# Literature review working template

Use this worksheet for a narrative literature review or thesis chapter. Adapt it to your discipline and assignment. A systematic or scoping review needs its own appropriate method; this worksheet does not establish complete retrieval or screening.

All bracketed text is a placeholder. Source A and Source B are labels, not real references. Replace them only with verified evidence.

## 1. Review brief

- Working title: [title]
- Research question: [one focused question]
- Intended reader and purpose: [audience; decision or issue the review addresses]
- Review type and assignment requirements: [type; length; citation style]
- Population or setting: [boundary and reason]
- Concepts and definitions: [terms; competing definitions]
- Date range, languages and publication types: [boundaries and reasons]
- Inclusion criteria: [criteria linked to the question]
- Exclusion criteria: [criteria and justification]
- Known search or access limitations: [what may be missed]
- Changes to scope: [date; change; reason]

## 2. Search and selection record

Save the actual query as run, including field restrictions and filters. Record selections honestly; do not imply that a source was screened or read when it was not.

| Database, catalogue or website | Date searched | Exact query and filters | Sources considered | Selection decision and reason | Next search task |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [location] | [date] | [query] | [source IDs] | [include/exclude/defer; reason] | [gap to investigate] |

## 3. Evidence matrix

Use one row per source, or per source-theme relationship. Keep direct quotations in quotation marks and separate from your own paraphrase. 'Unknown' is an acceptable entry.

| Source ID; verified reference and DOI/URL | Reading coverage; page/section | Design and context | Relevant finding in your words | Limitations and applicability | Theme; related sources; agreement/contrast | Claim it may support | Check status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [S1; reference; link] | [abstract/excerpt/full text; locator] | [method; population; setting; measurement] | [finding; linked locator] | [limitation] | [theme; IDs; relationship] | [bounded claim] | [verified/needs full text/unresolved] |

Quotation log, if needed:

- Source ID and locator: [source; page or section]
- Exact quoted words: "[copy faithfully from the verified original]"
- Your separate interpretation: [interpretation; its limits]

## 4. Thematic synthesis plan

| Theme | Provisional claim | Supporting source IDs | Conflicting or qualifying source IDs | Design/context explanation | Remaining evidence needed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [theme] | [bounded claim] | [IDs] | [IDs] | [comparison backed by evidence] | [specific question or reading task] |

Treat an empty cell as a task to investigate, not automatic evidence of a research gap.

## 5. Draft outline

### 5.1 Introduction
[State the question, key definitions, relevance, scope and organizing argument.]

### 5.2 Search and scope note
[Describe search locations, dates, queries, selection decisions and coverage limitations.]

### 5.3 Theme A: [evidence-supported claim]
[Introduce the claim; compare supporting and conflicting sources; explain methodological differences; state the limitation.]

### 5.4 Theme B: [evidence-supported claim]
[Repeat the comparison pattern; add further theme sections only when needed.]

### 5.5 Synthesis across themes
[Explain convergence, unresolved disagreement and contextual differences.]

### 5.6 Remaining questions and next steps
[Identify a specific unresolved question, show its evidence basis, and justify a research direction.]

### 5.7 Conclusion
[Answer the review question within the evidence's limits.]

### 5.8 References
[Verified entries corresponding to every in-text citation.]

## 6. Comparison paragraph skeleton

**Hypothetical writing structure only; not real research findings or citations.**

Within [defined context], [Source A: verified citation] reports [finding], while [Source B: verified citation] reports [contrasting finding]. Their [design, sample or measurement] differs in [specific way], which may explain the contrast if [supporting evidence]. Together, they support [bounded claim], while [limitation] prevents concluding [stronger claim]. The unresolved question is [precise question].

## 7. AI prompts

Supply verified notes and available source text. Record whether you provided abstracts, excerpts or full text.

### Compare evidence

Using only these notes, group sources by theme. For each proposed claim, list supporting and conflicting source IDs, relevant locators and missing evidence. Preserve uncertainty; do not add references.

### Review a draft

Map each factual claim in this paragraph to the supplied evidence. Flag unsupported wording, missing limitations and abstract-only inferences. Suggest revisions without inventing citations, results or quotations.

## 8. Final checks

- [ ] Confirm every source exists and matches its metadata.
- [ ] Check what material the model actually received.
- [ ] Verify comparisons against the original methods and findings.
- [ ] Retain contradictory evidence and meaningful limitations.
- [ ] Remove placeholders and check quotation accuracy.
- [ ] Check your institution's rules for acknowledging AI assistance.
- [ ] Every in-text citation has a matching reference entry, and every listed reference has a stated use.
- [ ] Each factual claim is supported by the original source, not just by an AI summary.
- [ ] Claims of causation, consensus or a research gap stay within the reviewed evidence.

## 9. Revision and AI-use record

- Version and date: [version; date]
- Checked by: [name or role]
- Model or service used: [actual provider/model, if known]
- Material supplied: [IDs and reading scope]
- AI-assisted tasks: [organization/comparison/drafting/checking]
- Human corrections and unresolved questions: [record]
- Disclosure required by your institution or publisher: [check and complete]

## University guidance

- Cornell University Library — planning scope and search: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=1026477&p=7441645
- George Mason University Writing Center — organizing sources into themes: https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics
- University of Toronto Writing Advice — critical comparison and evaluation: https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/

This is an original working template informed by the guidance above. It contains no sample research results.