Yes, a literature review can include websites when the sources are credible, citable, and archived.
Readers want a straight answer, then a path. This guide lays out when online pages belong in academic synthesis, how to judge them fast, and how to cite them cleanly. You’ll see a simple screening flow, two quick tables, and step-by-step habits that scale across subjects.
What A Literature Review Actually Needs
A review maps prior knowledge, spots gaps, and frames how your study fits. Books and peer-reviewed articles carry heavy weight, yet web sources can add law, policy, datasets, methods, preprints, and timelines that have not reached journals. The question is not whether the format is a site. The real test is whether the page passes quality checks, can be traced, and adds value that a journal or book does not already deliver on the same point.
Website Types And How To Treat Them
The web is not one thing. Pages range from government rules to opinion blogs. Use the table below as an early filter before you read deeply.
| Source Type | Best Use In A Review | Caution |
|---|---|---|
| Government Portals | Statutes, regulations, public data; ground definitions and timelines. | Watch for updates and version notes; capture an archive link. |
| Standards Bodies & Professional Groups | Codes, technical notes, position papers that define practice. | Confirm scope and edition; check if a newer revision exists. |
| University Centers & Libraries | Handbooks, method briefs, curated guides pointing to primary studies. | Some guides are teaching aids; trace claims to original sources. |
| Newsrooms & Trade Magazines | Context, expert quotes, industry timelines, policy milestones. | Use sparingly; follow links to primary documents and data. |
| Company Sites & White Papers | Product specs, release dates, method sketches, case notes. | Treat as self-interested; seek independent confirmation. |
| Blogs, Wikis, Q&A Forums | Niche know-how or fixes when authorship is clear and reproducible. | Wide quality range; verify with lateral reading and tests. |
How To Judge A Webpage Quickly
Speed matters when you’re scanning dozens of tabs. Run this five-point check. If a page fails any step, set it aside or use it only to trace a better source.
Author
Look for a named person or group, a role, and a track record. Search the name on another tab. A faculty page, agency bio, or professional profile helps show standing.
Evidence
Scan for links to data, documents, or studies. Open a sample and see whether the claim matches the source. If links are dead, credibility drops fast.
Date
Find a clear stamp and, when present, a change log. If the page changes often, capture an archive URL at the version you cite.
Scope
Match the source level to the claim. A policy claim needs the rule. A method claim needs protocol detail. A news brief rarely carries a technical point on its own.
Purpose
Separate reporting from selling. Ads, pop-ups, or soft claims raise flags. When a page is persuasive by design, seek neutral confirmation.
Citing Webpages Across Common Styles
Style rules guide what to record and how to format it. The links below point to the live rule pages you can follow while writing.
APA Style
APA needs author, year, title, site name, and URL. When content shifts over time, a retrieval date can help. See the APA webpage reference examples on the official site (APA webpage examples).
MLA Style
MLA lists author, page title, site name as the container, date, and the link. When you cite an archived copy, treat the Internet Archive as the container of that captured page; the MLA Style Center explains the pattern (MLA on Wayback citations).
Chicago Style
Chicago offers two systems. Notes-bibliography uses footnotes; author-date uses in-text citations plus a list. Match the system set by your department or journal and follow the website entry model for the chosen system.
Including Websites In A Literature Review: When It Works
Use a web source when it supplies official rules, the latest dataset release, a method description from a project page, or a preprint that the field already cites while peer review runs. These cases add timeliness, context, and practical detail your reader needs to follow the chain of evidence.
Skip it when the author is unknown, claims rest on a single anecdote, numbers lack provenance, or the piece is locked to a short news cycle without deeper documents. If a claim could sway policy, safety, or finance, lean on peer-reviewed studies and official documents first, then use the site to add context, not to carry the main claim.
A Fast Workflow That Scales
1) Search And Skim
Cast a wide net. Open promising tabs across journals, books, and sites. On each page, check author, evidence, date, scope, and purpose. Close weak tabs early so you can invest in the good ones.
2) Capture And Label
For every site you keep, save a PDF and an archive URL. Use a short note in your reference manager that states exactly what the page contributes—data, rule text, method steps, or a timeline marker.
3) Pair With Primary Studies
Group related pages with the core papers they inform. If a newsroom piece points to a dataset, cite the dataset and the analysis page together. If a standards body posts a code, cite the code and the edition.
4) Quote Sparingly
Paraphrase and cite. Use exact quotes only where wording matters, such as policy text or a numbered rule. Keep quotes short and necessary.
5) Track Versions
Some sites add edits silently. Store the captured copy and cite the version you saw. When you update the review later, check whether a newer version changes your point.
Why Archiving Matters
Links die and content drifts. An archive URL lowers the risk that readers cannot see what you saw. The MLA guidance above shows how to name the Internet Archive as a container for a captured copy. APA accepts retrieval dates for pages that change over time, and you can place an archived link alongside the live URL in your notes or in a parenthetical after the citation where your style and venue allow.
Persistent identifiers offer another path. When a page or dataset carries a DOI or a stable handle, cite it. A stable identifier boosts traceability across time and platforms.
Quick Decision Grid
| Scenario | Use It? | Extra Step |
|---|---|---|
| Latest policy text for a method | Yes, from an official rule page | Capture an archive URL; note version or effective date |
| Summary on a tech blog | Only to trace primary sources | Find the cited report or dataset; cite that instead |
| Think tank chart that fits your topic | Yes, when the underlying data are public | Cite the dataset and the analysis page together |
| Company white paper on an algorithm | Maybe, for method description | Cross-check with a paper, patent, or standard |
| Forum post that fixed a lab setup | Only when the author is identifiable | Replicate the step and document your result |
| Undated advice page from a general site | No, when the topic shifts over time | Find a dated source or a formal manual |
How To Record Web Sources So Reviewers Trust Them
Collect The Full Set Of Elements
Always capture author or group, page title, site name, date, and URL. Add a version, edition, or policy code when present. If the page has an identifiable document number, keep it in your notes.
Prefer Deep Links
Point to the exact rule section, dataset landing page, or method note. Home pages shift; deep links tend to last longer and help readers find the same content.
Note Why The Page Is In The Review
A one-line note such as “defines variable X in the national survey” or “contains step 3 of the protocol” speeds editing later and helps peers see why the site belongs.
Common Pitfalls To Avoid
- Letting a blog carry a core causal claim. Pair the point with peer-reviewed work or official data.
- Dropping bare URLs. Every web source needs a full citation, not a link floating in text.
- Relying on undated pages for time-sensitive claims. Pick dated pages or formal manuals.
- Linking to a home page when a deep page exists. Send readers to the exact document.
- Ignoring conflicts of interest. Declare ties when citing a producer’s or sponsor’s page.
Sample Mini-Workflow You Can Reuse
- Scan across journals, books, and the web. Shortlist only the pages that pass the five-point check.
- Save a PDF and an archive URL for each shortlisted page. Store both in your reference manager.
- Write a one-sentence contribution tag for every web source. State the unique detail it adds.
- Cross-link the site with the nearest primary study. Cite both when they work as a pair.
- Before submission, sweep for dead links, missing dates, and missing authors. Replace weak pages.
When Web Sources Strengthen A Review
Use online pages to add context and currency that print cannot match. A policy portal can fix a definition. A standards site can settle terminology. A dataset landing page can anchor your figures. A project page can document a method step or code version. Add these when they raise clarity or traceability for the reader.
When Web Sources Belong In The Background
Some pages help you find better materials yet do not need a place in the final list. News briefs that point to a public report, vendor blogs that mirror a white paper, or short posts without authorship often fit this bucket. Use them to navigate, then cite the stronger source.
Wrap-Up Pointers
Lead with peer-reviewed work and books for theory and models. Bring in official sites for rules, datasets, and versioned methods. Keep every web citation complete, dated, and archived. Add a short note in prose when a page version matters for your argument. Use online pages to increase coverage and timeliness, not to inflate counts. Aim for information gain across the review, and your readers will finish with fewer tabs open and a clearer view of the field.