online article review

Article Review Generator

Here is your article critique :

Writing an article review can become a daunting task for any student. It requires analyzing the article's content, evaluating it, and sharing personal insights. Stuck with summarizing the article rather than criticizing it? Use this article review generator!

• ️🎤 What Is This Review Generator?
• ️👑 Article Review Generator Benefits
• ️🤔 When to Use the Tool
• ️✍️ How to Write an Article Review
• ️❓ Article Review Generator Free: FAQ
• ️🔗 References

🎤 What Is the Article Review Generator?

Our online article review generator is an excellent solution for crafting comprehensive reviews. It offers in-depth analysis while ensuring that the main ideas from the article are effectively highlighted. The tool allows students to focus on critical evaluation and personal insights rather than getting bogged down in summarization.

An article review is a piece that critically evaluates and analyzes a scholarly article or research paper. It involves summarizing the article's main points, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, and providing personal opinion.

You may need to write an article analysis:

• To provide a critique of a specific article or paper.
• To contribute to academic discourse by evaluating scholarly work.
• To improve your writing skills via summarizing, analyzing, and critiquing complex texts.
• To deepen understanding of a topic.
• To prepare for future research projects.

👑 Online Article Review Generator: 6 Benefits

Many benefits make our article review summary generator stand out. For example, it is:

🤔 When to Use the Article Reviewer Tool?

Our tool is not only helpful in writing article reviews, but it also comes in handy for a variety of other purposes. Here are some cases when you can use the article review summary generator:

• Analyze the article's strengths and weaknesses.
• Quickly understand the key points and arguments of the article.
• Get a new perspective on the article's content and structure.
• Generate a concise summary of an article.
• Understand complex articles more effectively.
• Improve writing skills .
• Be informed about current developments.
• Prepare for exams or presentations.
• Facilitate collaboration during group projects.
• Get multiple article summaries for the literature review.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review

You can always use our online article review generator to analyze and evaluate an article quickly. However, if you have time and want to enhance your academic writing skills, you might want to consider writing the review yourself. To help you with this, we've prepared a step-by-step guide for crafting a comprehensive article review .

Step 1 – Preparation

You should clearly understand the task's purpose to prepare for an article review. An article review is more than just a summary or sharing your personal opinion ; it involves a critical analysis and evaluation of the content.

Here are some crucial steps that will help you be fully prepared for writing an article review:

• Assess the title. Before delving into the article, consider what the title suggests about the content and the potential focus of the author's argument.
• Analyze the structure. Subheadings can offer a roadmap of the article's structure and organization. Focus on them to get an overview of the key topics and themes that the author will address.
• Understand the main idea. Identify the central argument or thesis of the article. This is the primary claim or position that the author is asserting.
• Analyze the abstract. The abstract provides a condensed summary of the entire article, offering a glimpse into the main arguments, research methodology, and conclusions.

Step 2 – Reading

Correctly reading an article is essential for making a well-informed evaluation , so don't underestimate this step. Take notes or use highlighters to keep track of the information you might refer to later. We recommend paying attention to:

• Intended audience . Determine who the article is addressing. Consider the level of expertise, interests, and background knowledge the author assumes about the readers.
• Author's purpose. Is the author aiming to summarize existing research, present a new argument, or refute others' claims?
• Key terms. Note whether the author defines key terms or concepts. A clear definition of terms helps in understanding the author's arguments effectively.
• Facts and opinions. Differentiate between factual information and the author's views. Assess the reliability and validity of the information presented.
• Central arguments and conclusions. Assess their clarity, coherence, and the extent to which they are supported by evidence and analysis.
• Methodology and results. Examine the methods and expected results in the article. Assess the credibility of the research and the reported findings' clarity.
• Visual aids. If the article includes illustrations or charts, assess their effectiveness in conveying information and supporting the content.

Step 3 – Outlining & Drafting

Creating an outline for an article review can help you organize your ideas and guarantee that your review is well-structured and coherent. Usually, the outline includes an introduction, the body of the review, and a conclusion.

When writing an outline, work on your thesis statement . A thesis statement is a sentence or two that presents the main argument you are making about the article. It is the central point that you will support and develop throughout your review.

After finishing your outline, you can move on to writing a draft. These are the main components for each section of an article review:

• Hook (attention-grabbing opening).
• Background information on the article.
• Thesis statement.
• Summary of the article.
• Analysis and evaluation.
• Restated thesis statement.
• Summary of your main points.
• Final evaluation of the article.
• Suggestions for further research or areas for improvement.

Step 4 – Writing

The final stage of writing an article critique involves reviewing and polishing the draft. It is important to revise the piece and check for any mistakes or inconsistencies. Additionally, we recommend double-checking all citations and references and ensuring they are carefully formatted according to the requirements provided in the assignment.

During the review and polishing process, consider the following:

• Review title. Consider creating a suitable title for the article review if a title is not provided. A good article review title should convey the text's main focus, include keywords, and hint at what readers can expect from the review.
• Reference list. Include a reference list to acknowledge and give credit to the sources you have used in your review. Even if the review only references the article being analyzed, the reference list should include this article.

❓ Article Review Generator Free: FAQ

❓ what is an article review.

An article review critically evaluates and analyzes a scholarly article or research paper. It summarizes the main points, critiques the methodology, and discusses the significance and potential limitations of the work. Article reviews are a common assignment among high school and college students.

❓ How to write an article review?

Writing an article review starts with thorough preparation and understanding of the article's context. Then, carefully read the article to identify critical points and evaluate the author's arguments. Finally, provide a well-reasoned and supported assessment of the article's overall quality and contribution. You can always use our article review generator for the best summary and evaluation.

❓ Where is the literature review in an article?

The literature review in an article is typically situated after the introduction or in the body section. It draws a comprehensive overview of existing research relevant to the article's topic. However, not all article reviews require a literature review. It's better to consult the professor or review guidelines to determine if a literature review is necessary for the specific assignment.

❓ How to start an article review?

To begin an article review, start by introducing the article's title, author, and publication date. Provide a brief overview of the article's main topic and purpose. Consider setting the context by explaining the topic's significance and the article's relevance to the field. Lastly, state your thesis or main argument regarding the article's quality and contribution.

🔗 References

• How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews) - wikiHow
• Research Guides: Introduction to Research: Humanities and Social Sciences: Critical Reviews
• How to Review a Journal Article | University of Illinois Springfield
• Research Guides: Writing Help: The Article Review

Summarize any | in a click.

TLDR This helps you summarize any piece of text into concise, easy to digest content so you can free yourself from information overload.

Enter an Article URL or paste your Text

Browser extensions.

Use TLDR This browser extensions to summarize any webpage in a click.

Single platform, endless summaries

Transforming information overload into manageable insights — consistently striving for clarity.

100% Automatic Article Summarization with just a click

In the sheer amount of information that bombards Internet users from all sides, hardly anyone wants to devote their valuable time to reading long texts. TLDR This's clever AI analyzes any piece of text and summarizes it automatically, in a way that makes it easy for you to read, understand and act on.

Article Metadata Extraction

TLDR This, the online article summarizer tool, not only condenses lengthy articles into shorter, digestible content, but it also automatically extracts essential metadata such as author and date information, related images, and the title. Additionally, it estimates the reading time for news articles and blog posts, ensuring you have all the necessary information consolidated in one place for efficient reading.

• Automated author-date extraction
• Related images consolidation
• Instant reading time estimation

Distraction and ad-free reading

As an efficient article summarizer tool, TLDR This meticulously eliminates ads, popups, graphics, and other online distractions, providing you with a clean, uncluttered reading experience. Moreover, it enhances your focus and comprehension by presenting the essential content in a concise and straightforward manner, thus transforming the way you consume information online.

Avoid the Clickbait Trap

TLDR This smartly selects the most relevant points from a text, filtering out weak arguments and baseless speculation. It allows for quick comprehension of the essence, without needing to sift through all paragraphs. By focusing on core substance and disregarding fluff, it enhances efficiency in consuming information, freeing more time for valuable content.

• Filters weak arguments and speculation
• Highlights most relevant points
• Saves time by eliminating fluff

Who is TLDR This for?

TLDR This is a summarizing tool designed for students, writers, teachers, institutions, journalists, and any internet user who needs to quickly understand the essence of lengthy content.

Anyone with access to the Internet

TLDR This is for anyone who just needs to get the gist of a long article. You can read this summary, then go read the original article if you want to.

TLDR This is for students studying for exams, who are overwhelmed by information overload. This tool will help them summarize information into a concise, easy to digest piece of text.

TLDR This is for anyone who writes frequently, and wants to quickly summarize their articles for easier writing and easier reading.

TLDR This is for teachers who want to summarize a long document or chapter for their students.

Institutions

TLDR This is for corporations and institutions who want to condense a piece of content into a summary that is easy to digest for their employees/students.

Journalists

TLDR This is for journalists who need to summarize a long article for their newspaper or magazine.

Featured by the world's best websites

Our platform has been recognized and utilized by top-tier websites across the globe, solidifying our reputation for excellence and reliability in the digital world.

Focus on the Value, Not the Noise.

Extract key information from research papers with our AI summarizer.

Get a snapshot of what matters – fast . Break down complex concepts into easy-to-read sections. Skim or dive deep with a clean reading experience.

Summarize, analyze, and organize your research in one place.

Features built for scholars like you, trusted by researchers and students around the world.

Summarize papers, PDFs, book chapters, online articles and more.

Easy import

Drag and drop files, enter the url of a page, paste a block of text, or use our browser extension.

Enhanced summary

Change the summary to suit your reading style. Choose from a bulleted list, one-liner and more.

Read the key points of a paper in seconds with confidence that everything you read comes from the original text.

Clean reading

Clutter free flashcards help you skim or diver deeper into the details and quickly jump between sections.

Highlighted key terms and findings. Let evidence-based statements guide you through the full text with confidence.

Summarize texts in any format

Scholarcy’s ai summarization tool is designed to generate accurate, reliable article summaries..

Our summarizer tool is trained to identify key terms, claims, and findings in academic papers. These insights are turned into digestible Summary Flashcards.

Scroll in the box below to see the magic ⤸

The knowledge extraction and summarization methods we use focus on accuracy. This ensures what you read is factually correct, and can always be traced back to the original source .

What students say

It would normally take me 15mins – 1 hour to skim read the article but with Scholarcy I can do that in 5 minutes.

Scholarcy makes my life easier because it pulls out important information in the summary flashcard.

Scholarcy is clear and easy to navigate. It helps speed up the process of reading and understating papers.

Join over 400,000 people already saving time.

From a to z with scholarcy, generate flashcard summaries. discover more aha moments. get to point quicker..

Understand complex research. Jump between key concepts and sections.   Highlight text. Take notes.

Build a library of knowledge. Recall important info with ease. Organize, search, sort, edit.

Bring it all together. Export Flashcards in a range of formats. Transfer Flashcards into other apps.

Apply what you’ve learned. Compile your highlights, notes, references. Write that magnum opus 🤌

Go beyond summaries

Get unlimited summaries, advanced research and analysis features, and your own personalised collection with Scholarcy Library!

With Scholarcy Library you can import unlimited documents and generate summaries for all your course materials or collection of research papers.

Scholarcy Library offers additional features including access to millions of academic research papers, customizable summaries, direct import from Zotero and more.

Scholarcy lets you build and organise your summaries into a handy library that you can access from anywhere. Export from a range of options, including one-click bibliographies and even a literature matrix.

Compare plans

Summarize 3 articles a day with our free summarizer tool, or upgrade to
Scholarcy Library to generate and save unlimited article summaries.

Import a range of file formats

Export flashcards (one at a time)

Everything in Free

Unlimited summarization

Generate enhanced summaries

Save your flashcards

Take notes, highlight and edit text

Organize flashcards into collections

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i use scholarcy, what if i’m having issues importing files, can scholarcy generate a plain language summary of the article, can scholarcy process any size document, how do i change the summary to get better results, what if i upload a paywalled article to scholarcy, is it violating copyright laws.

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

Phonological Awareness: Everything You Need to Know

Product review of kate spade’s bloom: the perfect mother’s day gift, learning to read: everything you need to know, product review of the arzopa z1c portable monitor, how to teach phonics: everything you need to know, reading groups: everything you need to know, product review of the ultenic p30 grooming kit, reading anxiety in children: everything you need to know, iep meetings and parent-teacher conferences: everything you need to know, college disability services and accommodations: everything you need to know, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

3 Ways to Get Your Boyfriend to Move Out

How to Join Delta Force: 13 Steps

9 Ways to Evolve Onix

How to Fix Curb Rash on Rims

How to Defrost Frozen Banana Bread

3 Ways to Learn Romanian

Find and Use Review Articles

Looking for an efficient way to get an overview of a body of research on your topic? A review article is a great place to start.

A review article provides an analysis of the state of research on a set of related research questions. Review articles often:

• summarize key research findings;
• reference must-read articles;
• describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates;
• point out gaps in knowledge and unanswered questions;
• suggest directions for future research.

You can use a review article to get a better understanding of the existing research on a topic, to identify research questions you would like to explore, and to find relevant sources. A review article’s bibliography often contains references to research articles that have made an impact on the field and advanced understanding of a research topic.

Reading a review article can save you time and give you a more well-rounded and coherent understanding of your topic.

Unlike typical research articles, review articles do not present any original primary research. For this reason, some assignments may not allow you to directly cite a review article in your paper. However, you can still use the article to get a general understanding of the field and to find important primary research articles.

Also note that for most senior theses in the sciences, the proper place to cite a review article is in the first few paragraphs of your introduction. By placing references to a review article in your early intro, you give your reader a place to go for more information if they are unfamiliar with your field.

Be sure to review the writing prompt and check with your instructor to be sure!

How do I Find Review Articles?

Finding a review article is relatively simple, though it varies slightly depending on what database you are using.

Web of Science

Start with a search in Web of Science .

Then, on the results page, look for the “Document Types” filter on the left side of the page.

Click the checkbox next to "Review" and then click "Refine" to see only the results classified as review articles.

After your initial search in PubMed , look for the "Articles Types" filter on the left side of the page.

Click "Customize..." and then click the checkbox next to review article related filters.

Be sure to uncheck other article types if you would like to limit your search to review articles.

Click "Show" to filter your search results.

UCLA Library Journal Search

From the UCLA Library homepage , click the " Journals " tab to search for academic journals that focus on publishing review articles.

Search for your discipline or subject area, and Review (e.g., Sociology Review or Psychology Review ).

Be sure to change the drop-down menu to "Contains"

On the results page, browse the list of journals, and then click on a title to visit the journal's website.

Google Scholar and ArticlesPlus

In both Google Scholar and ArticlesPlus you can add review , "literature review" , "annual review" or "review article" to your search terms.

Be sure to check that your results really are review articles! See our tips below to make sure.

How do I know if an article is a Review Article or a Primary Research Article?

Related resources.

• Beginning Your Research Journey Accepted to the PRIMO database of Peer reviewed materials online 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Workshop)
• Breaking Down Academic Articles 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Tutorial)
• CREATES (Tutorial)
• Crafting a Research Question 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Workshop)
• Find the Right Research Guides (Tutorial)
• Finding Scholarly Articles 5-star editor review on merlot.org (Tutorial)

About this tutorial

Caitlin Meyer , Shannon Roux

Contributors

UCLA Undergraduate Research Center - Sciences, UCLA Undergraduate Research Center - Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, UCLA Undergraduate Writing Center, Doug Worsham

https://uclalibrary.github.io/research-tips/research-tips/review-articles/

Learning Outcomes

• Summarize a review article and its purpose
• Find review articles in various databases
• Identify signifcant filter terms for searching review articles
• Distinguish a review article from a primary research article

Accessibility Information

• WAVE tested - 0 errors - Oct 02, 2020

The Core Competencies for Research and Information Literacy at UCLA

• Investigate diverse sources and perspectives
• Gather and organize information and data
• Evaluate and synthesize information and data

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,094,247 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

5 literature review tools to ace your research (+2 bonus tools)

Table of Contents

Your literature review is the lore behind your research paper . It comes in two forms, systematic and scoping , both serving the purpose of rounding up previously published works in your research area that led you to write and finish your own.

A literature review is vital as it provides the reader with a critical overview of the existing body of knowledge, your methodology, and an opportunity for research applications.

Some steps to follow while writing your review:

• Pick an accessible topic for your paper
• Do thorough research and gather evidence surrounding your topic
• Read and take notes diligently
• Create a rough structure for your review
• Synthesis your notes and write the first draft
• Edit and proofread your literature review

To make your workload a little lighter, there are many literature review AI tools. These tools can help you find academic articles through AI and answer questions about a research paper.  

Best literature review tools to improve research workflow

A literature review is one of the most critical yet tedious stages in composing a research paper. Many students find it an uphill task since it requires extensive reading and careful organization .

Using some of the best literature review tools listed here, you can make your life easier by overcoming some of the existing challenges in literature reviews. From collecting and classifying to analyzing and publishing research outputs, these tools help you with your literature review and improve your productivity without additional effort or expenses.

1. SciSpace

SciSpace is an AI for academic research that will help find research papers and answer questions about a research paper. You can discover, read, and understand research papers with SciSpace making it an excellent platform for literature review. Featuring a repository with over 270 million research papers, it comes with your AI research assistant called Copilot that offers explanations, summaries , and answers as you read.

Get started now:

Find academic articles through AI

SciSpace has a dedicated literature review tool that finds scientific articles when you search for a question. Based on semantic search, it shows all the research papers relevant for your subject. You can then gather quick insights for all the papers displayed in your search results like methodology, dataset, etc., and figure out all the papers relevant for your research.

Identify relevant articles faster

Abstracts are not always enough to determine whether a paper is relevant to your research question. For starters, you can ask questions to your AI research assistant, SciSpace Copilot to explore the content and better understand the article. Additionally, use the summarize feature to quickly review the methodology and results of a paper and decide if it is worth reading in detail.

Learn in your preferred language

A big barrier non-native English speakers face while conducting a literature review is that a significant portion of scientific literature is published in English. But with SciSpace Copilot, you can review, interact, and learn from research papers in any language you prefer — presently, it supports 75+ languages. The AI will answer questions about a research paper in your mother tongue.

Integrates with Zotero

Many researchers use Zotero to create a library and manage research papers. SciSpace lets you import your scientific articles directly from Zotero into your SciSpace library and use Copilot to comprehend your research papers. You can also highlight key sections, add notes to the PDF as you read, and even turn helpful explanations and answers from Copilot into notes for future review.

Understand math and complex concepts quickly

Come across complex mathematical equations or difficult concepts? Simply highlight the text or select the formula or table, and Copilot will provide an explanation or breakdown of the same in an easy-to-understand manner. You can ask follow-up questions if you need further clarification.

Discover new papers to read without leaving

Highlight phrases or sentences in your research paper to get suggestions for related papers in the field and save time on literature reviews. You can also use the 'Trace' feature to move across and discover connected papers, authors, topics, and more.

SciSpace Copilot is now available as a Chrome extension , allowing you to access its features directly while you browse scientific literature anywhere across the web.

Get citation-backed answers

When you're conducting a literature review, you want credible information with proper references.  Copilot ensures that every piece of information provided by SciSpace Copilot is backed by a direct reference, boosting transparency, accuracy, and trustworthiness.

Ask a question related to the paper you're delving into. Every response from Copilot comes with a clickable citation. This citation leads you straight to the section of the PDF from which the answer was extracted.

By seamlessly integrating answers with citations, SciSpace Copilot assures you of the authenticity and relevance of the information you receive.

2. Mendeley

Mendeley Citation Manager is a free web and desktop application. It helps simplify your citation management workflow significantly. Here are some ways you can speed up your referencing game with Mendeley.

Generate citations and bibliographies

Easily add references from your Mendeley library to your Word document, change your citation style, and create a bibliography, all without leaving your document.

Retrieve references

It allows you to access your references quickly. Search for a term, and it will return results by referencing the year, author, or source.

Add sources to your Mendeley library by dragging PDF to Mendeley Reference Manager. Mendeley will automatically remove the PDF(s) metadata and create a library entry.‌

Read and annotate documents

It helps you highlight and comment across multiple PDFs while keep them all in one place using Mendeley Notebook . Notebook pages are not tied to a reference and let you quote from many PDFs.

A big part of many literature review workflows, Zotero is a free, open-source tool for managing citations that works as a plug-in on your browser. It helps you gather the information you need, cite your sources, lets you attach PDFs, notes, and images to your citations, and create bibliographies.

Import research articles to your database

Search for research articles on a keyword, and add relevant results to your database. Then, select the articles you are most interested in, and import them into Zotero.

Add bibliography in a variety of formats

With Zotero, you don’t have to scramble for different bibliography formats. Simply use the Zotero-Word plug-in to insert in-text citations and generate a bibliography.

Share your research

You can save a paper and sync it with an online library to easily share your research for group projects. Zotero can be used to create your database and decrease the time you spend formatting citations.

Sysrev is an AI too for article review that facilitates screening, collaboration, and data extraction from academic publications, abstracts, and PDF documents using machine learning. The platform is free and supports public and Open Access projects only.

Some of the features of Sysrev include:

Group labels

Group labels can be a powerful concept for creating database tables from documents. When exported and re-imported, each group label creates a new table. To make labels for a project, go into the manage -> labels section of the project.

Group labels enable project managers to pull table information from documents. It makes it easier to communicate review results for specific articles.

Track reviewer performance

Sysrev's label counting tool provides filtering and visualization options for keeping track of the distribution of labels throughout the project's progress. Project managers can check their projects at any point to track progress and the reviewer's performance.

Tool for concordance

The Sysrev tool for concordance allows project administrators and reviewers to perform analysis on their labels. Concordance is measured by calculating the number of times users agree on the labels they have extracted.

Colandr is a free, open-source, internet-based analysis and screening software used as an AI for academic research. It was designed to ease collaboration across various stages of the systematic review procedure. The tool can be a little complex to use. So, here are the steps involved in working with Colandr.

Create a review

The first step to using Colandr is setting up an organized review project. This is helpful to librarians who are assisting researchers with systematic reviews.

The planning stage is setting the review's objectives along with research queries. Any reviewer can review the details of the planning stage. However, they can only be modified by the author for the review.

Citation screening/import

In this phase, users can upload their results from database searches. Colandr also offers an automated deduplication system.

Full-text screening

The system in Colandr will discover the combination of terms and expressions that are most useful for the reader. If an article is selected, it will be moved to the final step.

Data extraction/export

Colandr data extraction is more efficient than the manual method. It creates the form fields for data extraction during the planning stage of the review procedure. Users can decide to revisit or modify the form for data extraction after completing the initial screening.

Bonus literature review tools

SRDR+ is a web-based tool for extracting and managing systematic review or meta-analysis data. It is open and has a searchable archive of systematic reviews and their data.

7. Plot Digitizer

Plot Digitizer is an efficient tool for extracting information from graphs and images, equipped with many features that facilitate data extraction. The program comes with a free online application, which is adequate to extract data quickly.

Final thoughts

Writing a literature review is not easy. It’s a time-consuming process, which can become tiring at times. The literature review tools mentioned in this blog do an excellent job of maximizing your efforts and helping you write literature reviews much more efficiently. With them, you can breathe a sigh of relief and give more time to your research.

As you dive into your literature review, don’t forget to use SciSpace ResearchGPT to streamline the process. It facilitates your research and helps you explore key findings, summary, and other components of the paper easily.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is rrl in research.

RRL stands for Review of Related Literature and sometimes interchanged with ‘Literature Review.’ RRL is a body of studies relevant to the topic being researched. These studies may be in the form of journal articles, books, reports, and other similar documents. Review of related literature is used to support an argument or theory being made by the researcher, as well as to provide information on how others have approached the same topic.

2. What are few softwares and tools available for literature review?

• SciSpace Discover

• Mendeley

• Zotero

• Sysrev

• Colandr

• SRDR+

3. How to generate an online literature review?

The Scispace Discover tool, which offers an excellent repository of millions of peer-reviewed articles and resources, will help you generate or create a literature review easily. You may find relevant information by utilizing the filter option, checking its credibility, tracing related topics and articles, and citing in widely accepted formats with a single click.

4. What does it mean to synthesize literature?

To synthesize literature is to take the main points and ideas from a number of sources and present them in a new way. The goal is to create a new piece of writing that pulls together the most important elements of all the sources you read. Make recommendations based on them, and connect them to the research.

5. Should we write abstract for literature review?

Abstracts, particularly for the literature review section, are not required. However, an abstract for the research paper, on the whole, is useful for summarizing the paper and letting readers know what to expect from it. It can also be used to summarize the main points of the paper so that readers have a better understanding of the paper's content before they read it.

6. How do you evaluate the quality of a literature review?

• Whether it is clear and well-written.

• Whether Information is current and up to date.

• Does it cover all of the relevant sources on the topic.

• Does it provide enough evidence to support its conclusions.

7. Is literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research and provide a background for the rest of your work.

8. What are the sources for a literature review?

• Reports

• Theses

• Conference proceedings

• Company reports

• Some government publications

• Journals

• Books

• Newspapers

• Articles by professional associations

• Indexes

• Databases

• Catalogues

• Encyclopaedias

• Dictionaries

• Bibliographies

• Citation indexes

• Statistical data from government websites

9. What is the difference between a systematic review and a literature review?

A systematic review is a form of research that uses a rigorous method to generate knowledge from both published and unpublished data. A literature review, on the other hand, is a critical summary of an area of research within the context of what has already been published.

Suggested reads!

Types of essays in academic writing Citation Machine Alternatives — A comparison of top citation tools 2023

QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

ChatPDF vs. SciSpace Copilot: Unveiling the best tool for your research

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Upload your PDF, EPUB, DOCX, ODT, or TXT file here.

PDF, EPUB, DOCX, ODT, TXT

Or import your images / photos by clicking below

(JPEG / PNG)

Please wait... or cancel

Reading speed : 0.8

Go to the main ideas in your texts, summarize them « relevantly » in 1 Click

We advice + we design + we develope.

• Text example        

Text example    

Initialisation...

Identify the important ideas and facts

To help you summarize and analyze your argumentative texts , your articles, your scientific texts, your history texts as well as your well-structured analyses work of art, Resoomer provides you with a "Summary text tool" : an educational tool that identifies and summarizes the important ideas and facts of your documents. Summarize in 1-Click, go to the main idea or skim through so that you can then interpret your texts quickly and develop your syntheses .

Who is Resoomer for ?

College students.

With Resoomer, summarize your Wikipedia pages in a matter of seconds for your productivity.

Identify the most important ideas and arguments of your texts so that you can prepare your lessons.

JOURNALISTS

If you prefer simplified information that summarizes the major events, then Resoomer is for you !

Identify and understand very fast the facts and the ideas of your texts that are part of the current news and events.

PRESS RELEASES

With the help of Resoomer, go to the main idea of your articles to write your arguments and critiques .

Save time, summarize your digital documents for a relevant and fast uptake of information.

Need to summarize your books' presentations ? Identify the arguments in a matter of seconds.

Too many documents ? Simplify your readings with Resoomer like a desktop tool.

Need to summarize your chapters ? With Resoomer, go to the heart of your ideas.

Identify your books' or your authors' ideas quickly. Summarize the most important main points.

From now on, create quick summaries of your artists' presentation and their artworks .

INSTITUTIONS

Identify the most important passages in texts that contains a lot of words for detailed analyses .

They Tweeted

Follow @resoomer_     Tweeter

SUMMARIZE YOUR ONLINE ARTICLES IN 1-CLICK

Download the extension for your browser

Surf online and save time when reading on internet ! Resoomer summarizes your articles in 500 words so that you can go to the main idea of your text.

HOW DOES RESOOMER WORK ?

Popular articles.

• Summary and synthesis: the difference?
• The text summarizer
• Summarize a text
• Summarize a document online
• Summarize an online article
• Read more and faster documents
• Argue and find arguments in a text
• Learn more": How to increase your knowledge?

  Our partners that like Resoom(er)ing their texts :  

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

• Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

• Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

• How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
• How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
• How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
• How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
• How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

• How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
• Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
• How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
• What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
• How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
• How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

• How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
• How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
• Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

• Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
• Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
• How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
• What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the literature and future research directions

• Open access
• Published: 05 December 2022

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• K. Pooja   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7735-8308 1 &
• Pallavi Upadhyaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4523-2051 2  

12k Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Online reviews of products and services are strategic tools for e-commerce platforms, as they aid in consumers’ pre-purchase decisions. Past research studies indicate online reviews impact brand image and consumer behaviour. With several instances of fake reviews and review manipulations, review credibility has become a concern for consumers and service providers. In recent years, due to growing webcare attitude among managers, the need for maintaining credible online reviews on the e-commerce platforms has gained attention. Though, there are several empirical studies on review credibility, the findings are diverse and contradicting. Therefore, in this paper, we systematically review the literature to provide a holistic view of antecedents of online review credibility. We examine variables, methods, and theoretical perspective of online review credibility research using 69 empirical research papers shortlisted through multi-stage selection process. We identify five broad groups of antecedents: source characteristics, review characteristics, consumer characteristics, interpersonal determinants in the social media platform and product type. Further, we identify research issues and propose directions for future research. This study contributes to existing knowledge in management research by providing the holistic understanding of the “online review credibility” construct and helps understand what factors lead to consumers’ belief in the credibility of online review. The insights gained would provide managers adequate cues to design effective online review systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Influence of Online Ratings and Reviews in Consumer Buying Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

Perceived Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews: an Investigation Across Three Service Categories

An Extended Abstract: To Trust, or Not to Trust—That Is the Question: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Drivers and Moderators of Online Review Trustworthiness

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Online reviews of products and services have become an integral component of product information on e-commerce platforms and are often used as strategic instrument to gain competitive advantage (Gutt et al. 2019 ). They are influential in marketing communications and help shoppers identify the products (Chen and Xie 2008 ) and make informed pre-purchase decisions (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Eslami et al. 2018 ; Klaus and Changchit 2019 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). In the absence of physical interaction with the product, they aid consumers to take decisions based on experiences shared by previous users on the e-commerce platform (Klaus and Changchit 2019 ). Reviews facilitate the free flow of consumer-generated content that help managers promote their products or brand or company (Smith 2011 ). The products that get at least 5 reviews have a 270% higher conversion rate compared to the products with no reviews (Collinger et al. 2017 ).

With the growing popularity of online reviews, there is an overwhelming interest among researchers to understand the characteristics of reviews and reviewer that contribute to the credibility of online reviews (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Chih et al. 2020 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ; Liu and Ji 2018 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Qiu et al. 2012 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Yan et al. 2016 ). The credibility of online information and digital media is often contested, due to the lack of quality control standards and ambiguity concerning the ownership of the information with the convergence of information and media channels (Flanagin and Metzger 2007 ). As all online reviews cannot be trusted (Johnson and Kaye 2016 ) and when sources are uncertain (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ) consumers often use cues to assess review credibility. The credibility issue also arises due to review manipulation practices by asking the reviewers to write a positive review in favour of the brand and to write a negative review attacking the competitor's product, by incentivizing the reviewer (Wu et al. 2015 ).

Recent meta-analysis studies on electronic word of mouth (eWOM) communications have focused on factors impacting eWOM providing behaviour (Ismagilova et al. 2020a ), the effect of eWOM on intention to buy (Ismagilova et al. 2020b ), the effect of source credibility on consumer behaviour (Ismagilova et al. 2020c ), factors affecting adoption of eWOM message (Qahri-Saremi and Montazemi 2019 ) and eWOM elasticity (You et al. 2015 ). Moran and Muzellec ( 2017 ) and recently Verma and Dewani ( 2020 ) have proposed four-factor frameworks for eWOM Credibility. Zheng ( 2021 ) presented a systematic review of literature on the classification of online consumer reviews.

Even though there are literature reviews and meta-analysis on eWOM, they address different research questions or constructs in eWOM and no attempt to synthesise the antecedents of online review credibility, in the context of products and services has been made. Xia et al. ( 2009 ) posit that all eWOM are not formulated equally and classify eWOM as “many to one” (e.g., No of ratings, downloads calculated by computers), “many to many” (e.g., Discussion forums), “one to many” (e.g., Text-based product reviews), and “one to one” (instant messaging). Studies confirm that the effort to process and persuasiveness of different forms of eWOM vary (Weisfeld -Spolter et al. 2014 ). Senecal and Nantel ( 2004 ) argue that consumers spend significantly more time and effort to process online reviews than any other form of eWOM. Hence understanding credibility of the online reviews and the factors that influence credibility is important for managers of e-commerce platforms.

Our objective in this paper is three-fold: First, we revisit, review, and synthesize 69 empirical research on online review credibility that focuses on textual online reviews of products and services (“one to many” form of eWOM). Second, we identify the antecedents of review credibility. Finally, we identify gaps and propose future research directions in the area of online reviews and online review credibility. From theoretical perspective, this systematic review synthesises the antecedents of review credibility, in the context of online reviews of products and services. As in past literature, eWOM and online reviews are interchangeably used, we carefully analysed both the eWOM credibility and online review credibility and selected studies that focused on reviews of products and services. Studies on sponsored posts on social media, blogs, the brand initiated eWOM communication were excluded. From managerial perspective, this study would aid managers of e-commerce platforms, a holistic view of review credibility and aid in the design of online review systems.

1.1 Defining online review credibility

Mudambi and Schuff ( 2010 ) define online reviews as “peer-generated product evaluations, posted on company or third-party websites”. Person-to-person communication via the internet is eWOM. An online review is a form of eWOM. There are various channels of eWOM such as social media, opinion forums, review platforms, and blogs. Past literature posits that credible eWOM is one that is perceived as believable, true, or factual (Fogg et al. 2001 ; Tseng and Fogg. 1999 ).

The perception a consumer holds regarding the veracity of online review is considered as the review credibility (Erkan and Evans 2016 ). Several research studies (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Dong 2015 ) define credible online reviews as a review that the consumers perceive as truthful, logical, and believable. Past research defines credibility to be associated with consumers’ perception and evaluation and not as a direct measure of the reality of reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2018a ). The credibility of online reviews is described as consumers’ assessment of the accuracy (Zha et al. 2015 ) and validity of the reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 ).

2 Research methods

This paper uses the systematic literature review method (Linnenluecke et al. 2020 ; Moher et al. 2009 ; Neumann 2021 ; Okoli 2015 ; Snyder 2019 ) to synthesize the research findings. Liberati et al. ( 2009 ) explains systematic review as a process for identifying, critically appraising relevant research and analyzing data. Systematic reviews differ from meta-analysis with respect to methods of analysis used. While meta-analysis focuses primarily on quantitative and statistical analysis; systematic reviews use both quantitative and qualitative analysis and critical appraisal of the literature. In a systematic review, pre-specified protocols on inclusion and exclusion of the articles are used to identify the evidence that fits the criteria to answer the research question (Snyder 2019 ). In this paper, we follow the steps proposed by Okoli ( 2015 ) for conducting the systematic review process and the recommendations given by Fisch and Block ( 2018 ) to improve the quality of the review. The purpose of our systematic literature review is to identify and synthesize the antecedents of online review credibility.

The study uses journal articles from two popular research databases (Scopus and Web of Science) to conduct a systematic search of articles on review credibility/eWOM credibility. As online reviews are interchangeably used with other related concepts such as eWOM, user-generated content, and online recommendations in the literature, we used a diverse pool of sixteen keywords (refer Fig.  1 ) for the initial search. The keywords were identified through an initial review of literature and articles having these terms in the title, abstract, and keywords were chosen. Initial search and document retrieval were done in January 2022. Studies published till October 2022 were later updated in the paper. A set of filters using inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to arrive at a focused set of relevant papers. The full-length empirical articles in English language, related to business management and allied areas were included for systematic review. Using multiple phases of filtering and reviewing (refer Fig.  1 ), we shortlisted the final list of 69 empirical papers that used either review credibility or eWOM credibility as a construct with a focus on reviews of products and services. In line with previous systematic reviews (Kuckertz and Brändle 2022 ; Nadkarni and Prügl 2021 ; Walter 2020) we excluded work in progress papers, conference papers, dissertations or books from the analysis.

Systematic review process

2.1 Descriptive analysis of empirical research on online review credibility

The 69 empirical research articles included 36 experimental design studies and 33 cross-sectional survey-based studies. Figure  2 summarises the review credibility publication trends in the last decade with their research design choices.

Research designs of Review credibility articles

Research on review credibility has used samples from diverse geographical regions, the highest number of studies being in the USA, China, and Taiwan (refer to Table 1 ). Table 2 and Table 3 summarizes the sample and analysis methods used in these studies. Even though online review is commonly used in tourism and hospitality, there are only six studies examining review credibility.

3 Theoretical perspectives in review credibility literature

Most of the empirical research (88 percent) on review credibility has used theories to explain the antecedents of review credibility. A total of 48 different theories have been invoked in explaining various dimensions of review credibility antecedents.

We observed five broad groups of theories from the underlying 48 theories that contribute to understanding the different aspects of online review credibility assessment by consumers. We discuss them in the following sections.

3.1 Information processing in online review

Several theories provide a lens to understand ways in which individual consumes or processes the information available in the online reviews. The popular theories discussed in the review credibility literature such as the elaboration likelihood model, heuristic—systematic model, accessibility—diagnosticity theory, and attribution theory describe how an individual processes information.

Building on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) several studies have examined characteristics of online review content such as argument quality (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ), review sidedness (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ), review consistency (Brand et al. 2022 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ), and source credibility (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). These dimensions are also examined using the heuristics-systematic model (HSM). These two theories are similar in their function as both ELM and HSM posit two routes (the central vs. peripheral route and the systematic vs. heuristic route) for judging the persuasiveness of messages (Chang and Wu 2014 ). In literature, the elaboration likelihood model has received more empirical support compared to the heuristics systematic model. The yale persuasive communication theory covers a wider array of factors that can affect the acceptance of the message (Chang and Wu 2014 ). This theory has been adopted by studies to evaluate the relationship between these factors with review credibility.

The psychological choice model posits that the effectiveness of online reviews gets influenced by environmental factors like product characteristics and consumer’s past experience. These factors influences the credibility assessment by the consumer and purchase decision based on their interaction with the online reviews.

Consumers’ use of information for judgment also depends upon the accessibility and diagnosticity of the input as proposed in accessibility-diagnosticity theory. This theory helps in understanding the utilization of information by individuals and posits that the information in hand has more value than information stored as a form of memory (Tsao and Hseih 2015 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ). The attribution theory helps in understanding the nature of the causal conclusion drawn by the consumers in the presence of negative and positive information (Chiou et al. 2018 ).

Overall, the theories related to information processing have contributed well to understanding the influence of strength of the message, argument, valence, source reputation, consistency, persuasiveness, and diagnosability.

Theories such as media richness theory (Tran and Can 2020 ) and language expectancy theory (Seghers et al. 2021 ) provided insights into the relevance of the quality of the information shared in online reviews. Several other theories focus on the information adoption process (ex. Information adoption mode, informational influence theory, dual-process theory). For example, cognitive cost theory has been used to explain review adoption due to the effect of different levels of cognitive involvement of the consumer when they are exposed to reviews from different platforms simultaneously (Yan et al. 2016 ).

The contribution of technology acceptance model (TAM) to the review credibility literature is operationalized in the study by Liu and Ji ( 2018 ). Hussain et al. ( 2018 ) uses TAM to complement ELM in the computer-mediated communication adoption process.

We observe that the theories in information processing in the online review have provided a theoretical lens to understand the role of the quality of the information in the online review credibility assessment.

3.2 Trust in online reviews

Studies have examined the trust formation and perception of the trustworthiness of the source of the information in online reviews using the theoretical lens of trust transfer theory and source credibility theory. Virtual communities do not support the face-to-face interaction between sender and receiver of the message. Therefore, the receiver has to rely on cues such as the reputation of the source, credibility of the source, and the reviewer profile. These cues are observed as some of the antecedents of review credibility. Trust transfer theory contributes to our understanding of how online reviews shared on a trusted e-commerce website makes the consumer consider that review is credible compared to the review shared on a website that is not trustworthy (Park and Lee 2011 ). Source credibility theory suggests trustworthiness and expertise of the source of the review have a positive relationship with review credibility (Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ). These theories note that when a person perceives the origin of online review as trustworthy, he would be more likely to consume the information.

3.3 Socio-cultural influence in online reviews

Individuals’ innate values or beliefs help shape their behaviour. As online reviews are more complex social conversations (Kozinets 2016 ) there is a need to gain perspectives on how these conversations differ in terms of country and culture (Bughin et al. 2010 ). The theories such as culture theory, and Hall’s categorization provide a lens to examine the influence of culture on online review consumption and assessment of review credibility (Brand and Reith 2022 ; Chiou et al. 2014 ; Luo et al. 2014 ).

In general, attention paid to understanding the influence of cultural factors on online reviews is very limited (Mariani et al. 2019 ; Gao et al. 2017 ). However, much attention has been given to understanding the role of social influence through the use of theories like social influence theory, role theory, social identity theory, social information processing theory, socio-cognitive systems theory, and value theory. The most prominent theory related to this theme is the social influence theory. Social influence theory emphasizes the social pressure faced by consumers to form a decision based on online reviews (Jha and Shah 2021 ). Social identity theory posits that an individual may reduce uncertainty by choosing to communicate with other people who share similar values and social identities (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ).

Social information processing theory posits the importance of the closeness between review writer and reader on social networking as an alternative cue, in the absence of physical interaction (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ). The social standings of an individual in terms of the number of friends on social networks (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ), nonverbal cues such as profile photos (Xu 2014 ), and their impact on review credibility have been studied using this theory. In a nutshell, these theories explain individuals’ belief that gets shaped due to the influence of the social groups and how it impacts the credibility of the review.

3.4 Consumer attitude and behaviour towards online reviews

Consumers attitude towards computer-mediated communications and online reviews have been examined in past studies (Chakraborty and bhat 2017 ; Chih et al. 2020 ; Hussain et al. 2018 ; Isci and Kitapci 2020 ; Jha and Shah 2021 ) using several theoretical frameworks. Theories such as attitude—behaviour linkage, cognition-affection-behaviour (CAB) model, expectancy-disconfirmation theory (EDT), needs theory, regulatory focus theory, search and alignment theory, stimulus- organism-response model, theory of planned behaviour, yale attitude change model, associative learning theory were used in literature to examine the factors that influence the formation of the attitude and behaviour towards online reviews. These factors and their relationship with credibility evaluation have been studied by the yale attitude change model (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ), and the stimulus-organism-response model (Chakraborty 2019 ). Jha and Shah ( 2021 ) adapted attitude-behavior linkage theory to study how the exposure to past reviews acts as an influence to write credible reviews.

The consumer’s expectation about product experience and credibility assessment is studied using theories like expectancy-disconfirmation theory (Jha and Shah 2021 ), needs theory (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ), and regulatory focus theory (Isci and Kitapci, 2020 ; Lee and Koo, 2012 ). Overall, these theories have contributed to the advancement of the understanding of the holistic process involved in consumer attitude formation and behaviour in online reviews.

3.5 Risk aversion

The theories such as category diagnosticity theory, prospect theory, uncertainty management theory, and uncertainty reduction theory provide a theoretical lens to examine how consumers rely on credible information to avoid uncertain outcomes. Hong and Pittman ( 2020 ) use category diagnosticity theory and prospect theory to hypothesize negative online reviews as more credible than positive reviews. An individual who focuses on reducing loss perceives negative online reviews as more diagnostic and credible. Kusumasondjaja et al. ( 2012 ) also argue that consumers try to avoid future losses by spending effort to find credible information before making a decision. With the help of these underlying assumptions, studies have used perspectives drawn from theories to understand the loss-aversion behaviour and higher perceived diagnostic value of negative information. Prospect theory suggests consumers attempt to avoid risks or loss and expect gain. Consumers avoid choosing the experience which has more negative online reviews because of the risk and loss associated with the negativity of the reviews (Floh et al. 2013 ). The risk aversion-related theories have contributed to understanding the consumers’ quest for credible information in negative reviews.

4 Antecedents of online review credibility

Literature on review credibility reveals varied nomenclature and operationalisation of antecedents of review credibility. However, we can broadly categorize review credibility antecedents into five broad groups: source characteristics, message characteristics, consumer characteristics, social/interpersonal influence, and product type (Refer to Fig.  3 ).

Anteeedents of review credibility

We discuss these antecedent themes along with the major constructs in each theme in the following sections. In the final section, we also summarise the theoretical perspectives in each antecedent themes.

4.1 Source characteristics

Literature reveals that several characteristics of the source influence the credibility perception and evaluation of review by consumers. Chakraborty and Bhat ( 2017 ) define a source as the person who writes online reviews. Researchers have operationalized the source characteristics primarily through reviewers’ knowledge and reliability (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 ); reviewer characteristics such as identity disclosure, level of expertise, review experience, and total useful votes (Liu and Ji 2018 ). In several studies (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Chih et al. 2013 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Newell and Goldsmith 2001 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ; Yan et al. 2016 ), expertise and trustworthiness of the reviewer is one of the most common conceptualizations of source credibility. Cheung and Thadani ( 2012 ) define source credibility as the “message source’s perceived ability (expertise) or motivation to provide accurate and truthful (trustworthiness) information”.

Source credibility is used as a single construct in several studies (Abedin et al. 2021 ; Chih et al. 2013 ; Cheung et al. 2009 , 2012 ; Mumuni et al. 2019 ; Reyes-Menendez et al. 2019 ; Yan et al. 2016 ; Luo et al. 2014 ). Studies have also conceptualized its sub-dimensions such as source trustworthiness (Chih et al. 2020 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ; Siddiqui et al. 2021 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tien et al. 2018 ); reviewer expertise (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ; Fang 2014 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Jha and Shah 2021 ) and reviewers’ authority (Shamhuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ), as separate antecedents to review credibility. Mumuni et al. ( 2019 ) posited that reviewer expertise and reviewer trustworthiness as two distinct constructs. Chih et al. ( 2020 ) define source trustworthiness as the credibility of the information presented by the message sender. Thomas et al. ( 2019 ) operationalize reviewer expertise as a peripheral cue and found that the amount of knowledge that a reviewer has about a product or service is influential in consumer’s perception of review credibility. Information presented by professional commentators who are perceived as experts in the specific field was found to have a positive influence on credibility (Chiou et al. 2014 ).

Source cues help in assessing the credibility and usefulness of the information shared in product reviews (Liu and Ji 2018 ). Reviews written by the source whose identity is disclosed have higher credibility compared to the reviews written by unidentified sources (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ). However, in case of positive reviews with disclosed identity of the sponsor the review, credibility is negatively affected (Wang et al. 2022 ). Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) found that suspicion about the identity of the message sender influences negatively on the message’s credibility. Past studies found that when the number of friends of a reviewer (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ) and a number of trusted members of the reviewer (Xu 2014 ) are high in the online review community, reviews of such reviewers are considered as more credible. If a reviewer involves very actively in writing the review, the number of reviews posted by the reviewer provides evidence to the reader that the reviews written by such reviewers are credible (Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ). The consumer also believes online reviews to be credible when they perceive the reviewer as honest (Yan et al. 2021) and caring (Yan et al. 2021). The source characteristics as antecedents of review credibility are summarized in Table 4 .

Several studies also define the source with the characteristics of the platform where the review is published. Consumers’ trust on the website (Lee et al. 2011 ) and the reputation of the website (Chih et al. 2013 ) were found as antecedents of the review credibility. If a consumer perceives an online shopping mall as trustworthy, he would believe that reviews posted in shopping mall as credible (Lee et al. 2011 ). Chih et al. ( 2013 ) posit that in addition to the source credibility (reviewer expertise), consumers evaluate the quality of contents of a website based on website reputation, which in turn leads to higher trust on the website and higher perceived credibility of the review. Website reputation is defined as the extent to which consumers perceive the platform where the review is published to be believable and trustworthy (Chih et al. 2013 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Guzzo et al. 2022 ; Majali et al. 2022 ). Bae and Lee ( 2011 ) found that consumer-developed sites were perceived as more credible than marketer-developed sites. Similarly, Tsao and Hsieh ( 2015 ) found that review quality as perceived by consumers had a higher impact on review credibility on independent platforms than on corporate-run platforms. Ha and Lee ( 2018 ) found that for credence service (eg. Hospital), the provider-driven platform and reviews were more credible and for experience goods (eg. Restaurant), consumer-driven platforms were perceived as more credible.

4.2 Review characteristics

Several characteristics of the message or the review are found to influence the review credibility on online review platforms (presented in Table 5 ). A product with a large number of reviews provides evidence of higher sales and popularity of the product (Flanagin and Metzger 2013 ; Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ). When online review for a product or service is higher, it directly influences the review credibility (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Reyes- Menendez et al. 2019 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ).

If the reviewer agrees with most of online reviews or recommendations of others those reviews are considered as consistent reviews (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ). The consistent online reviews were found to have higher credibility (Abedin et al. 2021 ; Baharuddin and Yaacob 2020 ; Brand and Reith 2022 ; Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2009 , 2012 ; Luo et al. 2014 ; Tran and Can 2020 ). Fang and Li ( 2016 ) found out that receiver of the information actively monitors the consistency of the information while perceiving the credibility of review. The degree of agreement in aggregated review ratings on the review platform creates consensus among the reviewers (Qiu et al. 2012 ). Information evolved from such consensus is perceived as highly credible (Lo and Yao 2018 ; Qiu et al. 2012 ). However, a few studies (Cheung et al. 2012 ; Luo et al. 2015 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ) have reported contradicting findings and argue that when the involvement of consumers is low and consumers are knowledgeable, review consistency has an insignificant impact on the review credibility.

Past studies have found strong evidence on the impact of review argument quality (Anastasiei et al. 2021 ; Baharuddin and Yaacob 2020 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ; Tsao and Hsieh 2015 ) and review quality (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2010 ; Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Liu and Ji 2018 ) and argument strength (Cheung et al. 2009 ; Fang 2014 ; Fang and Li 2016 ; Luo et al. 2015 ) on review credibility. Concreteness in the argument also positively impacts the review credibility (Shukla and Mishra 2021 ).

According to Petty et al. ( 1983 ), the strength of the argument provided in the message represents the quality of the message. Cheung et al. ( 2009 ) define argument strength as the quality of the information in the online review. Chakraborty and Bhat ( 2017 ) present review quality as the logical and reliable argument in the online review. Recent studies (Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ) considered accuracy and completeness as dimensions of argument quality.

Review attribute helps in classifying the review as an objective review or subjective review based on the information captured (Lee and Koo 2012 ). Jimenez and Mendoza (2013); Gvili and Levy ( 2016 ) operationalize the level of detail as the amount of information present in the review about a product or service. Past studies have found evidence for the positive relationship between different attributes of reviews such as review objectivity (Luo et al. 2015 ; Abedin et al. 2021 ), level of detail (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ), review attribute (Lee and Koo 2012 ), message readability (Guzzo et al. 2022 ), persuasiveness of eWOM messages (Tien et al. 2018 ), interestingness (Shamuyenhanzva et al. 2016 ), graphics (Fang and Li 2016 ) and suspicion of truthfulness (Zhang et al. 2020 ) with review credibility. Vendemia ( 2017 ) found that the emotional content of information in the review also influences the review credibility. While assessing the review credibility, the utilitarian function of the review (Ran et al. 2021 ) and message content (Siddiqui et al. 2021 ) play an important role.

Several studies confirm that review valence influences review credibility (Lee and Koo 2012 ; Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ; Pentina et al. 2018 ; Pentina et al. 2017 ; vanLohuizen and Trujillo-Barrera 2019 ; Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lim and Van Der Heide 2015 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ). Chiou et al. ( 2018 ) explain review valence is negative or positive evaluation of the product or service in online reviews. Review valence is often operationalized in experimental research at two levels: positive reviews vs negative reviews. Several studies report that negative reviews are perceived to be more credible than positive reviews (Chiou et al. 2018 ; Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ). Negative reviews present a consumer’s bad experience, service failure or low quality and they create a loss-framed argument. Tversky and Kahneman ( 1991 ) explain that loss-framed arguments have a greater impact on the behaviour of consumer than gain-framed arguments. Contradictory to these findings, a few studies found that positive reviews are more credible than negative reviews (Hong and Pittman 2020 ; Pentina et al. 2017 , 2018 ). Lim and Van Der Heide ( 2015 ) found that though negative reviews impact greatly on consumer behavior it is perceived to be less credible.

Several studies (Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2012 ; Luo et al. 2015 ) have observed the impact of review sidedness (positive, negative or two-sided reviews) on review credibility and found that two-sided reviews are perceived as more credible. Further, Cheung et al. ( 2012 ) found that when consumers’ expertise level was high and involvement level was low, review sidedness had a stronger impact on review credibility.

Star ratings are numerical evidence of product performance (Hong and Pittman 2020 ). Star rating represents the average rating of all the review ratings therefore it helps to assess the conclusions in general (Tran and Can 2020 ). Rating evaluation needs a low amount of cognitive effort while processing the review information (Thomas et al. 2019 ). Past studies have found star ratings (Hong and Pittman 2020 ), aggregated review scores (Camilleri 2017 ), product or service ratings (Thomas et al. 2019 ; Tran and Can 2020 ), review ratings (Luo et al. 2015 ), and recommendation or information rating (Cheung et al. 2009 ) act as peripheral cues influencing the review credibility.

4.3 Consumer characteristics

Receiver is the consumer of the review and consumer needs, traits, motivation, knowledge, and involvement have been found to influence the review credibility. Chih et al. ( 2013 ) posit that online community members have two types of needs: functional need (need to find useful product information) and social need (need to build social relationships with others). These needs motivate consumers to use online reviews and form perceptions of review credibility. Consumers refer to online reviews to understand the product's pros, cons, and costs (Hussain et al. 2018 ); reduce purchase risk, and information search time (Schiffman and Kanuk 2000 ).

Past research studies indicate consumer’s motivation to obtain more information on purchase context (Chih et al. 2013 ), self-worth reinforcement (Hussain et al. 2018 ), opinion seeking from other consumers (Hussain et al. 2018 ), and prior knowledge of the receiver on the product (Cheung and Thadani 2012 ; Wang et al. 2013 ), influences review credibility. When the online reviews are congruous to the consumer’s knowledge and experiences, the message is perceived to be credible (Chakraborty and Bhat 2017 , 2018b ; Chakraborty 2019 ; Cheung et al. 2009 ). Chiou et al. ( 2018 ) found that high-knowledge consumers find reviews less credible. Studies in the past have also used prior knowledge of consumers as a control variable (Bae and Lee 2011 ) and moderating variable (Doh and Hwang 2009 ) when studying other factors. Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold ( 2010 ) found that knowledge on manipulations on product reviews influenced consumers' product evaluations, negative reviews, in particular, and when they come from a highly credible source.

Lim and Van Der Heide ( 2015 ) observed differences in the perceived credibility of users and non-users of the review platform and found an interaction effect between users’ familiarity with the review platform and reviewer profile (number of friends and number of reviews) characteristics of review credibility. Consumer experience with online reviews affects their perception of review credibility (Guzzo et al 2022 ). Izogo et al ( 2022 ) posit that consumer experiences such as sensory, cognitive and behavioral experience also influences review credibility. Consumer motivation, beliefs, and knowledge, as antecedents in literature, are summarised in Table 6 .

Cheung et. al ( 2012 ) posited that the influence of source and message characteristics on review credibility depends on two characteristics of the consumer: involvement and expertise. The authors found that level of involvement and knowledge of consumers moderate the relationships between review characteristics (review consistency and review sidedness) source credibility, and review credibility. Consumers process the information through central route, when making high involvement decisions and carefully read the content (Lin et al. 2013 ; Park and Lee 2008 ). When consumers have low involvement decisions, they are more likely to use peripheral cues and pay lesser attention to the review content, resulting in low eWOM credibility. Xue and Zhou ( 2010 ) found that consumers with high involvement decisions trusted negative reviews. In a recent study, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) found that personality traits such as dispositional trust can trigger suspicion about the truthfulness of the message and may in turn, impact review credibility.

4.4 Interpersonal influence in the social media

Earlier research shows that interpersonal influence (Chu and Kim 2011 ) and tie strength (Bansal and Voyer 2000 ) positively influences online reviews. Consumers perceive online reviews as more credible when social status and cognitive dissonance reduction can be achieved through online forums (Chih et al. 2013 ). The previous studies have considered these factors under the theme related to source or communicator of the message (Verma and Dewani 2020 )). However, the constructs tie strength and homophily represent an interpersonal relationship between the communicator and the reader. Therefore, we discuss them separately. Tie strength is considered to be higher in an online community when the members have close relationships with other members and frequently communicate with each other. Consumers who have similar tastes and preferences share information in brand communities and enjoy meeting other members in a meaningful way (Xiang et al. 2017 ). Reviews are found to be more credible when review writers get exposed to past reviews written by others (Jha and Shah 2021 ). The exposure to past reviews moderates the relationship between disconfirmation and perception of online review credibility (Jha and Shah 2021 ). The recommendations of the members on social networking sites have also been found to be influencing the credibility of online reviews (Siddiqui et al. 2021 ).

Consumers’ perceptions of their similarity to the source of message are believed to impact their credibility assessment (Gilly et al. 1998 ; Wangenheim and Bayon 2004). Brown and Reingen ( 1987 ) define similarity or homophily as the “degree to which individuals are similar to sources in terms of certain attributes”. Herrero and Martin ( 2015 ) found that hotel consumers would perceive reviews more credible when there is a similarity between users and content creators. Source homophily is found to have an impact on review credibility in the e-commerce context as well (Abedin et al. 2021 ). Similarity of the source is often described in terms of interests of consumers and content generators. Xu ( 2014 ) posits that when a greater number of trusted members for reviewers are present on the website, it increases trust, thereby impacting the perceived credibility of the review. (Table 7 ).

4.5 Product type

The type of the product (search or experience product) is found to impact user’s evaluation of review credibility (Bae and Lee 2011 ; Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ) and review helpfulness (Mudambi and Schuff 2010 ). Experience products differ from search products. They require more effort in retrieving product’s attribute-related information online and often require direct experience to assess the product features accurately. Bae and Lee ( 2011 ) found that when review originates from the consumer-owned online community, consumers find review credible for experience products. Tsao and Hsieh ( 2015 ) found that the credibility of eWOM is stronger for credence products than search products. Credence goods are those whose qualities cannot be confirmed even after purchase, such as antivirus software and sellers often cheat consumers due to information asymmetry and charge higher prices for inferior goods.

Jimenez and Mendoza ( 2013 ) found differences in consumers’ evaluation of review credibility for search and experience products. The study found that for search products detailed reviews were considered more credible and for experience products, reviewer agreement impacted review credibility (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ). Chiou et al. ( 2014 ) found that the review credibility was perceived differently for elite (eg: Classical musical concerts) and mass (eg: movies) cultural offerings. The study posited that when consumers read reviews of elite cultural offerings, and it originates from professionals, it is perceived as more credible. (Table 8 ).

4.6 Summary of antecedent themes and theoretical perspectives

Review characteristics, followed by source characteristics, are the most researched themes in terms of the number of studies and theories used (refer to Fig.  4 ). It indicates the wide coverage of different theoretical perspectives examined in these two areas. Consumer characteristics, interpersonal determinants in social media, and product type were less researched antecedent themes and lesser examined through a theoretical lens.

Anteeedent themewise articles and theories

The most popular theories in review credibility literature are the elaboration likelihood model, social influence theory, accessibility- diagnosticity theory, attribution theory, and theory of reasoned action. Contribution from these theories was noted in at least four antecedent themes identified in our study. Table 9 summarizes the theories used in each antecedent theme identified in the current review.

5 Review credibility: future research directions

Though there is ample research on online review credibility, there are several gaps in understanding the aspects of consumer behavior in online review evaluation and mitigation of issues with credibility. We identify six research issues that need further investigation and empirical evidence.

5.1 Research issue 1: review credibility in a high-involvement decision-making context

Several studies have examined credibility of reviews in experience products such as movies (Chiou et al. 2014 ; Flanagin and Metzer 2013 ), restaurants (Ha and Lee 2018 ; Pentina et al. 2017 ; vanLohuizen and Trujillo-Barrera 2019 ), hotels (Lo and Yao 2018 ; Manganari and Dimara 2017 ), and search goods such as audiobooks (Camilleri 2017 ), consumer electronics (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2010 ; Chiou et al. 2018 ; Lee et al. 2011 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; Tsao and Hsieh 2015 ; Xu 2014 ), few studies (Jimenez and Mendoza 2013 ; Doh and Hwang 2009 ; Xue and Zhou 2010 ; Bae and Lee 2011 ) have examined both experience and search products.

However, most of the products involve low to medium involvement of consumers and there is a gap in understanding online review usage, credibility, and impact in the context of high involvement decisions. There are several online review platforms on high involvement goods and services such as cars (eg: carwale, auto-drive), and destination holiday planning (TripAdvisor). Consumers often use online reviews to reduce purchase risk. As purchase risks are higher in high involvement decisions, consumers would spend more time searching online to evaluate the product. It is also necessary to understand to what extent consumers trust online reviews in a high involvement decision context, which often combines online information, reviews, and offline experiences (eg: visit to a car dealership for a test drive). Previous studies on consumer involvement (Hussain et al. 2018 ; Lin et al. 2013 ; Park and Lee 2008 ; Reyes-Menendez et al. 2019 ; Xue and Zhou, 2010 ) have operationalized involvement as a multi-item construct that captures the level of involvement of consumers, using consumers’ response. Experimental design studies, using high involvement goods and their reviews would help to establish causal relationships, in high involvement goods context. As an exception, one of the recent studies by Isci and Kitapci ( 2020 ) uses experimental design using automobile products as the stimuli for the experiment. However, as observed in our analysis, there are scarce studies in high involvement decision making context.

5.2 Research issue 2: mitigation of low credibility of the online review

While extant literature is available on factors affecting review credibility and its impact on brand and consumer behavior, there is limited literature and discussion on how companies can mitigate the impact of low credibility of reviews and improve trust. More evidence and empirical research is required to demonstrate effectiveness of measures that firms can take to build credibility and improve trust. As reviews are an important component of product information in e-commerce websites and reviews are used to form pre-purchase decisions, research on mitigation of poor credibility would be useful. For example, while past research shows that reviews on marketer-developed sites are perceived less credible for experience products than consumer-developed sites (Bae and Lee 2011 ). There is a need to study strategies that marketers can use to gain the trust of consumers.

5.3 Research issue 3: mitigating impact of negative online reviews

Past studies have indicated that consumers pay more attention to negative reviews (Kusumasondjaja et al. 2012 ; Lee and Koo 2012 ; vanLohuizen and Barrera 2019 ; Yang and Mai 2010 ), and trust (Xue and Zhou 2010 ; Banerjee and Chua 2019 ) more than positive reviews. Negative reviews are found to be persuasive and have a higher impact on brand interest and purchase intention (Xue and Zhou 2010 ). There are also limited studies discussing the ways to mitigate the impact of negative reviews and strategies to deal with them in a wide variety of contexts. While extant literature is available on review characteristics such as review sidedness, review valence, and its impact on review credibility (Refer to Table 5 ), there is little empirical evidence on strategies to deal with negative reviews. An exception is a study by Pee ( 2016 ), that addressed this issue by focusing on marketing mix and suggested that managing the marketing mix can mitigate the impact of negative reviews. However, more research is needed to equip marketers with mitigation techniques and fair strategies to deal with negative reviews.

5.4 Research issue 4: credibility of brand initiated online reviews

Brand-initiated eWOM often incentivizes consumers to share the content with their friends and it is unclear whether such initiatives are perceived as less credible. Brands use a variety of strategies to promote products on social media and facilitate person-to-person communications of brand content such as referral rewards, coupons, and bonus points (Abu-El-Rub et al. 2017 ). Incentivized reviews can easily manipulate consumers as their motive is not to provide unbiased information to make an informed decision (Mayzlin et al. 2014 ).

These practices followed by the service providers, or the vendors could jeopardize the trust consumers have towards them. More research in this area would provide insights into the best social media marketing practices that are considered credible. Future research must focus on guiding marketers on ethical and credible practices in social media marketing and managing online reviews.

5.5 Research issue 5: presence of fake online reviews

Unlike incentivized reviews, deceptive opinion spams are written to sound real and to deceive the review readers (Ott, Cardie and Hancock 2013 ; Hernández Fusilier et al. 2015 ). Spammers use extreme language when it comes to praising or criticizing (Gao et al. 2021 ). These spammers are active on several social media and review platforms. As technology is continuously evolving deceptive opinion spam has found a way through the use of artificial intelligence. The social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have experienced the rise of bot or automated accounts. This trend is even entering into online review systems and is a threat to the online review system Tousignant ( 2017 ). A study conducted by Yao et al. ( 2017 ) argues that the reviews generated by bots are not only undetectable but also scored as useful reviews. This is a serious issue as the whole purpose of online review platforms is to provide information that would lead an individual to make an informed decision, but these fake reviews severely damage the credibility of review site (Munzel 2016 ). In recent years, researchers started contributing to this area and have proposed models to detect fake reviews in different platforms such as app stores (Martens and Maalej 2019 ), online review platforms (Singh and Kumar 2017 ), and filtering fake reviews on TripAdvisor (Cardoso et al. 2018 ). However, presence of fake reviews can make the review users skeptical towards using the reviews. Future research must focus on the role of artificial intelligence in online review systems and its impact on consumers’ assessment of online review credibility. Research into tools to detect and curb the spread of fake reviews is needed to improve credibility of reviews.

5.6 Research issue 6: new forms of online reviews

Rapid technological developments have resulted in new digital formats of online reviews such as video and images. Past experimental design studies have primarily used stimuli in the form of textual reviews. As consumers use more and more multimedia data and engage in platforms such as Youtube.com or Instagram.com, research is required to examine the online review credibility and practices using new forms of reviews.

6 Theoretical contribution and managerial implications and conclusions

This paper makes three important theoretical contributions. First, it provides a consolidated account of antecedents, mediators and moderators of the construct online review credibility identifies five broad groups of antecedents. Second, this paper also makes a maiden attempt to map the antecedent themes to the theoretical frameworks in the literature. This mapping provides a holistic understanding of theories that examine various facets of online review credibility. In the process, we also identify theoretical lenses that are less investigated. Third we identify research gaps and issues that needs further investigation in the area of online review credibility. Some of the areas of future research include mitigation strategies for negative reviews and credibility of reviews in purchase of high-involvement product or service. Emergence of new forms of multimedia reviews, fake reviews and sponsored reviews have also triggered the need to push research beyond simple text reviews. Future research could use theoretical lens that have been less explored to investigate research issues in review credibility. There is a need to advance online review credibility research beyond the popular theoretical frameworks such as elaboration likelihood model, social influence theory, accessibility- diagnosticity theory, attribution theory, and theory of reasoned action.

The paper has several managerial implications. The lower credibility of reviews poses threat to its relevance in digital marketing and electronic commerce. Therefore, managers of electronic commerce must strive to adopt practices to preserve the trust and integrity of online reviews. Our review indicated five groups of antecedents of online review credibility: source characteristics, review characteristics, consumer characteristics, interpersonal characteristics in social media, and product type. Managers cannot control completely all the factors on the social media. However, by appropriately designing the e-commerce platform with the elements that influence credibility, managers will be able to improve their marketing communications. Awareness of review characteristics that impact review credibility would help managers to choose more appropriate measures to deal with negative and positive reviews. Managers must adopt a social media marketing strategy that is suitable to the context of the review and type of product.

Data availability

The dataset was generated by two licensed databases and thus cannot be made accessible.

Abedin E, Mendoza A, Karunasekera S (2021) Exploring the moderating role of readers’ perspective in evaluations of online consumer reviews. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:3406–3424. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070184

Article   Google Scholar  

Abu-El-Rub N, Minnich A, Mueen A (2017) Anomalous reviews owing to referral incentive. Proc 2017 IEEE/ACM int conf adv soc networks anal mining. ASONAM 2017:313–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110025.3110100

Anastasiei B, Dospinescu N, Dospinescu O (2021) Understanding the adoption of incentivized word-of-mouth in the online environment. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:992–1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040056

Bae S, Lee T (2011) Product type and consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews. Electron Mark 21:255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0072-0

Baharuddin NA, Yaacob M (2020) Dimensions of EWOM credibility on the online purchasing activities among consumers through social media. J Komun Malaysian J Commun 36:335–352

Bambauer-Sachse S, Mangold S (2010) The role of perceived review credibility in the context of brand equity dilution through negative product reviews on the internet. Adv Consum Res 18:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.09.003

Banerjee S, Chua AYK (2019) Trust in online hotel reviews across review polarity and hotel category. Comput Human Behav 90:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.010

Bansal HS, Voyer PA (2000) Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. J Serv Res 3:166–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050032005

Brand BM, Reith R (2022) Cultural differences in the perception of credible online reviews – the influence of presentation format. Decis Support Syst 154:113710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113710

Brand BM, Kopplin CS, Rausch TM (2022) Cultural differences in processing online customer reviews: holistic versus analytic thinkers. Electron Mark. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00543-1

Brown JJ, Reingen PH (1987) Referral ties beav and word-of or *. J Consum Res 14:350–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/209118

Bughin J, Doogan J, Vetvik OJ (2010) A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing. McKinsey Quarterly 2:113–6. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/a-new-way-to-measure-word-of-mouth-marketing . Accessed 13 March 2022

Camilleri AR (2017) The presentation format of review score information influences consumer preferences through the attribution of outlier reviews. J Interact Mark 39:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.002

Cardoso EF, Silva RM, Almeida TA (2018) Towards automatic filtering of fake reviews. Neurocomputing 309:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.074

Chakraborty U (2019) Perceived credibility of online hotel reviews and its impact on hotel booking intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:3465–3483. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2018-0928

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2017) The effects of credible online reviews on brand equity dimensions and its consequence on consumer behavior. J Promot Manag 24:57–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1346541

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2018a) Credibility of online reviews and its impact on brand image. Manag Res Rev 41:148–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2017-0173

Chakraborty U, Bhat S (2018b) Online reviews and its impact on brand equity. Int J Internet Mark Advert 12:159. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijima.2018.10011683

Chang HH, Wu LH (2014) An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: brand commitment as a moderator. Decis Support Syst 59:206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.11.008

Chen Y, Xie J (2008) Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Manage Sci 54:477–491. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0810

Cheung CMK, Thadani DR (2012) The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a literature analysis and integrative model. Decis Support Syst 54:461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008

Cheung M, Luo C, Sia C, Chen H (2009) Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. Int J Electron Commer 13:9–38. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415130402

Cheung CMY, Sia CL, Kuan KKY (2012) Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 13:618–635. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00305

Chih WH, Wang KY, Hsu LC, Huang SC (2013) Investigating electronic word-of-mouth effects on online discussion forums: The role of perceived positive electronic word-of-mouth review credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behav Soc Netw 16:658–668. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0364

Chih WH, Hsu LC, Ortiz J (2020) The antecedents and consequences of the perceived positive eWOM review credibility. Ind Manag Data Syst 120:1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0573

Chiou JS, Hsiao CC, Su FY (2014) Whose online reviews have the most influences on consumers in cultural offerings? Professional vs consumer commentators. Internet Res 24:353–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2013-0046

Chiou JS, Hsiao CC, Chiu TY (2018) The credibility and attribution of online reviews: differences between high and low product knowledge consumers. Online Inf Rev 42:630–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0197

Chu SC, Kim Y (2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int J Advert 30:47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075

Collinger T, Malthouse E, Maslowska E, et al (2017) How online reviews influence sales. Evidence of the power of online reviews to shape customer behavior. In: Spiegel Res. Cent. https://spiegel.medill.northwestern.edu/how-online-reviews-influence-sales/%0A . Accessed 2 Nov 2021

Daowd A, Hasan R, Eldabi T et al (2020) Factors affecting eWOM credibility, information adoption and purchase intention on generation Y: a case from Thailand. J Enterp Inf Manag 34:838–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2019-0118

Doh SJ, Hwang JS (2009) How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) messages. Cyberpsychol Behav 12:193–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0109

Dong Z (2015) How to persuade adolescents to use nutrition labels: effects of health consciousness, argument quality, and source credibility. Asian J Commun 25:84–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.989241

Erkan I, Evans C (2016) The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: an extended approach to information adoption. Comput Human Behav 61:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003

Eslami SP, Ghasemaghaei M, Hassanein K (2018) Which online reviews do consumers find most helpful? A multi-method investigation. Decis Support Syst 113:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.06.012

Fang Y (2014) Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth : exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. Int J Electron Comm 18(3):67–102

Fang Y, Li C (2016) Electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites : cue validity and cue utilization perspectives. Human Syst Manage 35:35–50. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-150853

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2007) The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media Soc 9:319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2013) Trusting expert versus user-generated ratings online: the role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Comput Human Behav 29:1626–1634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.001

Floh A, Koller M, Zauner A (2013) Taking a deeper look at online reviews: the asymmetric effect of valence intensity on shopping behavior. J Mark Manag 29:646–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.776620

Fogg BJ, Marshall J, Laraki O, et al (2001) What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Accessed 10 Jan 2021

Gao B, Hu N, Bose I (2017) Follow the herd or be myself? An analysis of consistency in behavior of reviewers and helpfulness of their reviews. Decis Support Syst 95:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.11.005

Gao Y, Gong M, Xie Y, Qin AK (2021) An attention-based unsupervised adversarial model for movie review spam detection. IEEE Trans Multimed 23:784–796. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2020.2990085

Gilly MC, Graham JL, Wolfinbarger MF, Yale LJ (1998) A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. J Acad Mark Sci 26:83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262001

Gutt D, Neumann J, Zimmermann S et al (2019) Design of review systems – a strategic instrument to shape online reviewing behavior and economic outcomes. J Strateg Inf Syst 28:104–117

Guzzo T, Ferri F, Grifoni P (2022) What factors make online travel reviews credible? The consumers’ credibility perception-CONCEPT model. Societies. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020050

Gvili Y, Levy S (2016) Antecedents of attitudes toward eWOM communication: differences across channels. Internet Res 26:1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2014-0201

Ha EY, Lee H (2018) Projecting service quality: the effects of social media reviews on service perception. Int J Hosp Manag 69:132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.006

Hernández Fusilier D, Montes-y-Gómez M, Rosso P, Guzmán Cabrera R (2015) Detecting positive and negative deceptive opinions using PU-learning. Inf Process Manag 51:433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.11.001

Herrero Á, Martín HS (2015) How online search behavior is influenced by user-generated content on review websites and hotel interactive websites. 27:1573–1597 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0255 .

Hong S, Pittman M (2020) eWOM anatomy of online product reviews : interaction effects of review number, valence, and star ratings on perceived credibility. Int J Advert. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1703386

Hsu LC, Chih WH, Liou DK (2016) Investigating community members’ eWOM effects in Facebook fan page. Ind Manag Data Syst 116:978–1004. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0313

Hussain S, Guangju W, Jafar RMS et al (2018) Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Comput Human Behav 80:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.019

Işçi Ü, Kitapçi H (2020) Responses of Turkish consumers to product risk information in the context of negative EWOM. J Bus Econ Manag 21:1593–1609. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13383

Ismagilova E, Rana NP, Slade EL, Dwivedi YK (2020a) A meta-analysis of the factors affecting eWOM providing behaviour. Eur J Mark 55:1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0472

Ismagilova E, Slade EL, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2020b) The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: a meta-analysis. Inf Syst Front 22:1203–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09924-y

Ismagilova E, Slade E, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2020c) The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: a meta-analysis. J Retail Consum Serv 53:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005

Izogo EE, Jayawardhena C, Karjaluoto H (2022) Negative eWOM and perceived credibility: a potent mix in consumer relationships. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-01-2022-0039

Jha AK, Shah S (2021) Disconfirmation effect on online review credibility: an experimental analysis. Decis Support Syst 145:113519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113519

Jiménez FR, Mendoza NA (2013) Too popular to ignore : the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. J Interact Mark 27:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.04.004

Johnson TJ, Kaye BK (2016) Some like it lots: the influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Comput Human Behav 61:136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.012

Klaus T, Changchit C (2019) Toward an understanding of consumer attitudes on online review usage. J Comput Inf Syst 59:277–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2017.1348916

Kozinets RV (2016) Amazonian forests and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews, a commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and Lichtenstein. J Consum Res 42:834–839. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv090

Kuckertz A, Brändle L (2022) Creative reconstruction: a structured literature review of the early empirical research on the COVID-19 crisis and entrepreneurship. Manag Rev Q 72:281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00221-0

Kusumasondjaja S, Shanka T, Marchegiani C (2012) Credibility of online reviews and initial trust: the roles of reviewer’s identity and review valence. J Vacat Mark 18:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766712449365

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Lee KT, Koo DM (2012) Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus. Comput Human Behav 28:1974–1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.018

Lee J, Park DH, Han I (2011) The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: an advertising perspective. Internet Res 21:187–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241111123766

Lim Y, Van Der Heide B (2015) Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: the perceived credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp. J Comput Commun 20:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12093

Lin C, Wu Y-S, Chen J-CV (2013) Electronic word-of-mouth: the moderating roles of product involvement and brand image. In proceedings of 2013 international conference on technology innovation and industrial management. Accessed 14 Jan 2021

Linnenluecke MK, Marrone M, Singh AK (2020) Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust J Manag 45:175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678

Liu W, Ji R (2018) Examining the role of online reviews in Chinese online group buying context: the moderating effect of promotional marketing. Soc Sci 7:141–157. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080141

Lo AS, Yao SS (2018) What makes hotel online reviews credible?: An investigation of the roles of reviewer expertise, review rating consistency and review valence. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31:41–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0671

Luo C, Wu J, Shi Y, Xu Y (2014) The effects of individualism-collectivism cultural orientation on eWOM information. Int J Inf Manage 34:446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.001

Luo C, Luo X, Xu Y et al (2015) Examining the moderating role of sense of membership in online review evaluations. Inf Manag 52:305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.12.008

Majali T, Alsoud M, Yaseen H et al (2022) The effect of digital review credibility on Jordanian online purchase intention. Int J Data Netw Sci 6:973–982. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.1.014

Manganari EE, Dimara E (2017) Enhancing the impact of online hotel reviews through the use of emoticons. Behav Inf Technol 36:674–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1275807

Mariani MM, Borghi M, Kazakov S (2019) The role of language in the online evaluation of hospitality service encounters: an empirical study. Int J Hosp Manag 78:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.11.012

Martens D, Maalej W (2019) Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores. Empir Softw Eng 24:3316–3355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09706-9

Mayzlin D, Dover Y, Chevalier J (2014) Promotional reviews: an empirical investigation of online review manipulation. Am Econom Rev 104(8):2421–2455

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Moran G, Muzellec L (2017) eWOM credibility on social networking sites: a framework. J Mark Commun 23:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.969756

Mudambi SM, Schuff D, Schuff D (2010) What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon. com. MIS Q 34:185–200

Mumuni AG, O’Reilly K, MacMillan A et al (2019) Online product review impact: the relative effects of review credibility and review relevance. J Int Commer 19:153–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1700740

Munzel A (2016) Journal of retailing and consumer services assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews : the role of identity information disclosure and consensus. J Retail Consum Serv 32:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002

Nadkarni S, Prügl R (2021) Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Manag Rev Q 71:233–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

Neumann T (2021) The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: a systematic review. Manag Rev Q 71:553–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00193-7

Newell SJ, Goldsmith RE (2001) The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. J Bus Res 52:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6

Niu W, Huang L, Li X et al (2022) Beyond the review information: an investigation of individual- and group-based presentation forms of review information. Inf Technol Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-022-00361-z

Okoli C (2015) A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37:879–910. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03743

Ott M, Cardie C, Hancock JT (2013) Negative deceptive opinion spam. NAACL HLT 2013.In: proceedings of the 2013 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies 497–501

Park DH, Lee J (2008) eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electron Commer Res Appl 7:386–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.11.004

Pee LG (2016) Negative online consumer reviews: can the impact be mitigated? Int J Mark Res 58:545–568. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2016-035

Pentina I, Basmanova O, Sun Q (2017) Message and source characteristics as drivers of mobile digital review persuasiveness: does cultural context play a role? Int J Internet Mark Advert 11:1–21

Google Scholar  

Pentina I, Bailey AA, Zhang L (2018) Exploring effects of source similarity, message valence, and receiver regulatory focus on yelp review persuasiveness and purchase intentions. J Mark Commun 24:125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1005115

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consum Res 10:135. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Qahri-Saremi H, Montazemi AR (2019) Factors affecting the adoption of an electronic word of mouth message: a meta-analysis. J Manag Inf Syst 36:969–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628936

Qiu L, Pang J, Lim KH (2012) Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review credibility and diagnosticity: the moderating role of review valence. Decis Support Syst 54:631–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.020

Ran L, Zhenpeng L, Bilgihan A, Okumus F (2021) Marketing China to U.S travelers through electronic word-of-mouth and destination image: taking Beijing as an example. J Vacat Mark. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766720987869

Reyes-Menendez A, Saura JR, Martinez-Navalon JG (2019) The Impact of e-WOM on hotels management reputation: exploring tripadvisor review credibility with the ELM model. IEEE Access 7:68868–68877. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2919030

Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL (2000) Consumer behavior, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Seghers M, De Clerck B, Lybaert C (2021) When form deviates from the norm: attitudes towards old and new vernacular features and their impact on the perceived credibility and usefulness of Facebook consumer reviews. Lang Sci 87:101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101413

Senecal S, Nantel J (2004) The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. J Retail 80:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.001

Shamhuyenhanzva RM, van Tonder E, Roberts-Lombard M, Hemsworth D (2016) Factors influencing generation Y consumers’ perceptions of eWOM credibility: a study of the fast-food industry. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 26:435–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2016.1170065

Shin E, Chung T, Damhorst ML (2020) Are negative and positive reviews regarding apparel fit influential? J Fash Mark Manag 25:63–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-02-2020-0027

Shukla A, Mishra A (2021) Effects of visual information and argument concreteness on purchase intention of consumers towards online hotel booking. Vision. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211038069

Shukla A, Mishra A (2022) Role of review length, review valence and review credibility on consumer’s online hotel booking intention. FIIB Bus Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221099683

Siddiqui MS, Siddiqui UA, Khan MA et al (2021) Creating electronic word of mouth credibility through social networking sites and determining its impact on brand image and online purchase intentions in India. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 16:1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040057

Singh M, Kumar L S (2017) Model for detecting fake or spam reviews. In: advances in intelligent systems and computing pp 213–217. Accessed 05 Jan 2022

Smith KT (2011) Digital marketing strategies that Millennials find appealing, motivating, or just annoying. J Strateg Mark 19:489–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.581383

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Thomas MJ, Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC (2019) Determinants of online review credibility and its impact on consumers’ purchase intention. J Electron Commer Res 20:1–20

Tien DH, Amaya Rivas AA, Liao YK (2018) Examining the influence of customer-to-customer electronic word-of-mouth on purchase intention in social networking sites. Asia Pacific Manag Rev 24:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2018.06.003

Tousignant L (2017) Robots learned how to write fake Yelp reviews like a human. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2017/08/31/robots-learned-how-to-write-fake-yelp-reviews-like-a-human/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2021

Tran VD, Can TK (2020) Factors affecting the credibility of online reviews on tiki: An assessment study in vietnam. Int J Data Netw Sci 4:115–126. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.2.005

Tsao WC, Hsieh MT (2015) eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter? Electron Commer Res 15:509–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9198-z

Tseng S, Fogg BJ (1999) Credibility and computing technology. Commun ACM 42:39

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice. Q J Econ 106:1039–1061

v. Wangenheim F, Bayón T, (2004) The effect of word of mouth on services switching. Eur J Mark 38:1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548924

Van Lohuizen AW, Trujillo-Barrera A (2019) The influence of online reviews on restaurants: the roles of review valence, platform, and credibility. J Agric Food Ind Organ. https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2018-0020

Vendemia MA (2017) (Re)viewing reviews: effects of emotionality and valence on credibility perceptions in online consumer reviews. Commun Res Reports 34:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1286470

Verma D, Dewani PP (2020) eWOM credibility: a comprehensive framework and literature review. Online Inf Rev 45:481–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2020-0263

Walter AT (2021) Organizational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manag Rev Q 71:343–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6

Wang Y, Chan SCF, Ngai G, Leong HV (2013) Quantifying reviewer credibility in online tourism. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8055:381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40285-2_33

Wang X, Xu F, Luo X, (Robert), Peng L, (2022) Effect of sponsorship disclosure on online consumer responses to positive reviews: the moderating role of emotional intensity and tie strength. Decis Support Syst 156:113741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113741

Weisfeld-Spolter S, Sussan F, Gould S (2014) An integrative approach to eWOM and marketing communications. Corp Commun 19:260–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2013-0015

Wu K, Noorian Z, Vassileva J, Adaji I (2015) How buyers perceive the credibility of advisors in online marketplace: review balance, review count and misattribution. J Trust Manag. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40493-015-0013-5

Xia M, Huang Y, Duan W, Whinston AB (2009) Ballot box communication in online communities. Commun ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562164.1562199

Xiang Z, Du Q, Ma Y, Fan W (2017) A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tour Manag 58:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.001

Xu Q (2014) Should i trust him? the effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Comput Human Behav 33:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.027

Xue F, Zhou P (2010) The effects of product involvement and prior experience on chinese consumers’ responses to online word of mouth. J Int Consum Mark 23:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.524576

Yan L, Hua C (2021) Which reviewers are honest and caring? The effect of constructive and prosocial information on the perceived credibility of online reviews. Int J Hosp Manag 99:102990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102990

Yan Q, Wu S, Wang L et al (2016) E-WOM from e-commerce websites and social media: which will consumers adopt? Electron Commer Res Appl 17:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2016.03.004

Yang J, Mai ES (2010) Experiential goods with network externalities effects: an empirical study of online rating system. J Bus Res 63:1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.029

Yao Y, Viswanath B, Cryan J et al (2017) Automated crowdturfing attacks and defenses in online review systems. Proc ACM Conf Comput Commun Secur. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3133990

You Y, Vadakkepatt GG, Joshi AM (2015) A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. J Mark 79:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0169

Zha X, Li J, Yan Y (2015) Advertising value and credibility transfer: attitude towards web advertising and online information acquisition. Behav Inf Technol 34:520–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.978380

Zhang X, Wu Y, Wang W (2020) eWOM, what are we suspecting? Motivation, truthfulness or identity. J Inform, Commun Ethics Soc. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2019-0135

Zheng L (2021) The classification of online consumer reviews: a systematic literature review and integrative framework. J Bus Res 135:226–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.038

Download references

Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

T A Pai Management Institute, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Pallavi Upadhyaya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PK: Writing—Original Draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation. PU: Conceptualization; Validation, Data Curation, Writing—Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pallavi Upadhyaya .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pooja, K., Upadhyaya, P. What makes an online review credible? A systematic review of the literature and future research directions. Manag Rev Q (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00312-6

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2022

Accepted : 21 November 2022

Published : 05 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00312-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Review credibility
• Systematic literature review
• Online review
• eWOM credibility

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

• Submit your Research
• My Submissions
• Article Guidelines
• Article Guidelines (New Versions)
• Data Guidelines
• Posters and Slides Guidelines
• Document Guidelines
• Article Processing Charges
• Peer Review
• The Peer Review Process
• The Editorial Team’s Role
• Understanding Peer Review Reports and Statuses
• Revising and Responding to Reviewers

Finding Article Reviewers

• Reviewer Criteria
• Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
• Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
• Identity transparency: All identities visible
• Reviewer interacts with: Editor, other reviewers, authors
• Review information published: Review reports, submitted manuscript, reviewer identities
• Post publication commenting: Open
• Qualified: Reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent). Exceptions will be made for scholarly disciplines where doctorates are not necessary (e.g. Education, Library Science), or when an individual has a demonstrable public record of expertise. If possible, when a reviewer suggestion is rejected due to lack of qualifications, the editorial team will suggest that their Principal Investigator/Supervisor is invited instead, and the original person could then take the role of co-reviewer.
• Expert: Reviewers should have published at least three articles as lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years . In fields where a reviewer’s expertise is not typically measured by their publication record or if the suggested reviewer’s expertise is demonstrable in ways other than their publication record, please provide an explanation of their suitability.
• have co-authored with any of the lead authors in the three years preceding publication of Version 1;
• have co-authored with any of the lead authors since the publication of Version 1;
• currently work at the same institution as the authors;
• be a close collaborator with an author.
• Global: For any given article, we require that reviewers are from different institutions . (This does not apply to large, multi-site institutions, such as Max-Planck Institutes or University of California). We also strongly encourage that geographically-diverse reviewers are invited to review, to gain an international perspective on the article. In cases where we receive multiple reviewer suggestions from the same country, the editorial team can only invite one of these reviewers at a time. Providing a geographically-diverse set of reviewers will help to prevent delays to the peer review process.
• Use the authors of the references cited in your article as a starting point for finding reviewers working in your specific field.
• Search abstracting and indexing databases such as Google Scholar , PubMed , Web of Science * and Scopus * (or other subject-specific literature databases) for recent articles with specific keywords can help you to identify authors currently working in the same field as yourself, and who may be suitable to review your article. As an expert in your area of research, you will likely be aware of prominent laboratories whose staff may be suitable to review your articles - try searching their website for potential reviewers. You can also search for specific experts with whom you have no recent collaborations, as they or their postdocs may be suitable to review.
• Try the Journal/Author Name Estimator and other similar tools can help to identify authors who have published related articles.
• Use our Reviewer Finder Tool. This tool analyzes the submission and provides a ranked list of reviewer candidates based on leading authors of related published studies. Authors can access this tool via the 'Suggest Reviewers' link next to submitted and published articles in the Submissions section in My Research . As this is an automatically generated list of potential reviewers, authors must use their own judgement to determine if the suggested reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the article.
• Make sure suggested reviewers are experts in the relevant subject area F1000Research will only invite reviewers who have expertise in the field of research covered by the article. Not only does this ensure thorough peer review, but also reviewers are more likely to agree to provide a report when the subject matter is close to their own area of expertise.
• Try and ensure a global spread of reviewers For any given article, the reviewers must come from separate institutions and should not be affiliated with the authors’ institutions. We also strongly encourage that reviewers from around the world are invited to review where possible so that a global perspective can be gained for the article, and to ensure that all aspects of the work are reviewed.
• Ensure reviewers from the algorithm are suitable before approving them To provide authors who wish to suggest reviewers with a shortlist, each article is scanned by our Reviewer Finder Tool, which automatically provides a list of researchers who have published related articles. Authors can suggest appropriate reviewers from this automatically generated list (which can be accessed via the ‘Suggest Reviewers’ link next to your submitted or published article in My Research ), but must use their own judgement to determine if the suggested reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the article.
• Discuss with your co-authors It may be that your co-authors would like to suggest reviewers – only the submitting author is able to provide these, however we welcome suggestions on your other authors’ behalfs. We would also be happy to change the submitting author so that a co-author can submit reviewers directly, please contact the editorial team if you wish to do this.
• Contact us if you have any questions If we have rejected a reviewer who you believe to be suitable, or if you have any questions or concerns about our reviewer criteria, we are always happy to discuss. Please email us so that we can explore possible options.
• Suggest reviewers who have recently closely collaborated with you or your co-authors We consider this to be a potential conflict of interest. A reviewer should not be based at the same institution as any author, be a close collaborator, or have co-authored with any of the lead authors for three years before the publication of the article. Please note that we make exceptions for cases where researchers have published together on the findings or consensus from a large consortia.
• Suggest reviewers who do not have the right expertise The editorial team will not invite reviewers who do not appear to have appropriate expertise. Suggesting inappropriate reviewers can cause significant delays to the peer review process.
• Contact the reviewers directly To ensure a fair peer review process is maintained, the editorial team acts as the intermediary between authors and reviewers. By directly contacting the reviewers, authors could not only influence their assessment of the article, but could also dissuade them from reviewing. Please be aware that if evidence of an author coercing reviewers is brought to our attention, we will investigate and take appropriate action. Authors can respond to a peer review report by posting a comment under the report.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Online Review

Issue(s) available: 86 – From Volume: 1 Issue: 1 , to Volume: 16 Issue: 6

• Issue 6 1992
• Issue 5 1992
• Issue 4 1992
• Issue 3 1992
• Issue 2 1992
• Issue 1 1992
• Issue 6 1991
• Issue 5 1991
• Issue 3/4 1991
• Issue 2 1991
• Issue 1 1991
• Issue 6 1990
• Issue 5 1990
• Issue 4 1990
• Issue 3 1990
• Issue 2 1990
• Issue 1 1990
• Issue 6 1989
• Issue 5 1989
• Issue 4 1989
• Issue 3 1989
• Issue 2 1989
• Issue 1 1989
• Issue 6 1988
• Issue 5 1988
• Issue 4 1988
• Issue 3 1988
• Issue 2 1988
• Issue 1 1988
• Issue 6 1987
• Issue 5 1987
• Issue 3 1987
• Issue 2 1987
• Issue 1 1987
• Issue 6 1986
• Issue 5 1986
• Issue 4 1986
• Issue 3 1986
• Issue 2 1986
• Issue 1 1986
• Issue 6 1985
• Issue 5 1985
• Issue 4 1985
• Issue 3 1985
• Issue 2 1985
• Issue 1 1985
• Issue 6 1984
• Issue 5 1984
• Issue 4 1984
• Issue 3 1984
• Issue 2 1984
• Issue 1 1984
• Issue 6 1983
• Issue 5 1983
• Issue 4 1983
• Issue 3 1983
• Issue 2 1983
• Issue 1 1983
• Issue 6 1982
• Issue 5 1982
• Issue 4 1982
• Issue 3 1982
• Issue 2 1982
• Issue 1 1982
• Issue 6 1981
• Issue 5 1981
• Issue 4 1981
• Issue 3 1981
• Issue 2 1981
• Issue 1 1981
• Issue 4 1980
• Issue 3 1980
• Issue 2 1980
• Issue 1 1980
• Issue 4 1979
• Issue 3 1979
• Issue 2 1979
• Issue 1 1979
• Issue 4 1978
• Issue 3 1978
• Issue 2 1978
• Issue 1 1978
• Issue 4 1977
• Issue 3 1977
• Issue 2 1977
• Issue 1 1977

Renamed to:

Online date, start – end:, copyright holder:.

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here