Is my literature review ready to write up?

Ten building blocks separate a pile of summaries from a review that earns your study its place. Tick what you have actually done, and get a readiness score with a precise list of what is still missing.

Readiness

Free: the Literature Review Simplified checklist

The full checklist behind this readiness score — search strategy, criteria, synthesis, and the thematic structure examiners expect. We’ll email you the eBook.

One email with your download, then occasional research tips. One-click unsubscribe, anytime. We never sell your data.

The difference between summarising and synthesising

The most common reason a literature review chapter comes back for major revision is not that it missed sources. It is that it summarises them. A chapter that moves through “Author A found X. Author B found Y. Author C found Z.” has described a reading list; it has not made an argument, and it does not establish why your study needs to exist.

A review that works does something different. It organises by claim, not by author, and it tells the reader where a field agrees, where it splits, and what nobody has settled — and that unsettled thing is your gap. Getting there requires groundwork you cannot improvise while drafting:

One concrete rewrite fixes more drafts than any other: replace “Smith (2019) found X and Jones (2021) found Y” with “On X the evidence splits — Smith (2019) reports… while Jones (2021) finds the opposite, a divergence neither study explains.” The first sentence lists. The second argues.

This is a structured self-assessment of the building blocks. It cannot judge the quality of your synthesis, and it does not replace your supervisor’s read of the chapter.

Frequently asked questions

How many sources do I need?

There is no threshold, and chasing a number is how reviews end up padded. What matters is coverage: the foundational work everyone in your area cites, the current state of the art, and the studies that disagree with each other. A documented search that surfaces those is worth more than a longer list assembled unsystematically — and it is what lets you defend the review's completeness.

What is the single most common failing?

Organising author-by-author instead of theme-by-theme. It is visible from the subheadings alone, and it signals that the synthesis has not happened. If your section titles are surnames or study names rather than claims or themes, restructure before you polish the prose.

What is a synthesis matrix, exactly?

A table with one row per source and columns for its research question, method, sample, key findings, limitations, and your own note on how it relates to your study. Built as you read rather than afterwards, it turns invisible patterns into visible ones: sort by any column and the themes, methodological clusters and gaps become obvious. A spreadsheet is entirely sufficient.

I scored low. Where should I start?

In order: the focused question, then the documented search and criteria, then the synthesis matrix. They build on each other, and each one is much cheaper to do now than to retrofit after a chapter is drafted. Anything to do with structure and themes comes after those three are in place, because the matrix is what makes the themes visible in the first place.

Does a high score mean my supervisor will approve the chapter?

No. It means the raw materials are in place. The quality of the argument you build from them — whether the gap is genuinely a gap, whether the synthesis is fair to the sources — still needs your judgement and an experienced reader's feedback.

Is anything I enter stored or uploaded?

No. The check runs entirely in your browser and your answers are not saved.

Is my research question ready? Plan my dissertation timeline All free tools