in introductions to dissertations where the historical context is essential.


Methodological Organization

Sources are grouped by the research methods they used: qualitative vs. quantitative, randomized vs. observational, large-sample vs. small-sample, lab-based vs. field-based, and so on. The argument focuses on how methodological choices have shaped the available evidence.


Use methodological organization when your topic is studied across multiple methodological traditions, when methodological variation is itself a gap in the existing literature, or when your proposed study uses a method that addresses limitations in prior work.


Many strong literature reviews combine approaches: the overall structure is thematic, with chronological treatment within some themes and methodological treatment within others. What matters is that the organizational logic is visible to the reader and serves the argument.


A Worked Outline Example

Below is a complete outline for a literature review chapter on workplace burnout in early-career nurses, the same topic used in the sample passages elsewhere in our literature review cluster. This is a real-style outline, not a stripped-down skeleton; it shows what level of specificity a thesis committee or journal reviewer expects.


I. Introduction

  • The clinical and economic significance of nurse burnout
  • Scope of the review: empirical research on burnout in nurses within the first five years of practice
  • Research question: What factors predict burnout in early-career nurses, and how does early-career burnout relate to long-term attrition?
  • Organization of the review

II. Search Strategy

  • Databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO
  • Date range: 2010-2025
  • Search terms and inclusion criteria

III. Body

  • Theme 1: Theoretical frameworks for understanding burnout
    • Maslach and Leiter's mismatch model
    • Job Demands-Resources model
    • Conservation of Resources theory
    • Convergences and divergences across frameworks
  • Theme 2: Organizational predictors of burnout
    • Workload and staffing levels
    • Autonomy and control
    • Reward and recognition
    • Workplace community and fairness
  • Theme 3: Individual predictors and moderators
    • Resilience and coping style
    • Demographic and educational factors
    • How individual factors interact with organizational factors
  • Theme 4: Burnout and long-term attrition
    • Cross-sectional evidence linking burnout to turnover intention
    • Limited longitudinal evidence on actual attrition
    • Methodological challenges in longitudinal nurse research

IV. Conclusion

  • Summary: Organizational factors are well-established predictors of burnout; individual factors moderate but do not eliminate organizational effects
  • Gap: Few longitudinal studies have followed early-career nurses beyond three years, leaving the relationship between first-year burnout and long-term attrition unresolved
  • Justification for the proposed five-year cohort study

V. References


Notice how each theme in Section III makes a claim about the field. The themes aren't topics in the abstract; they're angles the literature actually addresses, organized to build toward the gap in Theme 4. This is the structural move that separates a strong outline from a generic one.


Discipline-Specific Variations

The standard outline above adapts for different disciplines. Three common variations are below.


Health Sciences and Systematic Reviews

Health sciences reviews and systematic reviews give the search strategy section much more weight. Section II expands to include a full PRISMA-style description of the search and screening process, often with a flow diagram showing how studies were identified, screened, excluded, and included. Quality appraisal of included studies appears as a distinct subsection. The body is often organized around outcomes or interventions rather than themes in the social-science sense. For the methodological distinction between systematic and narrative reviews, see our guide on systematic review vs literature review.


Humanities and Theoretical Reviews

Humanities literature reviews are often organized chronologically or by critical tradition rather than thematically. Section II (search strategy) is usually omitted because the discipline doesn't expect systematic database searches. The body engages with theoretical frameworks and critical debates, often tracing how scholars have approached a topic over time. The conclusion frames the writer's intervention as a contribution to ongoing scholarly conversation rather than as the filling of an empirical gap.


STEM Literature Reviews

Literature reviews in STEM disciplines are typically shorter and embedded in the introduction of a journal article. The five-section outline collapses to two or three paragraphs that establish the scientific motivation, summarize the current state of the technology or knowledge, and identify the specific question the paper addresses. Synthesis still matters, but the scale is much smaller. For sample passages showing how STEM literature reviews handle this compressed format, see our five annotated literature review examples.


How Long Should Each Section Be?

Section lengths depend on the type of document. The table below shows typical proportions, not strict rules. Use it as a starting point and adjust based on the requirements of your program or target journal.


Section Journal article literature review (1-3 pages) Master's thesis chapter (15-25 pages) Doctoral dissertation chapter (40-80 pages)
Introduction 1-2 paragraphs 1-2 pages 2-4 pages
Search strategy Usually omitted 1-2 pages 3-5 pages
Body 1-2 pages 10-18 pages 30-65 pages
Conclusion 1 paragraph 1-2 pages 2-4 pages

From Outline to Draft

An outline is a planning tool, not a deliverable. Once you have a strong outline, the drafting process becomes a sequence of manageable tasks. Two practical strategies make the transition easier.


  1. Write theme by theme, not section by section. Most writers find it easier to draft each body theme as a self-contained mini-essay, then revise for transitions later. Trying to write the introduction first often produces a placeholder that gets rewritten three times.
  2. Use your outline as a citation grid. Under each subsection in your outline, list the specific sources that belong there. This prevents the common problem of drafting a section and realizing later that several relevant sources weren't included.

For the full drafting process, see our guide on how to write a literature review.


Common Outline Mistakes

  • Organizing by author or by date rather than by theme. "Chapter on Smith (2018). Chapter on Jones (2019). Chapter on Brown (2020)" is not an outline; it's a list. Outlines need themes, not author lists.
  • Themes that are too broad to support paragraphs. "Theme 1: Burnout" is not a workable theme. "Theme 1: Organizational predictors of burnout" is, because it sets up a paragraph-level argument about what those predictors are and what the evidence shows.
  • No transition logic between themes. Each theme should connect to the next. If your outline has four themes that could appear in any order, the argument isn't structured yet.
  • No gap statement in the conclusion. An outline that ends with "Summary" rather than with a specific research gap leaves the literature review without a destination. Name the gap in the outline so the body sections build toward it.
  • Search strategy section that's just a list of databases. Dissertation committees and systematic review readers expect search terms, Boolean strings, date ranges, and inclusion criteria. A one-line list of databases isn't enough.

Why Researchers Choose Editor World for Literature Review Editing

Editor World edits literature review chapters, journal article literature review sections, and standalone reviews. Editors review for structural coherence, thematic synthesis, transition logic, citation accuracy, and language clarity. Many clients submit a draft built from an outline like the one in this guide and ask their editor to assess whether the structural logic is working.


  • 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 and edit regularly within their own disciplines.
  • 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 Outlines

What are the main sections of a literature review outline?

A literature review outline has five main sections: an introduction that establishes scope and purpose, a search strategy or methods section (for dissertation chapters and systematic reviews), a body organized thematically around major themes or claims, a conclusion that names the research gap, and a reference list. The body is the longest and most important section.


Should I organize my literature review thematically or chronologically?

Thematic organization is the default for most empirical literature reviews because it produces stronger synthesis and builds toward a research gap. Chronological organization is appropriate when the historical development of the field is itself significant to your argument. Methodological organization is useful when methodological variation across studies is itself a gap or limitation. Many strong reviews combine approaches within a thematic overall structure.


How many themes should my literature review include?

Most literature reviews include three to six body themes. Fewer than three usually means the topic is too narrow for a full review, and the themes can be merged into a single section. More than six often means the writer hasn't grouped sources tightly enough, and several themes should be consolidated. The right number depends on the scope of the review and the available literature.


Do I need a search strategy section?

Dissertation literature review chapters and systematic reviews typically require a documented search strategy. Journal article literature review sections and shorter undergraduate reviews usually don't. The search strategy section, when included, describes the databases searched, the search terms and Boolean strings used, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the screening process.


What should the introduction of a literature review include?

The introduction should state the topic and its significance, define the scope of the review including what's and isn't covered, state the research question or argument the review will address, and preview the organization of the body. The introduction sets expectations for the reader and frames everything that follows.


What goes in the conclusion of a literature review?

The conclusion summarizes what the literature collectively shows, names the specific research gap identified through the review, justifies the proposed study or contribution, and transitions to the next chapter or section. A literature review conclusion doesn't introduce new evidence or sources; everything in the conclusion should follow from material covered in the body.


How is a literature review outline different from an annotated bibliography?

An outline organizes themes and arguments around which sources will be discussed. An annotated bibliography lists sources individually with a paragraph for each. The outline is a planning tool for a literature review. The annotated bibliography is a separate document type that can serve as a preparatory step toward writing a literature review. For the full comparison, see our article on annotated bibliography vs literature review.


Can I use the same outline template for any discipline?

The five-section outline works as a starting point across most disciplines, but it adapts. Health sciences and systematic reviews give the search strategy section more weight. Humanities reviews often omit the search strategy section entirely and organize chronologically or by critical tradition. STEM literature reviews are typically much shorter and embedded in journal article introductions. Adjust the template to the conventions of your field.


How detailed should my outline be before I start writing?

A strong outline includes the major sections, the themes within the body, the sub-points within each theme, and the specific sources that belong under each sub-point. The more detailed the outline, the smoother the drafting process. Writers who try to draft from a thin outline often discover structural problems mid-chapter that require substantial revision.


Does Editor World edit literature review outlines?

Editor World edits the literature review documents themselves rather than standalone outlines. However, structural feedback on a full draft addresses outline-level issues such as thematic organization, transition logic, and the placement of the research gap. Clients who want feedback at the outline stage often share both the outline and the draft together for context.


More Resources on Literature Reviews

For the full drafting process from research question to final revision, read our guide on how to write a literature review. For sample passages across disciplines, see our five annotated literature review examples. For APA-specific formatting, see our APA literature review format guide. For the methodological choice between systematic and narrative formats, see systematic review vs literature review.


About Editor World: Academic Editing Services

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, 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.