Yes, a literature review is research—specifically secondary research that synthesizes studies; it’s not original empirical data collection.
Writers, students, and editors ask this a lot: are literature reviews considered research? Short answer: yes, they are scholarly work that applies a method to gather, appraise, and synthesize sources. The purpose is to map what’s known, where the gaps sit, and what questions still need testing. That makes a good review a real research product, just a different kind than an experiment or a field survey.
What A Literature Review Does And Doesn’t Do
A review answers a defined question by searching the record, selecting studies with clear criteria, and pulling the findings into a coherent story. It builds a bridge between raw studies and the reader’s decision. But it doesn’t produce new measurements from participants or lab instruments. Think of it as a study of studies.
Are Review Articles Research In Academia
In academic settings, a literature review stands as a research output when it follows a method, documents the search, and draws warranted claims. It can be the whole article (like a systematic review) or a chapter that justifies a project. Journals index many review papers, and committees cite them because they help readers act with the best available evidence. The work is still research, just not primary data collection.
Quick Comparison: Review Study Versus Empirical Study
To place the idea fast, here’s a side-by-side look at how a review contrasts with an empirical study. Use it to plan your scope and to set reader expectations.
| Aspect | Literature Review | Empirical Study |
|---|---|---|
| Main Aim | Synthesize and appraise existing studies | Generate new observations or measurements |
| Data Source | Published research reports and datasets | Surveys, interviews, experiments, field work |
| Methods | Structured search, screening, quality appraisal, synthesis | Sampling, instrument design, data collection, analysis |
| Outputs | Themes, effect estimates, maps of evidence, gaps | Original datasets, models, measured effects |
| Risks To Guard | Search bias, publication bias, cherry-picking | Sampling bias, measurement error, confounding |
| Common Write-ups | Narrative, scoping, systematic, umbrella | Cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, RCT, lab study |
| Peer Review Path | Often indexed as review articles | Often indexed as original research |
| Ethics Review | Rarely needed when using public sources | Usually required for human/animal work |
When A Literature Review Counts As Research
A review counts when it sets a clear question, follows a repeatable method, and draws claims that rest on the evidence base. The bar rises when the topic shapes policy, money, or safety. In those cases, readers look for a pre-declared protocol, a wide search, and a bias-aware synthesis.
Core Elements That Make It Scholarly
- Defined question: Frame a tight, answerable question with scope limits you can defend.
- Transparent search: Show databases, date ranges, and search strings so others can check your reach.
- Screening criteria: State what you include and exclude with reasons.
- Quality appraisal: Rate study strength using a tool that fits the design.
- Synthesis plan: Tell readers how you combined results—narrative themes, effect sizes, or both.
- Limits: Flag gaps and bias risks that could sway the take-away.
- Documentation: Store the flow diagram, notes, and data for audit or reuse.
Taking The Right Approach: Types Of Reviews
Not every review wears the same jersey. Picking the right one depends on the question, time, and depth you need.
Narrative Review
A flexible overview that summarizes themes across sources. It helps readers get oriented and see the field’s big lines. It’s broad and readable, but it can be prone to selection bias if the method stays loose.
Scoping Review
Maps how much evidence exists, where it sits, and how it’s studied. Great when the field is fragmented or the terms vary. The aim is breadth over precision.
Systematic Review
Runs a wide search with a set protocol, screens studies in duplicate, appraises quality, and synthesizes findings. It’s the gold standard for questions that feed policy or clinical practice. Many readers pair it with a meta-analysis when the data allow it. See the Cochrane Handbook for process detail.
Meta-Analysis
A statistical synthesis that pools comparable effect sizes. It sits under the umbrella of the systematic review when data are similar enough to combine. The math can raise precision, but only if study quality and designs line up.
Umbrella Review
A review of reviews. Useful when many systematic reviews already exist and you need the highest layer of synthesis on a broad question.
Rapid Review
A time-boxed synthesis that trims steps to answer urgent questions. It trades some thoroughness for speed and should spell out what was shortened.
Are Literature Reviews Considered Research? Or A Method?
Here the label causes debate. Some scholars treat “literature review” as a method that supports an article, thesis, or grant. Others treat it as a research article type on its own. Both views can be right. If you follow a method and produce claims that add value, the work is research. If you skim sources just to draft a chapter without method, it’s background writing, not a research study.
How To Plan A Literature Review That Meets Research Standards
Strong reviews start with a protocol. Sketch the question, eligibility rules, databases, grey literature plan, and the way you’ll combine findings. Pre-registering the plan on an open platform can raise trust and reduce bias. Many teams also build a small pilot search to surface keywords and test screens before running the full search.
Search And Screening
Cast a wide net across at least two databases and a preprint or thesis source when relevant. Combine keywords and subject headings, then save the strings. Run screens in duplicate with a third person to break ties. Track the flow in a diagram from records found to studies included.
Quality Appraisal
Pick a tool that fits the study design in your pool. Randomized trials need a bias tool that checks sequence generation, concealment, and blinding. Observational studies need tools that check sampling and confounding. Qualitative studies call for checklists that assess reflexivity and richness. Rate each study and use the ratings to temper claims.
Synthesis And Write-Up
Decide whether the evidence is similar enough to pool. If not, keep it narrative and organize by theme, population, setting, or mechanism. If the measures line up, calculate pooled effects and run sensitivity checks. Share tables that make the thread clear: what was asked, what was found, and how sure we can be.
Types At A Glance: Pick The One That Fits
Here’s a compact guide you can scan when choosing the right approach for your question and timeline.
| Review Type | Best Used For | Main Outputs |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Broad understanding; concept mapping | Themes, storyline, debates |
| Scoping | Field mapping; feasibility checks | Volume of evidence, gaps |
| Systematic | Decision-ready questions | Appraised synthesis, strength of evidence |
| Meta-Analysis | Pooling comparable effects | Pooled estimate, heterogeneity tests |
| Umbrella | Top-layer view across reviews | Cross-review summary, consistency |
| Rapid | Time-sensitive decisions | Streamlined synthesis with trade-offs |
| Critical | Argument-driven appraisal | Interpretive critique, theory shaping |
Common Misconceptions That Hold Writers Back
“A Review Is Just A Summary.”
A summary lists what others wrote. A review tests a question against the evidence base with a method. It judges quality, compares effects, and draws warranted claims. That’s research work.
“Only New Data Count As Research.”
New measurements aren’t the only route to knowledge. Synthesis can change answers by pooling more power, revealing bias, or showing where methods diverge. Many fields advance through strong reviews that redirect research plans.
“Any Background Section Equals A Review.”
A background section gives context. A review lays out the method and the search path. It reports how studies were selected and how conclusions were reached. Those steps are what make the work reliable.
Where Methods Meet Ethics And Rigor
Reviews that inform policy or practice should reduce bias at each stage. Pre-registration, duplicate screening, and transparent data help. When the topic involves people’s health or rights, many teams follow guidance from groups that set evidence standards. See the PRISMA statement for reporting items that keep review methods clear.
Use Cases: When A Review Is The Right Choice
Pick a review when you need to sift a crowded field, when funding requires a scan before a trial, or when a stakeholder asks, “What does the total picture say?” A review is also smart when primary data would repeat past work or when a trial would be infeasible or unsafe. Good synthesis saves time, money, and participant burden.
How Committees And Journals View Literature Reviews
Most journals tag them as review articles and send them through the same peer review pipeline as other research. Committees often treat a high-quality review as research output in tenure or promotion files. Impact varies by field, but widely read reviews can be among the most-cited papers in a topic area.
Practical Steps And Tools To Speed The Work
Plan your workflow before you search. Use a citation manager, set up screening forms, and save a template for data extraction. Teams often split tasks: one leads the search, two handle screening, one compiles tables, and another checks stats. Automation can assist with deduping and screening, but a human reads the final set.
Final Take: Are Literature Reviews Considered Research?
Yes. In short, are literature reviews considered research? When they follow a method and deliver warranted claims, they are research outputs that help readers act with confidence. They don’t collect fresh measurements, but they add value by gathering, testing, and synthesizing what the field already knows.
Credits And Further Reading
For process detail, see the methods in the Cochrane Handbook and reporting items in PRISMA. Both walk through search, screening, appraisal, and synthesis with clear steps.