Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
\nhttp:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/action\/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20
\nTransport Reviews
\nISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: http:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/loi\/ttrv20
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper?
\nBert Van Wee & David Banister
\nTo cite this article: Bert Van Wee & David Banister (2016) How to Write a Literature Review
\nPaper?, Transport Reviews, 36:2, 278-288, DOI: 10.1080\/01441647.2015.1065456
\nTo link to this article: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01441647.2015.1065456
\nPublished online: 10 Jul 2015.
\nSubmit your article to this journal
\nArticle views: 14582
\nView related articles
\nView Crossmark data
\nCiting articles: 8 View citing articles
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper?
\nBERT VAN WEE\u2217\u00a7 AND DAVID BANISTER\u2217\u2217
\n\u2217Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628
\nBX Delft, The Netherlands; \u2217 \u2217Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment,
\nOxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
\n(Received 17 April 2015; revised 16 June 2015; accepted 19 June 2015)
\nABSTRACT This paper discusses the question about how to write a literature review paper (LRP).
\nIt stresses the primary importance of adding value, rather than only providing an overview, and it
\nthen discusses some of the reasons for (or not) actually writing an LRP, including issues relating to
\nthe nature and scope of the paper. It also presents different types of LRPs, advises on reporting the
\nmethodology used for the selection of papers for review, and the structure of an LRP. An important
\nconclusion is that the heterogeneity in LRPs is very large. This paper also presents some of the aspects
\nthat the authors feel are important structural and contextual considerations that help produce highquality review papers.
\n1. Introduction
\nLiterature review papers (LRPs) are often very helpful for researchers, as the
\nreader gets an up-to-date and well-structured overview of the literature in a
\nspecific area, and the review adds value. This added value can, for example, be
\nthat the research gaps are made explicit, and this may be very helpful for
\nreaders who plan to do research in the same area for the first time. Alternatively,
\nthe review can outline the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used and
\nthe implications of the findings are discussed. This can be very helpful for the
\nreader who needs to interpret and use the findings. A review can also help to
\nrefresh the information base of a researcher returning to a subject area after
\nsome time away from it. The basic question covered in this paper is about how
\nto carry out an LRP and to illustrate this with examples from transport.
\nWriting an LRP is much less straightforward than writing a mainstream
\nresearch paper, as many choices with respect to the structure need to be made.
\nTherefore, some conceptual and methodological guidance for researchers planning to write an LRP would be helpful. But to the best of our knowledge there
\nis no academic paper in the transport literature that takes the aspiring writer
\nthrough the thought processes surrounding the issues about how to write an
\nLRP. This paper aims to fill this gap.
\nThere is a Transportation Research Board paper giving some guidance,
\nespecially for literature reviews as part of wider project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s (Avni et al., 2015), and
\n\u00a7
\nCorresponding author. Email: g.p.vanwee@tudelft.nl
\nTransport Reviews, 2016
\nVol. 36, No. 2, 278\u2013288, http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/01441647.2015.1065456
\n# 2015 Taylor & Francis
\nthe paper also refers to tutorials (videos and websites). And there are papers
\ngiving guidance for LRPs in other areas. For example, Webster and Watson
\n(2002) discuss literature review in the information systems area, and Denney
\nand Tewksbury (2013) in the area of criminal justice. This paper aims to fill this
\ngap. In the medical literature, many papers publish empirical results for tests of
\nmedicine, prescribing protocols for data collections (e.g. double blind), and analyses (standard methods), but in the field of transport a much larger variety of
\nmethods is applied, making LRP reviewing methods very different. In the area
\nof engineering and physics, the stochastic component of research is much less
\nimportant than in social sciences (and often absent), reducing the importance of
\nrelated aspects in empirical studies. What is very important in social sciences in
\ngeneral, but certainly also in the field of transport, is the fact that many variables
\ninfluence an independent variable (e.g. travel behaviour) in a complex way, resulting in complex causal relationships, and a multitude of data analysis methods and
\ninterpretations.
\nIn addition to LRPs, there are many empirical papers that review the literature,
\nbut we do not discuss how this should be done in case of empirical studies and
\nlimit ourselves to LRPs. We define an LRP as a journal paper that provides a comprehensive overview of (or a selection of) the literature in a specific area, bringing
\ntogether the material in a clearly structured way, and adding value through
\ncoming to some interesting conclusions. Our focus is on the more general LRPs,
\nexcluding the specifics of more quantitative methods, such as meta-analyses
\n(see below) or scientometric analyses (see Van Meeteren, Poorthuis, Derudder,
\n& Witlox, in press, for an example).
\nThe approach used in this paper is the \u2018learning by doing\u2019 method. \u2018Doing\u2019 in our
\ncase is the combination of writing LRPs ourselves (often with co-authors), reviewing such papers, teaching Ph.D. students how to write such papers, deciding as
\neditors on the suitability of papers for publication (based on external review
\nreports), and discussing the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) with editorial board members of transport journals, and other academics. The paper aims to provide help for researchers interested
\nin writing an LRP, but we do not provide a template. Rather, we discuss a list of
\ntopic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)s that we hope is relevant and helpful. As there are many types of LRPs and
\nmany ways to structure high-quality reviews, it makes no sense to present a \u2018one
\nsize fits all\u2019 solution. We limit the paper to writing an LRP for an academic
\njournal in the transport domain. Nevertheless, some of the content may be relevant
\nfor other purposes, such as discussing the literature as part of a Ph.D. thesis.
\nSection 2 explains why to (not) write an LRP, and it includes a discussion on the
\ndifferent means by which the issue of added value can be addressed in writing an
\nLRP. Section 3 presents some examples of types of LRP, and Section 4 outlines the
\nmeans by which different methodologies can be used to select papers for inclusion
\nin the review. Section 5 gives some guidance on the different means to structure
\nthe LRP. Section 6 emphasises the important issue of choice of journal to submit
\nan LRP to, and some of the reasons why many review papers are rejected.
\n2. The Rationale for Writing an LRP and Added Value
\nThere are many reasons for thinking about writing a review paper, but it must
\nhave a clear rationale and the key issue of added value needs to be the central
\nconcern throughout the paper. In terms of the rationale, writing a literature
\nreview implies a wide range of reading, resulting in the researcher acquiring a
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper? 279
\nsubstantial amount of knowledge in the research area, and this on its own might
\ngenerate the enthusiasm to write an LRP. As a consequence of this, the paper may
\nbecome heavily cited and this will build the reputation of the author(s), and help
\nin promoting their standing as a learned scholar in the field. This in turn allows
\nresearchers to position their own research clearly in the academic literature. As
\npart of their job, many academics would read a substantial range of the literature
\nanyway, and so writing an LRP implies one can \u2018harvest\u2019 all the reading in an
\nexplicit way, and get credit for doing it. It is also one of the research activities
\nthat can be carried out independently, as one only needs access to the books,
\nthe journal articles, and other literature. For example, there is no need to plan
\nfor data collection (e.g. questionnaires). Therefore, writing an LRP is to a large
\nextent a \u2018stand-alone\u2019 activity, and it is one form of research output that does in
\nsome cases (but definitively not all cases) get well cited. For example, in Transport
\nReviews (since 1994), some papers have received more than 200 citations through
\nthe Web of Science (Goodwin, Dargay & Hanley, 2004; Pucher & Buehler, 2008;
\nYang & Bell, 1998). Literature reviews are also used for teaching, as well as
\nresearch purposes. For example, we are aware of several teachers who use the
\nGeurs and van Wee (2004) paper for an introduction to the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) of accessibility.
\nApart from the positive messages given above about the reasons for wanting to
\nwrite an LRP, there may also be reasons for not even thinking about the possibility.
\nThe most obvious reason might be that the LRP a researcher intends to write has
\nalready been published, and if it has the same potential scope as the author has in
\nmind, a new review would be redundant. However, in many cases there might
\nstill be potential for an additional review, if a different literature is to be used,
\nor if an existing review needs updating, or even if the same literature is used,
\nbut a new angle is being taken resulting in substantially different conclusions.
\nFor example, an already published review might have an empirical focus,
\nwhereas the new review might have more of a methodological focus. The topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)
\nof residential self-selection provides a nice example: Mokhtarian and Cao (2008)
\nreview the literature from a methodological angle, whereas Cao, Mokhtarian,
\nand Handy (2009) review this literature from an empirical angle. If the review
\nwas carried out some time ago, and since then new and \u2018better\u2019 methodologies
\nhave been applied, then there may be a case for a new review, focusing on the
\nrecent literature. Alternatively, there may not be enough papers to include in
\nthe review, and this may be a reason for not writing an LRP, but the solution
\nhere would be to expand the scope of the review. The opposite is more likely,
\nwhere there are too many papers, and then narrowing down the scope might be
\nthe solution. Writing a highly regarded LRP is not an insignificant task, and it is
\noften a time-consuming activity. Not only does the selection and reading of literature in many cases take a considerable time, but so does the writing, as an LRP is
\nmuch less straightforward than writing a mainstream research paper, and consequently the writing stage might take a considerable time.
\nWhen examining research outputs, the review paper is often given less weight
\nthan a more traditional paper, as it might not have as much \u2018original research\u2019 as
\nthe traditional paper, but this possibility should not reduce its value. It could be
\nargued that a high-quality review paper is of more value to the research community than a high-quality research paper, written within a more conventional
\nresearch structure and on a more focused topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service). As already stated, this may in
\npart be a consequence of the fact that there is no standard template for LRPs,
\nand this might also deter potential authors from writing an LRP. The perception
\n280 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
\nthat a review paper is of less value than a research paper (Steward, 2004) may also
\nresult from the confusion between the general overview paper and the critical
\nreview paper.
\nThe crucial difference between the more general overview paper and the more
\ncritical review paper is central to the issue of added value (Table 1): an overview
\npaper does not need to add value, but review paper does. The many options
\ninclude the full range of paper types, ranging from conceptual, theoretical, and
\nmethodological, to more case study and practice-based reviews. The options
\ncan be synthetic, bringing together of different approaches, they can be critical
\nin terms of the review, and they can be innovative in terms of proposing new conceptual frameworks.
\nTaking the option of empirical insights as an example, the results can be presented in many ways, for example, in the form of a range of quantitative effects
\nof an independent variable on a dependent variable. Meta-analyses are a more rigorous way to present empirical results, because these do not only provide such a
\nrange, but also insights into the quantitative importance of influencing factors. For
\nexample, Brons, Nijkamp, Pels, and Rietveld (2008) present a meta-analysis of
\nTable 1. Options for the added value of LRPs
\nOptions for added
\nvalue Comments Main output (examples)
\nEmpirical insights A synthesis of what is already known
\n(and maybe what is not)
\nState of knowledge
\nGaps in literature
\nWeaknesses of methodologies used
\nMethodologies An analysis of methods used, and their
\nadvantages and disadvantages
\nOverview of dominant
\nmethodologies used
\nPros and cons of methodologies
\nused
\nOpportunities for new methods
\nTheories An investigation of different theories
\nused, and their importance. This
\nmight cover the implications for the
\nresults
\nOverview of main theories used
\nStrengths and weaknesses
\nImpact of theories used on results
\nPotential for other theories
\nGaps in literature and
\na research agenda
\nThis can relate to reviews with an
\nempirical, methodological, and
\ntheoretical focus \u2014 to explore
\nomissions and limitations in
\napproaches and suggest ways
\nforward
\nMain gaps in literature
\nAvenues for future research
\nRelevance for realworld applications
\nA discussion or synthesis of how useful
\nthe literature is for real-world
\napplications (policy, planning, etc.) \u2014
\nperhaps with the use of case studies
\nOverview of knowledge available
\nfor real-world applications
\nDesign guidance
\nExamples of real-world cases that
\nare (not) underpinned by results
\nfrom literature
\nComparison between cases or
\ncountries
\nConceptual model Provides explicit structure on how
\ndependent and independent
\nvariables are related. Can be
\npresented preceding or following the
\nreview part of a paper
\nScheme, figure presenting the
\nconceptual model
\nOverview of which parts are (not)
\nwell founded\/underpinned by
\nliterature
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper? 281
\ngasoline price elasticities, including as explanatory factors short-term versus longterm focus, geographic area, year of the study, data type, time horizon, and the
\nfunctional specification of the demand equation. Another example: reviews can
\naim to be relevant for real-world applications. For example, Givoni (2006)
\nreviews the literature on high-speed rail, disentangling components of highspeed rail operations, and translating these into design guidance.
\nA sign of a good review is that the value added permeates the whole review and
\nnot just the conclusions. For example, Schwanen\u2019s review (2013, p. 232) states,
\nThinking about sociotechnical transitions comes, however, in many varieties. One could mobilise, for instance, evolutionary economic theory
\n(Dosi, 1982; Nelson & Winter, 1982); long-wave economic theory
\n(Freeman & Louca, 2001); the multilevel perspective and affiliated
\napproaches (Geels, 2011; Nill & Kemp, 2009); practice theory (Shove &
\nWalker, 2010); and sociologies of complexity (Urry, 2011). Nonetheless,
\nwhilst expanding rapidly, applications of transition thinking in transport
\nand mobilities research are as yet fairly limited in number and tend to be
\nanimated by the multi-level perspective, practice theory and sociologies
\nof complexity.
\nThis quote demonstrates both a wide-ranging knowledge about several different
\nliteratures, and it imposes a clear structure on their usefulness in thinking about
\nsociotechnical transitions.
\nThe key lessons from this section relate to the scope of the review and the added
\nvalue. The scope needs to take a balance between specificity and generality, as
\nbeing too specific restricts the range of literature that can be covered and being
\ntoo general makes it much harder to produce a high-quality review, as there is
\nso much material available. The key here is to have a clear focus to the review,
\nas it is easier to \u2018grow\u2019 a review by extending its scope, rather than trying to
\n\u2018restrict\u2019 a review as the scope is already too large.
\nIn terms of the added value, an LRP needs to have a clear message and
\ninterpretation, and this should indeed be a central part of the rationale for
\nwriting the paper in the first place. Perhaps it is best to take a problem that can
\nbe specified as a series of objectives, and then to structure the review around
\nthese. This type of review is very much evidence-based and is similar to a conventional paper. Alternatively, there is also the potential to use a more heuristic
\napproach and leave the objectives more open-ended. This might provide a more
\nappealing approach, but it means that the clear conclusions need to be drawn at
\nthe end. In both cases, the interpretation of the material used is central to a
\nhigh-quality LRP, and a paper with weak or no conclusions must be avoided.
\nSome of these issues are now discussed in more detail.
\n3. Types of LRPs
\nBuilding on the typology outlined in Table 1, LRPs come in many different forms.
\nA classic LRP would first outline the structure and purpose of the review, and it
\nwould then present the literature in a logical way, commenting on the differences
\nand similarities between the materials cited, and this would then be followed by
\ndiscussion and conclusions \u2014 it is this last part that relates to the added value of
\nthe LRP. But there are many more types. In some cases, a paper can have an
\n282 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
\nempirical question, and the method adopted in the review is to answer the question by reviewing the literature. A literature review is then used to answer these
\nquestions. An alternative is to take a new or non-conventional approach to a wellknown problem \u2014 this can be important for many reasons, such as to shed new
\nlight on an existing topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), to disentangle concepts in subcomponents, or to put
\nthe results in another perspective. An example is provided by Geurs and Van
\nWee (2004), which reviews the literature on accessibility measures. Instead of
\ntaking the standard perspective of categories of accessibility measures, they
\nexamine the components that contribute to the accessibility measures (land use,
\ntransport, the temporal, and the individual component). Another alternative is a
\npaper that does not aim to review all (main) literature in an area, but to cover a
\nspecific theme. For example, Banister, Anderton, Bonilla, Givoni, and Schwanen
\n(2011) review on transport and the environment had a clear focus on lowcarbon transport systems, behavioural and technological options, demand
\nreduction, and the role of international agreements. But the real core of the
\nreview was on rethinking governance with respect to low-carbon transport
\nsystems and the means to implement policy change within a fragmented
\ndecision-making process. This example illustrates how an under-researched
\narea can be identified for further investigation, even though it is embedded
\nwithin a well-covered research area. It provides a starting point for new research.
\nA final alternative might be to present a conceptual model and then to explore the
\nliterature that might help support such an innovative framework. As for theme
\npapers, not all (main) literature then needs to be reviewed, but the references discussed serve the purpose of underpinning the conceptual model. Van Acker, Van
\nWee, and Witlox (2010) adopted this approach in their study of travel behaviour
\nby introducing a new framework at an early stage in their paper, and then
\nreview the literature on travel behaviour from this perspective. The heterogeneity
\nof types of LRPs all contribute to the fact that writing an LRP is not straightforward, but interesting, challenging, and rewarding.
\n4. Methodology: Selection of Papers
\nOne of the weakest elements in LRPs is that they are not explicit in the methodologies used. The issue here is different to the conventional paper, where there
\nis often a section in the paper devoted to the methods that will be used, and comments are then made at the end of the paper on the strengths and weaknesses of
\nthe methods used. In LRPs, the section on methods is often very short or not
\npresent at all, as the literature used in the review is \u2018drawn\u2019 from the extensive
\npublications available. There are different ways to address this limitation and
\nour strong recommendation is for authors to be explicit on the methodologies
\nbeing used and the selection of the material that forms the source material for
\nthe review. In case a paper aims to review more or less all main literature in an
\narea, the most obvious sources are the numerous databases that are widely available (e.g. Web of Science, SCOPUS, Scholar Google, and TRID), and information
\nneeds to be given as to how these have been systematically \u2018searched\u2019. For
\nexample, comments would need to cover the key words used for the search
\n(including strings, such as \u2018transport\u2217\u2019 to include both transport and transportation), and if the selection has been heavily influenced by the Boolean operators
\n(AND, OR, and NOT). In all cases, we recommend making the use of these operators explicit. An excellent example of making explicit the search strategy is the
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper? 283
\nLRP produced by Scheepers et al. (2014), where they explicitly report on databases, languages included, keywords, search strategy, and some other aspects.
\nIn addition, the languages covered should be made explicit, especially if literature
\nin other languages than English is covered. The time frame should also be made
\nexplicit, as well as the reasons for the choice. For example, an LRP could consider
\nthe post-1998 literature only, because an LRP describing the literature up to that
\nyear already exists, or because the methods reviewed were first introduced in
\nthat year. In some cases, LRPs can be limited to specific contexts, for example, a
\ncountry or category of countries, because the context may have an important
\nimpact on results. For example, the impact of land use on travel behaviour in
\nthe USA can differ from several EU countries because of differences in the
\npublic transport system, cycling culture, fuel prices, and the availability of sidewalks, legitimating an LRP on studies carried out in the USA or (a selection of)
\nEU countries only.
\nOften snowballing is used, and this should be made explicit. Forward snowballing implies finding citations to a paper, whereas backward snowballing implies
\nfinding citations in a paper (Jalali & Wohlin, 2012). Even if the selection of
\npapers to be included in the review is based on more subjective criteria, such as
\npersonal knowledge, extensive research in an area, brainstorming with experts,
\nand other open-ended approaches, there is a methodological section that needs
\nto be written on the process by which papers have been selected, together with
\ncomment and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses.
\nA search often results in too many papers being found for inclusion in the
\nreview, even after narrowing down the scope. We do not provide a precise
\nthreshold value, but LRPs in most cases might have a minimum threshold of 30
\npapers cited, and it is unlikely that more than 100 papers would be covered in
\nthe field of transport. If there are \u2018too\u2019 many papers, the solution may be to not
\ninclude all papers, but to impose a (stratified) selection. This process should
\nalso be made explicit, and there should be a clear rationale to the logic of the
\nprocess adopted for final selection. Reasons could relate to impact of papers
\n(e.g. measured by citations \u2014 total or per year), geographical area, quality,
\nwhether the paper is recent or not, whether it is seminal or not, and many more
\ncriteria.
\nThere are more methodological issues that deserve attention. As authors of
\nLRPs should avoid criticising authors of original papers for things they did
\n(not) do that do not match the scope of the LRP. For example, an LRP may
\nreview a paper on different levels of cycling, but an empirical study may only
\nfocus on utilitarian cycling, excluding recreational cycling. Excluding recreational
\ncycling then should not be a criticism, but just an observation. The same applies to
\nauthors of empirical papers having used methods that were considered state of
\nthe art at the time of doing the research that in recent years have been considered
\nas not the state of the art anymore. Reviewers should avoid simple averaging
\nquantitative results. For example, if multiple studies review the impact of one
\nvariable on another, but some studies are based on only a few cases, whereas
\nothers include many more, averaging is misleading. It is better to present the individual results, combined with the number of cases, or weighing results in case of
\ncalculating averages. If averages are presented we also recommend presenting the
\nrange of results because probably the range is at least as important as the average.
\nIt is also very important to make explicit if conclusions and interpretations are
\nprovided by the authors of the original papers, or by the authors of the LRP.
\n284 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
\nFinally, a discussion on the \u2018why\u2019 behind results can be very helpful for the reader.
\nThis may be speculative to some extent, as long as this is made explicit. Speculation on reasons for patterns in the results may not only be helpful in trying to
\nunderstand these patterns, but may also inspire readers in their own future
\nresearch.
\n5. The Structure of a Paper
\nThe LRP can be written in many different ways, and here we present a set of
\noptions but no recommended practice. The introduction can be very similar to a
\nconventional research paper, discussing the background of the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), what is
\nalready known in terms of the main lines of enquiry, the gap(s) in the literature,
\nthe motivation and aim of the paper related to the gap(s), the research questions,
\nand for whom is the review targeted. The precise scope should be explained, preferably presented in a clear storyline. The methodology to be used could also be
\nincluded in the introduction, but in light of the comments in Section 4 there
\nmay be a case for a separate methodology section. If there are already literature
\nreviews in the same area this needs to be made explicit, as well as the position
\nof the current LRP compared to those previously published LRPs in the same area.
\nNext, one would expect to see the presentation of an overview of the literature
\nreviewed, often in the form of a table or a series of tables. Several \u2018templates\u2019 for
\nsuch a presentation can be found. One common template for structuring the
\ninputs to the review is to have as columns: author(s), descriptive characteristics
\nsuch as the year of publication, geographical area, and sample size, but not the
\nresults of the review. The rows below are the papers\/sources to be reviewed.
\nFor example, Hunt, Kriger, and Miller (2005) reviewing land-use transport frameworks used six columns to describe the software developed, the lead researcher,
\nthe history of the particular approach, the data platform, the commercial availability, and the support for the software. Six different models were selected, and
\nthey are then explicitly compared and commented on under each of the headings
\noutlined above. Another template could be where the rows are a priori clusters of
\npapers, for example, by world region or methodology. If a table is very long, it can
\nbe included as an appendix (see, for example, Salomon & Singer, 2014, where the
\nauthors review a range of travel measures over four time points).
\nIn the case of papers with an empirical or methodological focus, the results of
\nthe review can also be presented in a table form, especially if the number of
\nsources is relatively large, more than ten being a rough indication. This again
\ncan be structured with the papers\/sources as rows. The columns provide the
\nmain content of the papers, and these are clearly linked to the aims of the
\nreview. For example, Nicolaisen and Driscoll (2014) use this approach to structure
\ntheir ex post analysis of travel demand in a series of tables that systematically
\ncompare the results of the different studies by a consistent set of metrics.
\nThe objective in using different formats and summary tables is to synthesise
\nlarge amounts of information in a clear and concise way that makes it easy for
\nthe reader to both understand and to make comparisons between the broader
\napproaches being reviewed. It is much easier to summarise with the use of
\ntables, graphics, and other illustrative material, and it should also make the narrative easier to follow for the reader.
\nThere are more options to structure the review paper than by source. It is also an
\noption to have \u2018results\u2019 or content-related clustering as the guiding principle. For
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper? 285
\nexample, if the papers review methods, it can also be that the first column presents
\nkey methods, and for each method then a description or typology is given, and
\nnext a column presents the sources that apply the method. Goodwin et al.
\n(2004) in an LRP on price and income elasticities structure some of the content
\nof their paper by distinguishing between the short- and the long-term elasticities.
\nIn case there are too many sources to be included in the LRP (see above), the
\nauthor can decide to only present example papers, but explanation would be
\nrequired.
\nTables are not the only means to present substantial amounts of information,
\nand in many cases, the use of text does the job just as well. Whether in table
\nform or through other presentation devices, there are many options to structure
\nthe results section, depending on the aim of the paper. Examples would include
\nthe research area, the research period, the empirical focus, method(s), results, theories, etc. And in some cases figures can clearly present findings.
\nOne observation is that authors of LRPs sometimes overlook the \u2018obvious
\nresults\u2019 that are often, but not necessarily, descriptive and characterise the body
\nof literature in general terms. Examples of \u2018obvious results\u2019 might include the
\nomission of studies published before a certain date originating from the USA,
\nor that all studies found significant impacts of variable A on variable B, or that
\n80% of the studies were carried out after 2005, or that recent papers apply other
\nmethodologies. What might seem obvious to some needs to be explained, as it
\nmight be less obvious to others. A general tip is to present those obvious results
\nin an early stage in the results section. A key element in the selection of papers
\nis the audience for the LRP and their level of prior knowledge on the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), as
\nthis determines the decision as to whether to include or exclude particular comments and results. This issue is difficult to give advice on, as the purpose of the
\nLRP is to appeal to a wide readership that includes both experts in the subject
\narea (for updating) and newcomers to the subject area (for more general background). The final decision here must reside with the author(s).
\n6. Final Remarks: Journal Choice, Abstract, Rejections of LRPs
\nBefore writing any journal paper it is important to think about the journal of first
\nchoice for submission. Several transport journals do not (or only in very exceptional cases) accept LRPs, and examples here would be Transportation Research
\nParts A and B. Transport Reviews and Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
\nTransportation Review explicitly have \u2018review\u2019 in the journal title. Journals like
\nthe Journal of Transport Geography and Urban Studies also accept LRPs. Before
\nchoosing the journal of first choice it is wise to read recent examples of LRPs published in that journal, to get an impression of the tradition for LRPs. Some journals
\nimpose a maximum number of words for any paper and this limit needs to be
\nchecked, and all journals give authors guidance on the scope and expectations.
\nWord limits for any paper often create problems, as authors have difficulties in
\nkeeping to externally imposed constraints, and an LRP is no exception. We have
\nthe impression it is even more difficult to stay within the word limit in case of
\nan LRP, as there is always more to tell. Referees are also fond of asking for more
\nmaterial in an LRP, but are not so keen on suggesting what parts of a review
\npaper should be shortened or omitted.
\nIn most cases it is helpful that the abstract of an LRP not only describes the
\npaper but also includes the main conclusions and added value. We realise that
\n286 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
\ndifferent journals have different guidelines for the length of an abstract. In case of
\nrelatively long abstracts it could also include the background\/introduction of the
\ntopic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), its research questions, and its methodologies. This paper is intended to help
\naspiring writers of reviews to think about how writing an LRP can best be
\napproached, and its purpose has been to highlight both the positives and the negatives in an open and informative way. The main reasons for rejection are not difficult to summarise. The key element is whether the paper is really a review or
\nmore of an overview, and here the key element is the added value. It should be
\nwritten in an authoritative and constructively critical narrative. Another reason
\nfor rejection is that its aims are not met. The paper should clearly state its objectives in the introduction, and the conclusion should return to these objectives to
\nassess whether they have been achieved. A third reason for rejection is that the
\npaper has not been fully developed, as it is really an early draft. This means
\nthat the structure is weak, the evidence is partial, and there is no real content or
\nthought in the LRP. In turn, this may result in a paper that is poorly constructed
\nand has been submitted for external refereeing prematurely. The rejection levels
\nare increasing for all major academic journals, and transport journals have rejection rates of between 50% and 90%. However, we see no reason why it should a
\npriori be more difficult to get an LRP accepted in a high-quality transport
\njournal than getting a conventional research paper accepted.
\nIn summary, the LRP should primarily be a review paper that covers a wide
\nrange of literature from an authoritative and critical perspective, and that it
\ncomes to a set of conclusions that are supported by the evidence cited and adds
\nvalue to the debate. Ideally, the paper should also be readable, interesting, and
\neven exciting to read. Because of the high added value for readers, our intention
\nis that this paper inspires potential authors to write an LRP that follows the Transport Reviews golden rule: a good review \u201ctakes a comprehensive overview of a
\nsubject, bringing together the material and coming to some interesting conclusions\u201d (http:\/\/www.tandfdc.com\/journals\/printview\/?issn=0144-1647&sub
\ncategory=GE250000&linktype=1).
\nAcknowledgement
\nWe thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on our draft
\npaper.
\nDisclosure statement
\nNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
\nReferences
\nAvni, A., Burley, P., Casey, P., Cherney, J., Christiansen, L., Saunders Daly, J., … Yu, H. (2015, March).
\nLiterature searches and literature reviews for transportation research project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s. How to search, where to
\nsearch, and how to put it all together: Current practices. Transportation Research Board, Transportation
\nResearch Circular Number E-C194. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from http:\/\/www.trb.org\/
\nPublications\/Blurbs\/172271.aspx
\nBanister, D., Anderton, K., Bonilla, D., Givoni, M., & Schwanen, T. (2011). Transportation and the
\nenvironment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 247\u2013270.
\nBrons, M., Nijkamp, P., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline
\ndemand: A SUR approach. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2105\u20132122.
\nHow to Write a Literature Review Paper? 287
\nCao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on
\ntravel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews, 29(3), 359\u2013395.
\nDenney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice
\nEducation, 24(2), 218\u2013234.
\nDosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of
\nthe determinants and directions of social change. Research Policy, 11, 147\u2013162.
\nFreeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution.
\nOxford: Oxford University Press.
\nGeels, F. W. (2011). The multilevel perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven
\ncriticism. Environmental Innovation and Societal Changes, 1, 24\u201340.
\nGeurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility Assessment of land-use and transport strategies: Review
\nand research directions. Transport Geography, 12(2), 127\u2013140.
\nGivoni, M. (2006). The development and impact of the modern high speed train. Transport Reviews,
\n26(5), 593\u2013612.
\nGoodwin, P., Dargay, J., & Hanly, M. (2004). Elasticities of road traffic and fuel consumption with
\nrespect to price and income: A review. Transport Reviews, 24(3), 275\u2013292.
\nHunt, J. D., Kriger, D. S., & Miller, E. J. (2005). Current operational urban land-use-transport modelling
\nframeworks: A review. Transport Reviews, 25(3), 329\u2013376.
\nJalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012, September 19\u201320). Systematic literature studies: Database searchers vs. backward snowballing. Paper presented at the international conference on Empirical Software Engineering
\nand Measurement, ESEM\u201912, Lund, Sweden. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http:\/\/www.wohlin.eu\/
\nesem12a.pdf
\nMokhtarian, P. L., & Cao, X. (2008). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B, 42(3), 204\u2013228.
\nNelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belnap
\nPress.
\nNicolaisen, M. S., & Driscoll, P. A. (2014). Ex-post Assessments of demand forecast accuracy: A literature
\nreview. Transport Reviews, 34(4), 540\u2013557.
\nNill, J., & Kemp, R. (2009). Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to
\nparadigm? Research Policy, 38, 668\u2013680.
\nPucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands. Denmark and
\nGermany: Transport Reviews, 28(4), 495\u2013528.
\nSalomon, I., & Singer, M. E. (2014). Informal travel: A new conceptualization of travel patterns? Transport Reviews, 34(5), 645\u2013662.
\nScheepers, C. E., Wendel-Vos, G. C. W., den Broeder, J. M., van Kempen, E. E. M. M., van Wesemael,
\nP. J. V., & Schuit, A. J. (2014). Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Transportation Research Part A, 70, 264\u2013280.
\nSchwanen, T. (2013). Sociotechnical transition in the transport system. In M. Givoni & D. Banister (Eds.),
\nMoving towards low carbon mobility (pp. 231\u2013254). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
\nShove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763\u2013770.
\nSteward, B. (2004). Writing a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(11), 495\u2013500.
\nUrry, J. (2011). The system of automobility, theory. Culture and Society, 21, 25\u201339.
\nVan Acker, V., Van Wee, B., & Witlox, F. (2010). When transport geography meets social psychology:
\nToward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 30(2), 219\u2013240.
\nVan Meeteren, M., Poorthuis, A., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (in press). Pacifying Babel\u2019s Tower: A scientometric analysis of polycentricity in urban research Urban Studies. Urban Studies.
\nWebster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
\nreview. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), Xiii\u2013Xxiii.
\nYang, H., & Bell, M. G. H. (1998). Models and algorithms for road network design: A review and some
\nnew developments. Transport Reviews, 18(4), 257\u2013278.
\n288 B. Van Wee and D. Banister<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/action\/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20 Transport Reviews ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: http:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/loi\/ttrv20 How to\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-113281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}