An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Literature Search: Databases and Gray Literature
The literature search.
- A systematic review search includes a search of databases, gray literature, personal communications, and a handsearch of high impact journals in the related field. See our list of recommended databases and gray literature sources on this page.
- a comprehensive literature search can not be dependent on a single database, nor on bibliographic databases only.
- inclusion of multiple databases helps avoid publication bias (georaphic bias or bias against publication of negative results).
- The Cochrane Collaboration recommends PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) at a minimum.
- NOTE: The Cochrane Collaboration and the IOM recommend that the literature search be conducted by librarians or persons with extensive literature search experience. Please contact the NIH Librarians for assistance with the literature search component of your systematic review.
Cochrane Library
A collection of six databases that contain different types of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials here.
European database of biomedical and pharmacologic literature.
PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books.
Largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and quality web sources. Contains conference papers.
Web of Science
World's leading citation databases. Covers over 12,000 of the highest impact journals worldwide, including Open Access journals and over 150,000 conference proceedings. Coverage in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities, with coverage to 1900.
Subject Specific Databases
APA PsycINFO
Over 4.5 million abstracts of peer-reviewed literature in the behavioral and social sciences. Includes conference papers, book chapters, psychological tests, scales and measurement tools.
CINAHL Plus
Comprehensive journal index to nursing and allied health literature, includes books, nursing dissertations, conference proceedings, practice standards and book chapters.
Latin American and Caribbean health sciences literature database
Gray Literature
- Gray Literature is the term for information that falls outside the mainstream of published journal and mongraph literature, not controlled by commercial publishers
- hard to find studies, reports, or dissertations
- conference abstracts or papers
- governmental or private sector research
- clinical trials - ongoing or unpublished
- experts and researchers in the field
- Library catalogs
- Professional association websites
- Google Scholar - Search scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources, including theses, books, abstracts and articles.
- Dissertation Abstracts - dissertation and theses database - NIH Library biomedical librarians can access and search for you.
- NTIS - central resource for government-funded scientific, technical, engineering, and business related information.
- AHRQ - agency for healthcare research and quality
- Open Grey - system for information on grey literature in Europe. Open access to 700,000 references to the grey literature.
- World Health Organization - providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.
- New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report - a bimonthly publication of The New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM) alerting readers to new gray literature publications in health services research and selected public health topics. NOTE: Discontinued as of Jan 2017, but resources are still accessible.
- Gray Source Index
- OpenDOAR - directory of academic repositories
- International Clinical Trials Registery Platform - from the World Health Organization
- Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry
- Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry
- Chinese Clinical Trial Registry -
- ClinicalTrials.gov - U.S. and international federally and privately supported clinical trials registry and results database
- Clinical Trials Registry - India
- EU clinical Trials Register
- Japan Primary Registries Network
- Pan African Clinical Trials Registry
Literature Reviews & Search Strategies
- Defining the Literature Review
- Types of Literature Reviews
Use Multiple Databases
- Search Strategies
- Organizing Your Literature
- Books: Research Design & Scholarly Writing
- Recommended Tutorials
While not every literature search you undertake will be for a systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook's statement that "a search of MEDLINE alone is not considered adequate" holds true for almost all literature reviews. You need to go beyond one database to get a more comprehensive picture of your topic and to minimize selection bias.
There are A LOT of databases that you could potential search for academic/scholarly articles to use in your literature review. We recommend focusing on resources that specializes in academic sources (ie databases), rather than a general search tool like Google because a lot of scholarly literature is still not discoverable on the open web and when it is you'll often hit a paywall and have to head to a subscription database available through the library to read the full article any way.
All our databases are listed on the A-Z Databases List , these are a few, often recommended, examples:
- << Previous: Types of Literature Reviews
- Next: Search Strategies >>
- Last Updated: Jun 14, 2023 11:18 AM
- URL: https://mcphs.libguides.com/litreviews
- En español – ExME
- Em português – EME
Literature searches: what databases are available?
Posted on 6th April 2021 by Izabel de Oliveira
Many types of research require a search of the medical literature as part of the process of understanding the current evidence or knowledge base. This can be done using one or more biomedical bibliographic databases. [1]
Bibliographic databases make the information contained in the papers more visible to the scientific community and facilitate locating the desired literature.
This blog describes some of the main bibliographic databases which index medical journals.
PubMed was launched in 1996 and, since June 1997, provides free and unlimited access for all users through the internet. PubMed database contains more than 30 million references of biomedical literature from approximately 7,000 journals. The largest percentage of records in PubMed comes from MEDLINE (95%), which contains 25 million records from over 5,600 journals. Other records derive from other sources such as In-process citations, ‘Ahead of Print’ citations, NCBI Bookshelf, etc.
The second largest component of PubMed is PubMed Central (PMC) . Launched in 2000, PMC is a permanent collection of full-text life sciences and biomedical journal articles. PMC also includes articles deposited by journal publishers and author manuscripts, published articles that are submitted in compliance with the public access policies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other research funding agencies. PMC contains approximately 4.5 million articles.
Some National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources associated with PubMed are the NLM Catalog and MedlinePlus. The NLM Catalog contains bibliographic records for over 1.4 million journals, books, audiovisuals, electronic resources, and other materials. It also includes detailed indexing information for journals in PubMed and other NCBI databases, although not all materials in the NLM Catalog are part of NLM’s collection. MedlinePlus is a consumer health website providing information on various health topics, drugs, dietary supplements, and health tools.
MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) is the NLM controlled vocabulary used for indexing articles in PubMed. It is used by indexers who analyze and maintain the PubMed database to reflect the subject content of journal articles as they are published. Indexers typically select 10–12 MeSH terms to describe every paper.
Embase is considered the second most popular database after MEDLINE. More than 32 million records from over 8,200 journals from more than 95 countries, and ‘grey literature’ from over 2.4 million conference abstracts, are estimated to be in the Embase content.
Embase contains subtopics in health care such as complementary and alternative medicine, prognostic studies, telemedicine, psychiatry, and health technology. Besides that, it is also widely used for research on drug-related topics as it offers better coverage than MEDLINE on pharmaceutics-related literature.
In 2010, Embase began to include all MEDLINE citations. MEDLINE records are delivered to Elsevier daily and are incorporated into Embase after de-duplication with records already indexed by Elsevier to produce ‘MEDLINE-unique’ records. These MEDLINE-unique records are not re-indexed by Elsevier. However, their indexing is mapped to Emtree terms used in Embase to ensure that Emtree terminology can be used to search all Embase records, including those originally derived from MEDLINE.
Since this coverage expansion—at least in theory and without taking into consideration the different indexing practices of the two databases—a search in Embase alone should cover every record in both Embase and MEDLINE, making Embase a possible “one-stop” search engine for medical research [1].
Emtree is a hierarchically structured, controlled vocabulary for biomedicine and the related life sciences. It includes a whole range of terms for drugs, diseases, medical devices, and essential life science concepts. Emtree is used to index all of the Embase content. This process includes full-text indexing of journal articles, which is done by experts.
The most important index of the technical-scientific literature in Latin America and the Caribbean, LILACS , was created in 1985 to record scientific and technical production in health. It has been maintained and updated by a network of more than 600 institutions of education, government, and health research and coordinated by Latin America and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), and World Health Organization (WHO).
LILACS contains scientific and technical literature from over 908 journals from 26 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, with free access. About 900,000 records from articles with peer review, theses and dissertations, government documents, conference proceedings, and books; more than 480,000 of them are available with the full-text link in open access.
The LILACS Methodology is a set of standards, manuals, guides, and applications in continuous development, intended for the collection, selection, description, indexing of documents, and generation of databases. This centralised methodology enables the cooperation between Latin American and Caribbean countries to create local and national databases, all feeding into the LILACS database. Currently, the databases LILACS, BBO, BDENF, MEDCARIB, and national databases of the countries of Latin America are part of the LILACS System.
Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS) is the multilingual and structured vocabulary created by BIREME to serve as a unique language in indexing articles from scientific journals, books, congress proceedings, technical reports, and other types of materials, and also for searching and retrieving subjects from scientific literature from information sources available on the Virtual Health Library (VHL) such as LILACS, MEDLINE, and others. It was developed from the MeSH with the purpose of permitting the use of common terminology for searching in multiple languages, and providing a consistent and unique environment for the retrieval of information. DeCS vocabulary is dynamic and totals 34,118 descriptors and qualifiers, of which 29,716 come from MeSH, and 4,402 are exclusive.
Cochrane CENTRAL
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) is a database of reports of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Most records are obtained from the bibliographic databases PubMed and Embase, with additional records from the published and unpublished sources of CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
Although CENTRAL first began publication in 1996, records are included irrespective of the date of publication, and the language of publication is also not a restriction to being included in the database. You won’t find the full text to the article on CENTRAL but there is often a summary of the article, in addition to the standard details of author, source, and year.
Within CENTRAL, there are ‘Specialized Registers’ which are collected and maintained by Cochrane Review Groups (plus a few Cochrane Fields), which include reports of controlled trials relevant to their area of interest. Some Cochrane Centres search the general healthcare literature of their countries or regions in order to contribute records to CENTRAL.
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect i s Elsevier’s most important peer-reviewed academic literature platform. It was launched in 1997 and contains 16 million records from over 2,500 journals, including over 250 Open Access publications, such as Cell Reports and The Lancet Global Health, as well as 39,000 eBooks.
ScienceDirect topics include:
- health sciences;
- life sciences;
- physical sciences;
- engineering;
- social sciences; and
- humanities.
Web of Science
Web of Science (previously Web of Knowledge) is an online scientific citation indexing service created in 1997 by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), and currently maintained by Clarivate Analytics.
Web of Science covers several fields of the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Its main resource is the Web of Science Core Collection which includes over 1 billion cited references dating back to 1900, indexed from 21,100 peer-reviewed journals, including Open Access journals, books and proceedings.
Web of Science also offers regional databases which cover:
- Latin America (SciELO Citation Index);
- China (Chinese Science Citation Database);
- Korea (Korea Citation Index);
- Russia (Russian Science Citation Index).
Boolean operators
To make the search more precise, we can use boolean operators in databases between our keywords.
We use boolean operators to focus on a topic, particularly when this topic contains multiple search terms, and to connect various pieces of information in order to find exactly what we are looking for.
Boolean operators connect the search words to either narrow or broaden the set of results. The three basic boolean operators are: AND, OR, and NOT.
- AND narrows a search by telling the database that all keywords used must be found in the article in order for it to appear in our results.
- OR broadens a search by telling the database that any of the words it connects are acceptable (this is useful when we are searching for synonymous words).
- NOT narrows the search by telling the database to eliminate all terms that follow it from our search results (this is helpful when we are interested in a specific aspect of a topic or when we want to exclude a type of article.
References (pdf)
You may also be interested in the following blogs for further reading:
Conducting a systematic literature search
Reviewing the evidence: what method should I use?
Cochrane Crowd for students: what’s in it for you?
Izabel de Oliveira
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Subscribe to our newsletter
You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.
Related Articles
Epistemonikos: the world’s largest repository of healthcare systematic reviews
Learn more about the Epistemonikos Foundation and its repository of healthcare systematic reviews. The first in a series of three blogs.
How do you use the Epistemonikos database?
Learn how to use the Epistemonikos database, the world’s largest multilingual repository of healthcare evidence. The second in a series of three blogs.
Epistemonikos: All you need is L·OVE
Discover more about the ‘Living OVerview of Evidence’ platform from Epistemonikos, which maps the best evidence relevant for making health decisions. The final blog in a series of three focusing on the Epistemonikos Foundation.
- All Solutions
Expertly curated abstract & citation database
About Scopus
Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyse and visualise research.
As research becomes increasingly global, interdisciplinary and collaborative, you can make sure that critical research from around the world is not missed when you choose Scopus.
“Speed is very important … I can easily identify what I need to know, read it, digest it and move on to the next one.” James, Research Pathologist, Medical Device R&D, Scopus user
“Scopus is very customer-friendly… You get more information from all different fields. It saves a lot of time.” Chris, Head of R&D, Diagnostic Testing, Scopus user
“Scopus informs every phase of the editorial process. I would not want to do this job without it, and I intend to continue using it throughout my career.” William, Professor of Economics, University of Tennessee
More information (in English)
- Why I would not want to be without Scopus; an editor’s story
- NASI Scopus Young Scientists Awards 2019
Elsevier.com visitor survey
We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.
How to undertake a literature search: a step-by-step guide
Affiliation.
- 1 Literature Search Specialist, Library and Archive Service, Royal College of Nursing, London.
- PMID: 32279549
- DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2020.29.7.431
Undertaking a literature search can be a daunting prospect. Breaking the exercise down into smaller steps will make the process more manageable. This article suggests 10 steps that will help readers complete this task, from identifying key concepts to choosing databases for the search and saving the results and search strategy. It discusses each of the steps in a little more detail, with examples and suggestions on where to get help. This structured approach will help readers obtain a more focused set of results and, ultimately, save time and effort.
Keywords: Databases; Literature review; Literature search; Reference management software; Research questions; Search strategy.
- Databases, Bibliographic*
- Information Storage and Retrieval / methods*
- Nursing Research
- Review Literature as Topic*
Doing the literature review: Selecting databases
- The literature review: why?
- Types of literature review
Selecting databases
- Scoping search
- Using a database thesaurus
- Advanced search in a database
- Citation information
- Using a reference manager
- Reporting your search strategy
- Writing & structuring
- When to stop
You have to decide which databases you will use in your literature search. To limit location bias, you have to use more than one database. Make an informed choice! In this module we list some database features you can take into account.
There are different types of literature databases:
- Discipline specific databases , such as PsycINFO, Philosopher's Index, Sociologial Abstracts and Business Source Premier, offer extra search tools, for example a thesaurus . The journals (some databases even select at the article level !) indexed in these databases are selected carefully, based on selection criteria. These databases may be available via different vendors/platforms.
- Multidisciplinary databases , such as Scopus and Web of Science, index academic journals from all disciplines, ranging from astronomy to zoology. These will help you find relevant articles in journals outside your own discipline, but non-relevant results are hard to avoid. Both Scopus and Web of Science are citation databases, which means that they track citations: you can see if an article is cited in other papers in the database and by which authors. JSTOR also offers access to journals from different disciplines, but be aware that this database has an archive function - for most journals you can’t access or search the most recently published volumes.
- Publishers databases , such as ScienceDirect (Elsevier), SpringerLink and Wiley Online Library, are limited to publications from a particular publisher. Therefore they are not suitable for a literature search for a review. But of course, you will use these databases to retrieve the full text of articles.
The Checklist Selecting Databases provides an overview of features you have to take into account when choosing the databases to use for your literature review.
What about Google Scholar?
Google Scholar indexes websites with scholarly articles – including websites of academic publishers, university repositories and personal websites of researchers . A major difference between Google Scholar and A&I databases is that Google Scholar doesn’t provide information about the indexed websites or journals. It’s hard to check if a particular journal is indexed cover-to-cover in Google Scholar. Google Scholar gives no definition of ‘scholarly’. Amongst the scholarly results you might get results from predatory publishers and papers written by students.
When you use Google Scholar for a search for your literature review, be aware that it can be hard to perform a structured, repeatable search:
- the advanced search options and filter options are limited
- you can't combine two search queries afterwards
- you can enter up to 256 characters in the search box of Google Scholar - if you want to include synonyms of search terms you often need more characters
- Google Scholar limits the results of any search query to 1000 papers, irrespectible of the number on top of the search results
- the information shown in the search results of Google Scholar can be very limited
- the metadata of articles (for example the publication year) can be incorrect, due to parsing errors
- specific journals or publishers might not be indexed by Google Scholar, due to technical reasons.
Google Scholar is a great tool for locating articles you know the titles of. In the Scholar settings you can add a Library link to the Erasmus University Library (see the module Get the most out of Google Scholar ) then follow the FULL-TEXT @ EUR links to the published version of an article in the EUR Library collection.
TIP : Publish or Perish (also called PoP) is software used for citation analysis, based on Google Scholar citation data. The general citation search in Publish or Perish allows you to perform an Advanced Scholar Search query and analyse its results. The advantage is the presentation of the results: you can sort by author, year, times cited, publication and publisher. The abstract is not shown. It's possible to export the output, for example to Excel.
- Overview of all EUR databases
- Guides per discipline Overview of recommended sources per discipline.
- Disclaimer database use
- Database Fair use policy EUR
Email the Information skills team
- << Previous: Types of literature review
- Next: Scoping search >>
- Last Updated: Mar 18, 2024 5:00 PM
- URL: https://libguides.eur.nl/informationskillslitreview
- University of Oregon Libraries
- Research Guides
How to Write a Literature Review
- Searching Article Databases
- Literature Reviews: A Recap
- Reading Journal Articles
- Does it Describe a Literature Review?
- 1. Identify the Question
- 2. Review Discipline Styles
Searching in Google vs. Library Databases
Searching databases (video tutorial), what's in a database (infographic).
- Finding Full-Text of an Article
- Citation Chaining
- When to Stop Searching
- 4. Manage Your References
- 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
- 6. Synthesize
- 7. Write a Literature Review
Check out the videos below to learn more or contact a librarian for some search tips!
Photo Credit: UO Libraries
Watch this video from Yavapai College Library to learn how to search library databases.
( Click to Enlarge Image )
Long Description of "What's in a Database?" for web accessibility
- << Previous: 3. Search the Literature
- Next: Finding Full-Text of an Article >>
- Last Updated: Jan 10, 2024 4:46 PM
- URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview
Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures
1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485
- Visit us on Facebook
- Visit us on Twitter
- Visit us on Youtube
- Visit us on Instagram
- Report a Concern
- Nondiscrimination and Title IX
- Accessibility
- Privacy Policy
- Find People
- Northeastern University Library
- Research Subject Guides
- Guides for Library Services
- Systematic Reviews and Evidence Syntheses
- Evidence Synthesis Service
- Types of Systematic Reviews in the Health Sciences
- Beginning Your Project
- Standards & Guidance
- Critical Appraisal
- Evidence-Based Assignments
- Tips for a Successful Review Team
- Training and Tutorials
Systematic Reviews and Evidence Syntheses : Databases
You will want to search at least three databases for your systematic review. Three databases alone does not complete the search standards for systematic review requirements. You will also have to complete a search of the grey literature and complete additional hand searches. Which databases you should search is highly dependent on your systematic review topic, so it is recommended you meet with a librarian .
Commonly Used Health Sciences Databases
Commonly used social sciences databases, commonly used education databases.
- Resources for Finding Systematic Reviews
You will want to search at least three databases for your systematic review. Three databases alone does not complete the search standards for systematic review requirements as you will also have additional searches of the grey literature and hand searches to complete. Which databases you search is highly dependent on your systematic review topic, so it is recommended you meet with a librarian .
Cochrane, which is considered the gold standard for clinical systematic reviews, recommends searching the following three databases, at a minimum: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
- ERIC (Education Resources Institute) This link opens in a new window Citations to education information, including scholarly articles, professional literature, education dissertations, and books, plus grey literature such as curriculum guides, conference proceedings, government publications, and white papers. Covers 1966 to the present. more... less... Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.
Looking to Find Systematic Reviews?
There are a number of places to look for systematic reviews, including within the commonly used databases listed on this page. Some other resources to consider are:
- Systematic Review Repository - International Initiative for Impact Evaluation The systematic review repository from International Initiative for Impact Evaluation is an essential resource for policymakers and researchers who are looking for synthesized evidence on the effects of social and economic interventions in low- and middle- income countries.
- Epistemonikos Epistemonikos is a collaborative, multilingual database of health evidence. It is the largest source of systematic reviews relevant for health-decision making, and a large source of other types of scientific evidence. PLEASE NOTE: Epistemonikos is a systematic reviews focused database. It pulls in systematic reviews from a number of different international sources and pulls in the studies those reviews. While you will find randomized controlled trials and other primary studies in this database, they are only added in because of their association with a systematic review. Therefore, searching here for randomized controlled trials or other primary studies would NOT be considered a comprehensive search.
- << Previous: Types of Systematic Reviews in the Health Sciences
- Next: Resources for Completing Evidence Syntheses >>
- Ask a Librarian
- Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 1:37 PM
- URL: https://subjectguides.lib.neu.edu/systematicreview
- 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)
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.
What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .
There are five key steps to writing a literature review:
- Search for relevant literature
- Evaluate sources
- Identify themes, debates, and gaps
- Outline the structure
- Write your literature review
A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.
Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
Table of contents
What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.
- Quick Run-through
- Step 1 & 2
When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:
- Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
- Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
- Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
- Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
- Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.
Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.
Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services
Discover proofreading & editing
Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.
- Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
- Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
- Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
- Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)
You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.
Download Word doc Download Google doc
Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .
If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .
Make a list of keywords
Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.
- Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
- Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
- Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth
Search for relevant sources
Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:
- Your university’s library catalogue
- Google Scholar
- Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
- Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
- EconLit (economics)
- Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)
You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.
Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.
You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.
For each publication, ask yourself:
- What question or problem is the author addressing?
- What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
- What are the key theories, models, and methods?
- Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
- What are the results and conclusions of the study?
- How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?
Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.
You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.
Take notes and cite your sources
As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.
It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.
The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!
The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.
Try for free
To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:
- Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
- Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
- Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
- Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
- Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?
This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.
- Most research has focused on young women.
- There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
- But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.
There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).
Chronological
The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.
Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.
If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.
For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.
Methodological
If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:
- Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
- Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
- Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources
Theoretical
A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.
You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.
Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.
The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.
Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.
As you write, you can follow these tips:
- 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts
In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.
When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !
This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.
Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.
Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Sampling methods
- Simple random sampling
- Stratified sampling
- Cluster sampling
- Likert scales
- Reproducibility
Statistics
- Null hypothesis
- Statistical power
- Probability distribution
- Effect size
- Poisson distribution
Research bias
- Optimism bias
- Cognitive bias
- Implicit bias
- Hawthorne effect
- Anchoring bias
- Explicit bias
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .
It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.
There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:
- To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
- To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
- To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
- To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
- To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic
Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.
The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .
A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .
An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.
✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
Advertisement
Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review
- LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
- Published: 02 March 2022
Cite this article
- Cecilia Silvestri ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2528-601X 1 ,
- Luca Silvestri ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-899X 2 ,
- Michela Piccarozzi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-9462 1 &
- Alessandro Ruggieri 1
2853 Accesses
11 Citations
9 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
A Correction to this article was published on 24 March 2022
This article has been updated
The implementation of sustainability and circular economy (CE) models in agri-food production can promote resource efficiency, reduce environmental burdens, and ensure improved and socially responsible systems. In this context, indicators for the measurement of sustainability play a crucial role. Indicators can measure CE strategies aimed to preserve functions, products, components, materials, or embodied energy. Although there is broad literature describing sustainability and CE indicators, no study offers such a comprehensive framework of indicators for measuring sustainability and CE in the agri-food sector.
Starting from this central research gap, a systematic literature review has been developed to measure the sustainability in the agri-food sector and, based on these findings, to understand how indicators are used and for which specific purposes.
The analysis of the results allowed us to classify the sample of articles in three main clusters (“Assessment-LCA,” “Best practice,” and “Decision-making”) and has shown increasing attention to the three pillars of sustainability (triple bottom line). In this context, an integrated approach of indicators (environmental, social, and economic) offers the best solution to ensure an easier transition to sustainability.
Conclusions
The sample analysis facilitated the identification of new categories of impact that deserve attention, such as the cooperation among stakeholders in the supply chain and eco-innovation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this article
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the temporal distribution of the articles under analysis
Source: Authors’ elaborations. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of articles from the three major journals
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the composition of the sample according to the three clusters identified by the analysis
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of articles over time by cluster
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the network visualization
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the overlay visualization
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles by scientific field
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Article classification based on their cluster to which they belong and scientific field
Source: Authors’ elaboration
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of items over time based on TBL
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the Pareto diagram highlighting the most used indicators in literature for measuring sustainability in the agri-food sector
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution over time of articles divided into conceptual and empirical
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles, divided into conceptual and empirical, in-depth analysis
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the geographical distribution of the authors
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of authors according to the continent from which they originate
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of publication of authors according to the continent from which they originate
Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Sustainability measurement indicators and impact categories of LCA, S-LCA, and LCC tools should be integrated in order to provide stakeholders with best practices as guidelines and tools to support both decision-making and measurement, according to the circular economy approach
Similar content being viewed by others
Common Methods and Sustainability Indicators
Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions
Hamid El Bilali
Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: where are food security and nutrition?
Change history, 24 march 2022.
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02038-9
Acero AP, Rodriguez C, Ciroth A (2017) LCIA methods: impact assessment methods in life cycle assessment and their impact categories. Version 1.5.6. Green Delta 1–23
Accorsi R, Versari L, Manzini R (2015) Glass vs. plastic: Life cycle assessment of extra-virgin olive oil bottles across global supply chains. Sustain 7:2818–2840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032818
Adjei-Bamfo P, Maloreh-Nyamekye T, Ahenkan A (2019) The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001
Article Google Scholar
Aivazidou E, Tsolakis N, Vlachos D, Iakovou E (2015) Water footprint management policies for agrifood supply chains: a critical taxonomy and a system dynamics modelling approach. Chem Eng Trans 43:115–120. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543020
Alhaddi H (2015) Triple bottom line and sustainability: a literature review. Bus Manag Stud 1:6–10
Allaoui H, Guo Y, Sarkis J (2019) Decision support for collaboration planning in sustainable supply chains. J Clean Prod 229:761–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.367
Alshqaqeeq F, Amin Esmaeili M, Overcash M, Twomey J (2020) Quantifying hospital services by carbon footprint: a systematic literature review of patient care alternatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104560
Anwar F, Chaudhry FN, Nazeer S et al (2016) Causes of ozone layer depletion and its effects on human: review. Atmos Clim Sci 06:129–134. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2016.61011
Aquilani B, Silvestri C, Ruggieri A (2016). A Systematic Literature Review on Total Quality Management Critical Success Factors and the Identification of New Avenues of Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2016-0003
Aramyan L, Hoste R, Van Den Broek W et al (2011) Towards sustainable food production: a scenario study of the European pork sector. J Chain Netw Sci 11:177–189. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2011.Qpork8
Arfini F, Antonioli F, Cozzi E et al (2019) Sustainability, innovation and rural development: the case of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO. Sustain 11:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184978
Assembly UG (2005) Resolution adopted by the general assembly. New York, NY
Avilés-Palacios C, Rodríguez-Olalla A (2021) The sustainability of waste management models in circular economies. Sustain 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137105
Azevedo SG, Silva ME, Matias JCO, Dias GP (2018) The influence of collaboration initiatives on the sustainability of the cashew supply chain. Sustain 10:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062075
Bajaj S, Garg R, Sethi M (2016) Total quality management: a critical literature review using Pareto analysis. Int J Product Perform Manag 67:128–154
Banasik A, Kanellopoulos A, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Claassen GDH (2019) Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food supply chains: a case study for mushroom production planning. J Clean Prod 216:249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.153
Barth H, Ulvenblad PO, Ulvenblad P (2017) Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Sustain 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620
Bastas A, Liyanage K (2018) Sustainable supply chain quality management: a systematic review
Beckerman W (1992) Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment? World Dev 20:481–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90038-W
Belaud JP, Prioux N, Vialle C, Sablayrolles C (2019) Big data for agri-food 4.0: application to sustainability management for by-products supply chain. Comput Ind 111:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.06.006
Bele B, Norderhaug A, Sickel H (2018) Localized agri-food systems and biodiversity. Agric 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8020022
Bilali H El, Calabrese G, Iannetta M et al (2020) Environmental sustainability of typical agro-food products: a scientifically sound and user friendly approach. New Medit 19:69–83. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2002e
Blanc S, Massaglia S, Brun F et al (2019) Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: an integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092475
Bloemhof JM, van der Vorst JGAJ, Bastl M, Allaoui H (2015) Sustainability assessment of food chain logistics. Int J Logist Res Appl 18:101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1015508
Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L (2018) Deconstructing criteria and assessment tools to build agri-sustainability indicators and support farmers’ decision-making process. J Clean Prod 182:1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.055
Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L, Pérez-Mesa JC (2019) Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: evidences from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system. J Clean Prod 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.054
Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Hug SE (2018) Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics 114:427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8
Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. New York, 1-17
Bracquené E, Dewulf W, Duflou JR (2020) Measuring the performance of more circular complex product supply chains. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104608
Burck J, Hagen U, Bals C et al (2021) Climate Change Performance Index
Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917
Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM et al (2017) Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408
Capitanio F, Coppola A, Pascucci S (2010) Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness 26:503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20239
Caputo P, Zagarella F, Cusenza MA et al (2020) Energy-environmental assessment of the UIA-OpenAgri case study as urban regeneration project through agriculture. Sci Total Environ 729:138819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138819
Article CAS Google Scholar
Chabowski BR, Mena JA, Gonzalez-Padron TL (2011) The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. J Acad Mark Sci 39:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7
Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus M et al (2017) A comparison between two main academic literature collections : Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc Sci 9:18–26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
Chams N, Guesmi B, Gil JM (2020) Beyond scientific contribution: assessment of the societal impact of research and innovation to build a sustainable agri-food sector. J Environ Manage 264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110455
Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ, Jayamaha NP, Ramilan T (2019) Absolute sustainability-based life cycle assessment (ASLCA): a benchmarking approach to operate agri-food systems within the 2°C global carbon budget. J Ind Ecol 23:906–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12830
Chaparro-Africano AM (2019) Toward generating sustainability indicators for agroecological markets. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:40–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1566192
Colicchia C, Strozzi F (2012) Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review
Conca L, Manta F, Morrone D, Toma P (2021) The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Bus Strateg Environ 30:1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2672
Coppola A, Ianuario S, Romano S, Viccaro M (2020) Corporate social responsibility in agri-food firms: the relationship between CSR actions and firm’s performance. AIMS Environ Sci 7:542–558. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2020034
Corona B, Shen L, Reike D et al (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498
Correia MS (2019) Sustainability: An overview of the triple bottom line and sustainability implementation. Int J Strateg Eng 2:29–38. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103
Coteur I, Marchand F, Debruyne L, Lauwers L (2019) Structuring the myriad of sustainability assessments in agri-food systems: a case in Flanders. J Clean Prod 209:472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.066
CREA (2020) L’agricoltura italiana conta 2019
Crenna E, Sala S, Polce C, Collina E (2017) Pollinators in life cycle assessment: towards a framework for impact assessment. J Clean Prod 140:525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.058
D’Eusanio M, Serreli M, Zamagni A, Petti L (2018) Assessment of social dimension of a jar of honey: a methodological outline. J Clean Prod 199:503–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.157
Dania WAP, Xing K, Amer Y (2018) Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 186:851–864
De Pascale A, Arbolino R, Szopik-Depczyńska K et al (2021) A systematic review for measuring circular economy: the 61 indicators. J Clean Prod 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942
De Schoenmakere M, Gillabel J (2017) Circular by design: products in the circular economy
Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Strazza C, Del Borghi M (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.083
Del Borghi A, Strazza C, Magrassi F et al (2018) Life cycle assessment for eco-design of product–package systems in the food industry—the case of legumes. Sustain Prod Consum 13:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.001
Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan B (ed) The sage handbook of organization research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Cornwall, pp 671–689
Google Scholar
Dietz T, Grabs J, Chong AE (2019) Mainstreamed voluntary sustainability standards and their effectiveness: evidence from the Honduran coffee sector. Regul Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12239
Dixon-Woods M (2011) Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med 9:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-39
do Canto NR, Bossle MB, Marques L, Dutra M, (2020) Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: a qualitative investigation of food supply chains in Brazil. Manag Environ Qual an Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0275
dos Santos RR, Guarnieri P (2020) Social gains for artisanal agroindustrial producers induced by cooperation and collaboration in agri-food supply chain. Soc Responsib J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2019-0323
Doukidis GI, Matopoulos A, Vlachopoulou M, Manthou V, Manos B (2007) A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri‐food industry. Supply Chain Manag an Int Journal 12:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710742491
Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manag 53:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12145
Durán-Sánchez A, Álvarez-García J, Río-Rama D, De la Cruz M (2018) Sustainable water resources management: a bibliometric overview. Water 10:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091191
Duru M, Therond O (2015) Livestock system sustainability and resilience in intensive production zones: which form of ecological modernization? Reg Environ Chang 15:1651–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0722-9
Edison Fondazione (2019) Le eccellenze agricole italiane. I primati europei e mondiali dell’Italia nei prodotti vegetali. Milan (IT)
Ehrenfeld JR (2005) The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46(2)46:23–25
Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F (2017) Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: a critical analysis. J Clean Prod 142:2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196
Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford
Esposito B, Sessa MR, Sica D, Malandrino O (2020) Towards circular economy in the agri-food sector. A systematic literature review. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12187401
European Commission (2018) Agri-food trade in 2018
European Commission (2019) Monitoring EU agri-food trade: development until September 2019
Eurostat (2018) Small and large farms in the EU - statistics from the farm structure survey
FAO (2011) Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Italy, Rome
FAO (2012) Energy-smart food at FAO: an overview. Italy, Rome
FAO (2014) Food wastage footprint: fool cost-accounting
FAO (2016) The state of food and agriculture climate change, agriculture and food security. Italy, Rome
FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Italy, Rome
FAO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome, Italy
Fassio F, Tecco N (2019) Circular economy for food: a systemic interpretation of 40 case histories in the food system in their relationships with SDGs. Systems 7:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7030043
Fathollahi A, Coupe SJ (2021) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) of road drainage systems for sustainability evaluation: quantifying the contribution of different life cycle phases. Sci Total Environ 776:145937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145937
Ferreira VJ, Arnal ÁJ, Royo P et al (2019) Energy and resource efficiency of electroporation-assisted extraction as an emerging technology towards a sustainable bio-economy in the agri-food sector. J Clean Prod 233:1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.030
Fiksel J (2006) A framework for sustainable remediation. JOM 8:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202595w
Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research
Franciosi C, Voisin A, Miranda S et al (2020) Measuring maintenance impacts on sustainability of manufacturing industries : from a systematic literature review to a framework proposal. J Clean Prod 260:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121065
Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Meuwissen MPM, Oude AGJML (2017) Total factor productivity: a framework for measuring agri-food supply chain performance towards sustainability. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 39:259–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppw008
Galdeano-Gómez E, Zepeda-Zepeda JA, Piedra-Muñoz L, Vega-López LL (2017) Family farm’s features influencing socio-economic sustainability: an analysis of the agri-food sector in southeast Spain. New Medit 16:50–61
Gallopín G, Herrero LMJ, Rocuts A (2014) Conceptual frameworks and visual interpretations of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev 17:298–326. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2014.064183
Gallopín GC (2003) Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un enfoque sistémico. Cepal, LATIN AMERICA
Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 72:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002947
Garofalo P, D’Andrea L, Tomaiuolo M et al (2017) Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains in Italy: the case of the whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assessment methodology. J Food Eng 200:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.12.007
Gava O, Bartolini F, Venturi F et al (2018) A reflection of the use of the life cycle assessment tool for agri-food sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010071
Gazzola P, Querci E (2017) The connection between the quality of life and sustainable ecological development. Eur Sci J 7881:1857–7431
Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy low and the economic process. Harward University Press, Cambridge Mass
Book Google Scholar
Gerbens-Leenes PW, Moll HC, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM (2003) Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems. Ecol Econ 46:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00140-X
Gésan-Guiziou G, Alaphilippe A, Aubin J et al (2020) Diversity and potentiality of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for agri-food research. Agron Sustain Dev 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00650-3
Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Godoy-Durán Á, Galdeano- Gómez E, Pérez-Mesa JC, Piedra-Muñoz L (2017) Assessing eco-efficiency and the determinants of horticultural family-farming in southeast Spain. J Environ Manage 204:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.037
Gold S, Kunz N, Reiner G (2017) Sustainable global agrifood supply chains: exploring the barriers. J Ind Ecol 21:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12440
Goucher L, Bruce R, Cameron DD et al (2017) The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nat Plants 3:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.12
Green A, Nemecek T, Chaudhary A, Mathys A (2020) Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Glob Food Sec 26:100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100406
Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future †. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v
Guiomar N, Godinho S, Pinto-Correia T et al (2018) Typology and distribution of small farms in Europe: towards a better picture. Land Use Policy 75:784–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.012
Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87:333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003
Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468
Hamam M, Chinnici G, Di Vita G et al (2021) Circular economy models in agro-food systems: a review. Sustain 13
Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Aziz NIHA (2021) An LCA-based environmental performance of rice production for developing a sustainable agri-food system in Malaysia. Environ Manage 67:146–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01365-7
Harvey M, Pilgrim S (2011) The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy 36:S40–S51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.009
Hawkes C, Ruel MT (2006) Understanding the links between agriculture and health. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, USA
Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science (80)344:1109LP–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361
Higgins V, Dibden J, Cocklin C (2015) Private agri-food governance and greenhouse gas abatement: constructing a corporate carbon economy. Geoforum 66:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.012
Hill T (1995) Manufacturing strategy: text and cases., Macmillan
Hjeresen DD, Gonzales R (2020) Green chemistry promote sustainable agriculture?The rewards are higher yields and less environmental contamination. Environemental Sci Techonology 103–107
Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (2009) Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects. Csiro Publishing, Collingwood, Australia
Horton P, Koh L, Guang VS (2016) An integrated theoretical framework to enhance resource efficiency, sustainability and human health in agri-food systems. J Clean Prod 120:164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.092
Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0130-4
Huffman T, Liu J, Green M et al (2015) Improving and evaluating the soil cover indicator for agricultural land in Canada. Ecol Indic 48:272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.008
Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.002
Ingrao C, Faccilongo N, Valenti F et al (2019) Tomato puree in the Mediterranean region: an environmental life cycle assessment, based upon data surveyed at the supply chain level. J Clean Prod 233:292–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.056
Iocola I, Angevin F, Bockstaller C et al (2020) An actor-oriented multi-criteria assessment framework to support a transition towards sustainable agricultural systems based on crop diversification. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135434
Irabien A, Darton RC (2016) Energy–water–food nexus in the Spanish greenhouse tomato production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1076-9
ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework
ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines
ISO 15392:2008 (2008) Sustainability in building construction–general principles
Istat (2019) Andamento dell’economia agricola
Jaakkola E (2020) Designing conceptual articles : four approaches. AMS Rev 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jin R, Yuan H, Chen Q (2019) Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029
Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt KH (2007) Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14:60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375
Jorgensen SE, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Twenty volumes of ecological indicators-an accounting short review. Ecol Indic 28:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.018
Joshi S, Sharma M, Kler R (2020) Modeling circular economy dimensions in agri-tourism clusters: sustainable performance and future research directions. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci 5:1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2020.5.6.080
Kamilaris A, Gao F, Prenafeta-Boldu FX, Ali MI (2017) Agri-IoT: a semantic framework for Internet of Things-enabled smart farming applications. In: 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things, WF-IoT 2016. pp 442–447
Karuppusami G, Gandhinathan R (2006) Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total quality management: a literature review and analysis. TQM Mag 18:372–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610671048
Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47:8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444
Khounani Z, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Moustakas K et al (2021) Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing olive wastes to biofuel, phosphate salts, natural antioxidant, and an oxygenated fuel additive (triacetin). J Clean Prod 278:123916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123916
Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500
Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod 175:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111
Kuisma M, Kahiluoto H (2017) Biotic resource loss beyond food waste: agriculture leaks worst. Resour Conserv Recycl 124:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.008
Laso J, Hoehn D, Margallo M et al (2018) Assessing energy and environmental efficiency of the Spanish agri-food system using the LCA/DEA methodology. Energies 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123395
Lee KM (2007) So What is the “triple bottom line”? Int J Divers Organ Communities Nations Annu Rev 6:67–72. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9532/cgp/v06i06/39283
Lehmann RJ, Hermansen JE, Fritz M et al (2011) Information services for European pork chains - closing gaps in information infrastructures. Comput Electron Agric 79:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.09.002
León-Bravo V, Caniato F, Caridi M, Johnsen T (2017) Collaboration for sustainability in the food supply chain: a multi-stage study in Italy. Sustainability 9:1253
Lepage A (2009) The quality of life as attribute of sustainability. TQM J 21:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938119
Li CZ, Zhao Y, Xiao B et al (2020) Research trend of the application of information technologies in construction and demolition waste management. J Clean Prod 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121458
Lo Giudice A, Mbohwa C, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C (2014) Life cycle assessment interpretation and improvement of the Sicilian artichokes production. Int J Environ Res 8:305–316. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2014.721
Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E (2020) Temporal issues in life cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01757-1
Luo J, Ji C, Qiu C, Jia F (2018) Agri-food supply chain management: bibliometric and content analyses. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051573
Lynch J, Donnellan T, Finn JA et al (2019) Potential development of Irish agricultural sustainability indicators for current and future policy evaluation needs. J Environ Manage 230:434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.070
MacArthur E (2013) Towards the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 2:23–44
MacArthur E (2017) Delivering the circular economy a toolkit for policymakers, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation
MacInnis DJ (2011) A framework for conceptual. J Mark 75:136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136
Mangla SK, Luthra S, Rich N et al (2018) Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 203:379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.012
Marotta G, Nazzaro C, Stanco M (2017) How the social responsibility creates value: models of innovation in Italian pasta industry. Int J Glob Small Bus 9:144–167. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2017.088923
Martucci O, Arcese G, Montauti C, Acampora A (2019) Social aspects in the wine sector: comparison between social life cycle assessment and VIVA sustainable wine project indicators. Resources 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020069
Mayring P (2004) Forum : Qualitative social research Sozialforschung 2. History of content analysis. A Companion to Qual Res 1:159–176
McKelvey B (2002) Managing coevolutionary dynamics. In: 18th EGOS Conference. Barcelona, Spain, pp 1–21
McMichael AJ, Butler CD, Folke C (2003) New visions for addressing sustainability. Science (80- ) 302:1191–1920
Mehmood A, Ahmed S, Viza E et al (2021) Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in agri-food supply chain: a review. Bus Strateg Dev 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.171
Mella P, Gazzola P (2011) Sustainability and quality of life: the development model. In: Kapounek S (ed) Enterprise and competitive environment. Mendel University: Brno, Czechia. 542–551
Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy ? A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112
Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A et al (2020) Recycled fibers in reinforced concrete: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 248:119207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119207
Miglietta PP, Morrone D (2018) Managing water sustainability: virtual water flows and economic water productivity assessment of the wine trade between Italy and the Balkans. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020543
Mitchell MGE, Chan KMA, Newlands NK, Ramankutty N (2020) Spatial correlations don’t predict changes in agricultural ecosystem services: a Canada-wide case study. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.539892
Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure?. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045
Morrissey JE, Dunphy NP (2015) Towards sustainable agri-food systems: the role of integrated sustainability and value assessment across the supply-chain. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 6:41–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSESD.2015070104
Moser G (2009) Quality of life and sustainability: toward person-environment congruity. J Environ Psychol 29:351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.002
Muijs D (2010) Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London
Muller MF, Esmanioto F, Huber N, Loures ER (2019) A systematic literature review of interoperability in the green Building Information Modeling lifecycle. J Clean Prod 223:397–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.114
Muradin M, Joachimiak-Lechman K, Foltynowicz Z (2018) Evaluation of eco-efficiency of two alternative agricultural biogas plants. Appl Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8112083
Naseer MA, ur R, Ashfaq M, Hassan S, et al (2019) Critical issues at the upstream level in sustainable supply chain management of agri-food industries: evidence from Pakistan’s citrus industry. Sustain 11:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051326
Nattassha R, Handayati Y, Simatupang TM, Siallagan M (2020) Understanding circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric Food Secur 9:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8
Nazari-Sharabian M, Ahmad S, Karakouzian M (2018) Climate change and eutrophication: a short review. Eng Technol Appl Sci Res 8:3668–3672. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2532694
Nazir N (2017) Understanding life cycle thinking and its practical application to agri-food system. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7:1861–1870. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.7.5.3578
Negra C, Remans R, Attwood S et al (2020) Sustainable agri-food investments require multi-sector co-development of decision tools. Ecol Indic 110:105851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105851
Newsham KK, Robinson SA (2009) Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 15:2574–2589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01944.x
Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012
Niero M, Kalbar PP (2019) Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002
Nikolaou IE, Tsagarakis KP (2021) An introduction to circular economy and sustainability: some existing lessons and future directions. Sustain Prod Consum 28:600–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.017
Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Clean Prod 28:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.007
Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Monforti F (2017) Energy flows and greenhouses gases of EU (European Union) national breads using an LCA (life cycle assessment) approach. J Clean Prod 140:455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.150
Opferkuch K, Caeiro S, Salomone R, Ramos TB (2021) Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: a review of organisational approaches. Bus Strateg Environ 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2854
Padilla-Rivera A, do Carmo BBT, Arcese G, Merveille N, (2021) Social circular economy indicators: selection through fuzzy delphi method. Sustain Prod Consum 26:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015
Pagotto M, Halog A (2016) Towards a circular economy in Australian agri-food industry: an application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. J Ind Ecol 20:1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12373
Parent G, Lavallée S (2011) LCA potentials and limits within a sustainable agri-food statutory framework. Global food insecurity. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 161–171
Chapter Google Scholar
Pattey E, Qiu G (2012) Trends in primary particulate matter emissions from Canadian agriculture. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 62:737–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.672058
Pauliuk S (2018) Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019
Peano C, Migliorini P, Sottile F (2014) A methodology for the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: an application to the slow food presidia project. Ecol Soc 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06972-190424
Peano C, Tecco N, Dansero E et al (2015) Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food systems: the SAEMETH framework. Sustain 7:6721–6741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066721
Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts
Pelletier N (2018) Social sustainability assessment of Canadian egg production facilities: methods, analysis, and recommendations. Sustain 10:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051601
Peña C, Civit B, Gallego-Schmid A et al (2021) Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z
Perez Neira D (2016) Energy sustainability of Ecuadorian cacao export and its contribution to climate change. A case study through product life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 112:2560–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.003
Pérez-Neira D, Grollmus-Venegas A (2018) Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Landsc Urban Plan 172:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.001
Pérez-Pons ME, Plaza-Hernández M, Alonso RS et al (2021) Increasing profitability and monitoring environmental performance: a case study in the agri-food industry through an edge-iot platform. Sustain 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010283
Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2018) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4
Pieroni MPP, McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2019) Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. J Clean Prod 215:198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036
Polit DF, Beck CT (2004) Nursing research: principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA
Porkka M, Gerten D, Schaphoff S et al (2016) Causes and trends of water scarcity in food production. Environ Res Lett 11:015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/015001
Prajapati H, Kant R, Shankar R (2019) Bequeath life to death: state-of-art review on reverse logistics. J Clean Prod 211:503–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.187
Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC (2020) Policy recommendations for enabling transition towards sustainable agriculture in India. Land Use Policy 96:104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104718
Pronti A, Coccia M (2020) Multicriteria analysis of the sustainability performance between agroecological and conventional coffee farms in the East Region of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Renew Agric Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000332
Rabadán A, González-Moreno A, Sáez-Martínez FJ (2019) Improving firms’ performance and sustainability: the case of eco-innovation in the agri-food industry. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205590
Raut RD, Luthra S, Narkhede BE et al (2019) Examining the performance oriented indicators for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro sector. J Clean Prod 215:926–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.139
Recanati F, Marveggio D, Dotelli G (2018) From beans to bar: a life cycle assessment towards sustainable chocolate supply chain. Sci Total Environ 613–614:1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.187
Redclift M (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustain Dev 13:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.281
Rezaei M, Soheilifard F, Keshvari A (2021) Impact of agrochemical emission models on the environmental assessment of paddy rice production using life cycle assessment approach. Energy Sources. Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 1–16
Rigamonti L, Mancini E (2021) Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2
Risku-Norja H, Mäenpää I (2007) MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. Ecol Econ 60:700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.001
Ritzén S, Sandström GÖ (2017) Barriers to the circular economy – integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia CIRP 64:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Roos Lindgreen E, Mondello G, Salomone R et al (2021) Exploring the effectiveness of grey literature indicators and life cycle assessment in assessing circular economy at the micro level: a comparative analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01972-4
Roselli L, Casieri A, De Gennaro BC et al (2020) Environmental and economic sustainability of table grape production in Italy. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093670
Ross RB, Pandey V, Ross KL (2015) Sustainability and strategy in U.S. agri-food firms: an assessment of current practices. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 18:17–48
Royo P, Ferreira VJ, López-Sabirón AM, Ferreira G. (2016) Hybrid diagnosis to characterise the energy and environmental enhancement of photovoltaic modules using smart materials. Energy 101:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.101
Ruggerio CA (2021) Sustainability and sustainable development: a review of principles and definitions. Sci Total Environ 786:147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481
Ruiz-Almeida A, Rivera-Ferre MG (2019) Internationally-based indicators to measure agri-food systems sustainability using food sovereignty as a conceptual framework. Food Secur 11:1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00964-5
Ryan M, Hennessy T, Buckley C et al (2016) Developing farm-level sustainability indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey. Irish J Agric Food Res 55:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijafr-2016-0011
Saade MRM, Yahia A, Amor B (2020) How has LCA been applied to 3D printing ? A systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies. J Clean Prod 244:118803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118803
Saitone TL, Sexton RJ (2017) Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. Eur Rev Agric Econ 44:634–657. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx003
Salim N, Ab Rahman MN, Abd Wahab D (2019) A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod 209:1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105
Salimi N (2021) Circular economy in agri-food systems BT - strategic decision making for sustainable management of industrial networks. In: International S (ed) Rezaei J. Publishing, Cham, pp 57–70
Salomone R, Ioppolo G (2012) Environmental impacts of olive oil production: a life cycle assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J Clean Prod 28:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.004
Sánchez AD, Río DMDLC, García JÁ (2017) Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 23:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001
Saputri VHL, Sutopo W, Hisjam M, Ma’aram A (2019) Sustainable agri-food supply chain performance measurement model for GMO and non-GMO using data envelopment analysis method. Appl Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061199
Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R, Terzi S (2019) Circular economy performance assessment methods : a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 229:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019
Schiefer S, Gonzalez C, Flanigan S (2015) More than just a factor in transition processes? The role of collaboration in agriculture. In: Sutherland LA, Darnhofer I, Wilson GA, Zagata L (eds) Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: case studies from Europe, CPI Group. Croydon, UK, pp. 83
Seuring S, Muller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Silvestri C, Silvestri L, Forcina A, et al (2021) Green chemistry contribution towards more equitable global sustainability and greater circular economy: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126137
Smetana S, Schmitt E, Mathys A (2019) Sustainable use of Hermetia illucens insect biomass for feed and food: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 144:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.042
Sonesson U, Berlin J, Ziegler F (2010) Environmental assessment and management in the food industry: life cycle assessment and related approaches. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge
Soussana JF (2014) Research priorities for sustainable agri-food systems and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 73:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.061
Soylu A, Oruç C, Turkay M et al (2006) Synergy analysis of collaborative supply chain management in energy systems using multi-period MILP. Eur J Oper Res 174:387–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.042
Spaiser V, Ranganathan S, Swain RB, Sumpter DJ (2017) The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 24:457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1235624
Stewart R, Niero M (2018) Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: a review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus Strateg Environ 27:1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048
Stillitano T, Spada E, Iofrida N et al (2021) Sustainable agri-food processes and circular economy pathways in a life cycle perspective: state of the art of applicative research. Sustain 13:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052472
Stone J, Rahimifard S (2018) Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Manag 23:207–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2017-0201
Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M (2011) Resource productivity enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co-incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Clean Prod 19:1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.014
Su B, Heshmati A, Geng Y, Yu X (2013) A review of the circular economy in China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. J Clean Prod 42:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020
Suárez-Eiroa B, Fernández E, Méndez-Martínez G, Soto-Oñate D (2019) Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean Prod 214:952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271
Svensson G, Wagner B (2015) Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability. Manag Environ Qual an Int Journal 26:195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2013-0099
Tasca AL, Nessi S, Rigamonti L (2017) Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: an LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. J Clean Prod 140:725–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.170
Tassielli G, Notarnicola B, Renzulli PA, Arcese G (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of fresh and processed sweet cherries in southern Italy. J Clean Prod 171:184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.227
Teixeira R, Pax S (2011) A survey of life cycle assessment practitioners with a focus on the agri-food sector. J Ind Ecol 15:817–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00421.x
Tobergte DR, Curtis S (2013) ILCD Handbook. J Chem Info Model. https://doi.org/10.278/33030
Tortorella MM, Di Leo S, Cosmi C et al (2020) A methodological integrated approach to analyse climate change effects in agri-food sector: the TIMES water-energy-food module. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217703
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222
Trivellas P, Malindretos G, Reklitis P (2020) Implications of green logistics management on sustainable business and supply chain performance: evidence from a survey in the greek agri-food sector. Sustain 12:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410515
Tsangas M, Gavriel I, Doula M et al (2020) Life cycle analysis in the framework of agricultural strategic development planning in the Balkan region. Sustain 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051813
Ülgen VS, Björklund M, Simm N (2019) Inter-organizational supply chain interaction for sustainability : a systematic literature review.
UNEP S (2020) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020.
UNEP/SETAC (2009) United Nations Environment Programme-society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. France
United Nations (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights. Implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. sustainabledevelopment.un.org
Van Asselt ED, Van Bussel LGJ, Van Der Voet H et al (2014) A protocol for evaluating the sustainability of agri-food production systems - a case study on potato production in peri-urban agriculture in the Netherlands. Ecol Indic 43:315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.027
Van der Ploeg JD (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 41:999–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876997
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) Manual for VOSviwer version 1.6.10. CWTS Meaningful metrics 1–53
Vasa L, Angeloska A, Trendov NM (2017) Comparative analysis of circular agriculture development in selected Western Balkan countries based on sustainable performance indicators. Econ Ann 168:44–47. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V168-09
Verdecho MJ, Alarcón-Valero F, Pérez-Perales D et al (2020) A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Cent Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3
Vergine P, Salerno C, Libutti A et al (2017) Closing the water cycle in the agro-industrial sector by reusing treated wastewater for irrigation. J Clean Prod 164:587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.239
WCED (1987) Our common future - call for action
Webster K (2013) What might we say about a circular economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible. World Futures 69:542–554
Wheaton E, Kulshreshtha S (2013) Agriculture and climate change: implications for environmental sustainability indicators. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 175:99–110. https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO130091
Wijewickrama MKCS, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Ochoa JJ (2021) Information sharing in reverse logistics supply chain of demolition waste: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 280:124359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124359
Woodhouse A, Davis J, Pénicaud C, Östergren K (2018) Sustainability checklist in support of the design of food processing. Sustain Prod Consum 16:110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.008
Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited Sustain 6:4200–4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200
Yadav S, Luthra S, Garg D (2021) Modelling Internet of things (IoT)-driven global sustainability in multi-tier agri-food supply chain under natural epidemic outbreaks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16633–16654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11676-1
Yee FM, Shaharudin MR, Ma G et al (2021) Green purchasing capabilities and practices towards Firm’s triple bottom line in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 307:127268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127268
Yigitcanlar T (2010) Rethinking sustainable development: urban management, engineering, and design. IGI Global
Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0309-3
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of “Tuscia, ” Via del Paradiso 47, 01100, Viterbo, VT, Italy
Cecilia Silvestri, Michela Piccarozzi & Alessandro Ruggieri
Department of Engineering, University of Rome “Niccolò Cusano, ” Via Don Carlo Gnocchi, 3, 00166, Rome, Italy
Luca Silvestri
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Cecilia Silvestri .
Ethics declarations
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Monia Niero
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: a number of ill-placed paragraph headings were removed and the source indication "Authors' elaborations" was added to Tables 1-3.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)
Rights and permissions.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M. et al. Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1
Download citation
Received : 15 June 2021
Accepted : 16 February 2022
Published : 02 March 2022
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1
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
- Agri-food sector
- Sustainability
- Circular economy
- Triple bottom line
- Life cycle assessment
- Find a journal
- Publish with us
- Track your research
- Harvard Library
- Research Guides
- Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries
Expos 20 | Problems of Meaning: Language, Literature, and Life
- Subject Databases: Tools for Deep-Searching and Close-Looking
- Problems of Meaning in Language, Literature, and Life
- HOLLIS: Searching Panoramically Across Harvard's Discovery Space
Databases: Why Use Them?
Top picks for essay 3.
- Generating Research Leads From What You Have in Hand
- Getting around Paywalls on the Web
- Citing Your Sources
Research projects often require you to look close up at a body of research produced by scholars in a particular field. This research is typically collected, codified, and made findable in a tool called a subject database .
Every academic discipline has at least one subject database that's considered the disciplinary gold standard -- a reliable, (relatively) comprehensive, and accurate record of the books that scholars are publishing, and the ideas they're debating and discussing in important and influential journals.
Databases are like lenses: they change what you see and how you see it -- and they offer you easy and efficient ways to bring your questions into sharper focus.
Philosophy
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy .
- Excellent for overview essays written by recognized subject experts and prominent academics, and accompanied by bibliography leads.
Oxford Bibliographies Online: Philosophy Harvard Key
- Annotated reading lists curated by experts, regularly checked for their currency and updated when necessary, OBOs aim to be representative, not comprehensive -- of the most impactful scholarship that's been produced to date.
- An online databas of scholarship maintained by philosophers themselves that collects, categorizes, and makes philosophy research findable. Specially curated pages perhaps pertinent to course themes include Philosophy of Language (which identifies key works and key introductory texts); Philosophy of Literature ; and Literary Values .
LINGUISTICS
Oxford bibliographies online: linguistics harvard key , linguistics and language behavior abstracts harvard key .
- A database that identifies articles, books, and other scholarly materials on linguistics and its related fields.
Psychology
Oxford bibliographies online: language (psychology) , apa psycinfo harvard key .
- The most important database access to research on all aspects of psychology,
LITERATURE
Johns hopkins guide to literary theory and criticism harvard key .
- A comprehensive survey of the the most important figures, schools, and movements in literary theory.
Oxford Bibliographies Online: Literary and Cultural Theory Harvard Key
Mla international bibliography harvard key .
- The gold standard database for topics related to literature in all languages, folklore, cultural studies, theory, and more.
Multidisciplinary
Google scholar.
Although it's not a Harvard Library "database," Google Scholar is perfectly acceptable for most general forays into scholarship; its algorithms are excellent and do return relevant results.
One of the best ways to generate research leads with Scholar is to use it to follow citation trails when you have a known source -- a class reading, a book you've found on HOLLIS that looks promising, an article that's so "perfect" for a research project that you want to see if there's "more like it" out there, waiting to be discovered.
For example:
- You can click on cited by to see which scholars picked up and used a research article/book in research. Just enter the title.
- Big "cited by" lists can be whittled down by adding keywords and clicking on the search within cited reference option.
- Related articles helps you identify r esearch that's close ----algorithmically, at least -- to the item you started with.
- Authors whose names are hotlinked reveal publications pages -- where you migth find additional/related publications (and see their times cited, too!)
- << Previous: HOLLIS: Searching Panoramically Across Harvard's Discovery Space
- Next: Generating Research Leads From What You Have in Hand >>
Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- PLoS Comput Biol
- v.9(7); 2013 Jul
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Marco pautasso.
1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France
2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .
When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.
Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.
Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience
How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:
- interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
- an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
- a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).
Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).
Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature
After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:
- keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
- keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
- use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
- define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
- do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.
The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,
The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .
- discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
- trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
- incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.
When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:
- be thorough,
- use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
- look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.
Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading
If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.
Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.
Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write
After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.
There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .
Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest
Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.
While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.
Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent
Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:
- the major achievements in the reviewed field,
- the main areas of debate, and
- the outstanding research questions.
It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.
Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure
Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .
How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .
Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback
Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.
Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .
Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective
In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.
In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.
Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies
Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.
Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.
Materials Chemistry Frontiers
Lessons learned: how to report xps data incorrectly about lead-halide perovskites.
* Corresponding authors
a State Key Laboratory of Structural Chemistry, Fujian Institute of Research on the Structure of Matter, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Fuzhou 350002, China E-mail: [email protected]
b Laboratory for Advanced Functional Materials, Xiamen Institute of Rare Earth Materials, Haixi Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
c University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy is a powerful tool for identifying the interactions of additives or surface treatments with components in lead halide perovskites. However, with the increasing number of studies using XPS, inaccurate or faulty data analysis has been encountered during a literature survey. Herein, we describe the fundamental principle of chemical shifts of Pb atoms in XPS and critically review the commonly seen mistakes in the literature: (i) misinterpretation of the XPS mechanism; (ii) misinterpretations due to disturbed chemical environments; (iii) lack of awareness of the properties of the passivator; iv. misquoted references. We hope that this perspective can help the community avoid the pitfalls in applying the XPS technique and in explaining their experimental results.
- This article is part of the themed collection: 2023 Materials Chemistry Frontiers Review-type Articles
Article information
Download Citation
Permissions.
C. Li, N. Zhang and P. Gao, Mater. Chem. Front. , 2023, 7 , 3797 DOI: 10.1039/D3QM00574G
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.
If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .
Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .
Social activity
Search articles by author, advertisements.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
European database of biomedical and pharmacologic literature. PubMed. PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Scopus. Largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and quality web sources. Contains conference papers. Web of Science
Use Multiple Databases. While not every literature search you undertake will be for a systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook's statement that "a search of MEDLINE alone is not considered adequate" holds true for almost all literature reviews. You need to go beyond one database to get a more comprehensive picture of your topic and to minimize ...
PubMed. PubMed was launched in 1996 and, since June 1997, provides free and unlimited access for all users through the internet. PubMed database contains more than 30 million references of biomedical literature from approximately 7,000 journals. The largest percentage of records in PubMed comes from MEDLINE (95%), which contains 25 million ...
See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook. The Cochrane Library is a collection of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the CENTRAL register of controlled trials.
The most efficient way to find articles on a topic is to search a database, which allows you to search for articles from hundreds of journals at once. Each database searches different sets of journals, so usually you'll want to search several databases.All of the databases listed on this page are accessible from off campus.
About Scopus. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track ...
Abstract. Undertaking a literature search can be a daunting prospect. Breaking the exercise down into smaller steps will make the process more manageable. This article suggests 10 steps that will help readers complete this task, from identifying key concepts to choosing databases for the search and saving the results and search strategy.
There are different types of literature databases: Abstracting & indexing databases (A&I) provide metadata and abstracts. The metadata includes the title, author (s), date of publication, journal title, volume and issue, page numbers, keywords, DOI, etc. Discipline specific databases, such as PsycINFO, Philosopher's Index, Sociologial Abstracts ...
A thorough literature search is an essential step in systematic reviews. Inadequate literature search can adversely influence the results and conclusions of a systematic review. Important databases that need to be searched are Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EmCare (Nursing and Allied Health ...
Searching in databases isn't always like searching in a search engine like Google. Many databases work with natural-language searching (for example, what is the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere?) but not all of them do. For many databases, you'll want to try a variety of approaches including connecting your keywords using the AND, OR, and NOT operators (for example ...
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. ... Another source of information is searchable online reference databases like MalaCards, 6 the human disease database that integrates a wealth of clinical information ...
Which databases you search is highly dependent on your systematic review topic, so it is recommended you meet with a librarian. Cochrane, which is considered the gold standard for clinical systematic reviews, recommends searching the following three databases, at a minimum: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ...
An online database that collects Gale's literary databases, supporting researchers at all levels to search across materials through a single interface. ... Gale Literature: Book Review Index. More than 5.6 million book reviews that allow users to conduct research in numerous disciplines, including literature, history, education, psychology ...
We searched Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost, three frequently used databases by researchers across various disciplines. Because technological advancement changes methods for archiving and retrieving information, we limit the publication date to 1996 and 2016 (articles published in the past twenty years), so that we can build our review on the recent literature considering ...
3. Zotero. 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.
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
INTRODUCTION. Librarians and information specialists are often involved in the process of preparing and completing systematic reviews (SRs), where one of their main tasks is to identify relevant references to include in the review [].Although several recommendations for the process of searching have been published [2-6], none describe the development of a systematic search strategy from ...
A general literature review starts with formulating a research question, defining the population, and conducting a systematic search in scientific databases, steps that are well-described elsewhere. 1,2,3 Once students feel confident that they have thoroughly combed through relevant databases and found the most relevant research on the topic ...
September - October 2022. ONLINE DATABASES: A STATE- OF -THE-ART LITERATURE REVIEW. Mahesh Gaikwad. Librarian, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha's, Sadguru Gadage Maharaj College, Karad, Dist - Satara ...
Starting from this central research gap, a systematic literature review has been developed to measure the sustainability in the agri-food sector and, based on these findings, to understand how indicators are used and for which specific purposes. ... The data collected in the database allow the development of a descriptive analysis of the sample ...
Research projects often require you to look close up at a body of research produced by scholars in a particular field. This research is typically collected, codified, and made findable in a tool called a subject database.. Every academic discipline has at least one subject database that's considered the disciplinary gold standard -- a reliable, (relatively) comprehensive, and accurate record ...
A Literature Review on Evolving Database. March 2017. International Journal of Computer Applications 162 (9):35-41. DOI: 10.5120/ijca2017913365. Authors: Shagufta Praveen. Glocal University. Umesh ...
Presents compiled data from a thorough review of PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science databases, summarizing identified cases of primary cardiac myxofibrosarcoma in the English literature from 2018 to the present.
When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply: be thorough, use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and. look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.
Provides support for the study of English literature by bringing together primary works, reference materials, and literary criticism. Content includes books and scholarly journals covering 600 AD to the present. Formerly: Literature Online (LION)
X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy is a powerful tool for identifying the interactions of additives or surface treatments with components in lead halide perovskites. However, with the increasing number of studies using XPS, inaccurate or faulty data analysis has been encountered during a literature survey. Her 2023 Materials Chemistry Frontiers Review-type Articles
The study undertakes a comprehensive integrative review of the literature, focusing on the quantitative aspects through a bibliometric analysis, and qualitative aspects through a systematic approach. A total of 1,285 research articles, retrieved from the Scopus database, were analyzed for 27 years.