This is the literature review template used for standalone reviews, thesis chapters, and research-proposal lit-review sections in the social sciences, education, and public health. It follows APA 7th edition formatting and a thematic (not chronological) organization, with word counts calibrated to a 3000-word review. For the reasoning behind each section and why thematic structure outperforms chronology, read the companion how to write a literature review guide. For APA citation formatting, see the APA citation style guide. The template is free.
PaperDraft is a writing assistant, not a paper generator — the template is free. The draft is your starting point, not your submission. You are responsible for editing, verifying sources, and following your school's academic integrity policy.
What this template includes
- A five-section thematic review structure sized for 3000 words (scalable to 1500 or 6000).
- Introduction block with review question, scope, and rationale placeholders.
- Three thematic review blocks with nested source-level citation stubs.
- A dedicated synthesis-and-gap-identification section — often the missing piece in weak reviews.
- Methodology note section for search strategy, databases, and inclusion criteria.
- Conclusion and implications block that connects the review to future work.
- APA 7 in-text citation stubs under every claim and a Works Cited reminder at the end.
Literature Review — copy the structure
I. Introduction (approx. 350 words)
- A. Opening context — [why this topic matters, 2–3 sentences]
- B. Review question (1 sentence) — [the specific question this review answers, e.g. "What does the literature establish about X's effect on Y in Z populations?"]
- C. Scope — [time window, disciplines, population, or geographic bounds]
- D. Rationale — [why this review is needed now; what gap in prior reviews it addresses]
- E. Roadmap — [the three themes the review will cover, in order]
II. Theme 1: [theme name] (approx. 600 words)
- A. Framing sentence for the theme — [what question this theme answers]
- B. Foundational source — ([Author], [Year]) — [key contribution in one sentence]
- C. Supporting source — ([Author], [Year]) — [how it extends or qualifies the foundational work]
- D. Supporting source — ([Author], [Year]) — [further contribution]
- E. Tension or disagreement within the theme — [what two of the sources dispute; cite ([Author], [Year]) and ([Author], [Year])]
- F. What this theme establishes — [1–2 sentence summary claim]
III. Theme 2: [theme name] (approx. 600 words)
- A. Framing sentence — [question this theme answers]
- B. Foundational source — ([Author], [Year]) — [contribution]
- C. Supporting source — ([Author], [Year]) — [extension]
- D. Supporting source — ([Author], [Year]) — [contribution]
- E. Tension or methodological disagreement — [which sources diverge and why]
- F. What this theme establishes — [1–2 sentence summary]
IV. Theme 3: [theme name] (approx. 600 words)
- A. Framing sentence — [question]
- B. Foundational source — ([Author], [Year]) — [contribution]
- C. Supporting source — ([Author], [Year]) — [extension]
- D. Supporting source — ([Author], [Year]) — [contribution]
- E. Tension within the theme — [disagreement]
- F. What this theme establishes — [summary]
V. Synthesis and gap identification (approx. 450 words)
- A. Cross-theme synthesis — [what Themes 1–3 collectively establish, 3–4 sentences]
- B. Remaining disagreements across themes — [where the field is still unsettled]
- C. Gaps in the literature — [what has not been adequately studied]
-
- Methodological gap — [research method, sample, or measure missing from the literature]
-
- Population gap — [population or context underrepresented]
-
- Theoretical gap — [concept or mechanism under-theorized]
-
- D. Why these gaps matter — [1–2 sentences on stakes]
VI. Methodology note (approx. 200 words)
- A. Databases searched — [PsycINFO, ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, or others]
- B. Search terms — [the primary and secondary search strings used]
- C. Date range — [time window of included sources]
- D. Inclusion criteria — [peer-reviewed, English-language, empirical studies only, etc.]
- E. Exclusion criteria — [what was filtered out and why]
- F. Final number of sources reviewed — [n = X]
VII. Conclusion and implications (approx. 200 words)
- A. Synthesis statement — [the single most important takeaway from the review]
- B. Implications for theory — [what the synthesis means for conceptual frameworks]
- C. Implications for practice or policy — [if applicable]
- D. Forward-pointing close — [the research question the next study should answer]
VIII. References — APA 7 hanging-indent list, alphabetical by first author surname.
How to use this template
1. Copy the template into your document
Paste the full outline into a new APA-formatted document — 12-point Times New Roman or 11-point Calibri, double-spaced, one-inch margins. Keep the Roman numerals and brackets intact until filled.
2. Fill in your review question and scope
Section I.B is the hinge of the whole review. A scoping question narrows what counts as relevant reading — without it, you will drown in sources. If your question is "everything about X," narrow it to "X's effect on Y in undergraduate samples, 2015–2025."
3. Group your sources into themes, not chronology
Sort your annotated reading notes into three thematic piles. If you end up with seven themes, you have too many — merge related ones. If a theme has fewer than three sources, you have not read enough in that area or the theme is too narrow to stand alone.
4. Write the synthesis and gap section
Section V is where reviewers and graders look hardest. Name what the themes collectively establish, then name what they leave open. Each identified gap should be specific enough that a reader could design a study to fill it.
5. Add a brief methodology note
Graduate-level reviews require a methodology note; undergraduate ones benefit from one. Even a two-paragraph description of databases and search terms signals systematic reading rather than a convenience sample of sources.
6. Draft the conclusion and implications
The conclusion is the shortest section and the easiest to weaken with generic language. State the single most important synthesis claim in one sentence, then gesture forward — ideally to a specific research question your review supports.
7. Verify every citation before submission
Open each cited article and confirm authorship, year, journal volume and issue, page range, and DOI. See the APA citation style guide for in-text and reference formats. Reviews live and die on citation accuracy.
Section-by-section guide
Introduction
The introduction names the review question, scopes what counts as relevant literature, and previews the thematic organization. A review introduction without a stated question is a topic overview, not a review.
Thematic sections (II–IV)
Each thematic block synthesizes three to five sources in conversation. A theme is not a list — it is a claim about what a group of sources collectively argue, with the internal disagreements and tensions made visible.
Synthesis and gap identification
This is the section that converts a review from a summary into a contribution. Synthesis names what the themes collectively establish; gap identification names what they collectively leave open. Strong reviews spend 15–20 percent of wordcount here.
Methodology note
The methodology note explains how you found and selected sources. Systematic reviews require extensive methodology; narrative reviews can get by with a paragraph. Either way, it signals that the reading is deliberate rather than opportunistic.
Conclusion and implications
The conclusion states the most important takeaway and points forward to the research question the synthesis has opened up. It is short and load-bearing.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Organizing source-by-source instead of thematically. A review that walks through "Smith 2020, then Jones 2021, then Patel 2022" reads as an annotated bibliography. Reorganize into themes that make claims.
- Skipping the synthesis section. A review without synthesis is a summary. Always spend at least 15 percent of wordcount explicitly synthesizing across themes and naming gaps.
- Treating old sources as automatically foundational. A 1987 paper is foundational only if it continues to shape the field's questions — cite it if so, skip it if not. Age alone does not confer authority.
- Overclaiming a gap. Identified gaps must be defensible. "No one has studied X" is almost always wrong. "Existing studies of X focus on population Y and use method Z, leaving population W under-examined" is honest and specific.
- Substituting template completion for reading. Filling in a literature review template without having read the sources is a direct academic integrity violation. See the academic responsibility guide for framing.
Frequently asked questions
Does using a literature review template count as plagiarism?
No. A thematic review structure — introduction, themes, synthesis, conclusion — is a widespread academic convention, not authored content. Your themes, your source selection, your synthesis, and your identification of gaps are all original. What would be plagiarism: copying another student's filled-in synthesis block or submitting a review whose sources you have not actually read.
How many sources does a literature review need?
For a 3000-word review, expect 20 to 35 sources across three to five themes. Systematic reviews cite more (50+ in many cases); narrative reviews in coursework cite fewer (15–25). Under 12 is usually too thin for a graduate review.
How recent do my sources need to be?
Depends on the field. Psychology and education typically privilege the last 10 to 15 years; history and theoretical work may span decades or centuries. Always include foundational sources when they still shape the field's questions — currency is a guideline, not a rule.
Should I include methodology in an undergraduate lit review?
A brief methodology note (one short paragraph) strengthens any review by showing deliberate selection. Full systematic methodology is required only for systematic reviews and PRISMA-style reporting.
Do I need to disclose using a template?
No. Structural templates are writing conventions and do not require disclosure. If you use AI to draft content inside the template, or to summarize sources, different rules apply — see the AI disclosure guide for academic papers.
Can I reuse this template for a thesis chapter?
Yes, with one adjustment: a thesis literature review chapter is typically longer (6000–10000 words) and includes an expanded theoretical framework section before the themes. Scale each section proportionally and add a framework block between sections I and II.