Literature Review Template and Outline: Structure, Examples, and Copy-Paste Template

A well-built literature review template turns a daunting pile of sources into a sequence of writable sections. A literature review is a structured summary and synthesis of the existing research on a topic, organized to identify patterns, debates, and gaps in the field. This guide gives you a complete outline template, three organizational strategies, a copy-paste template you can drop into your document, and worked examples for social sciences, humanities, and dissertation chapters. By the end, you'll know exactly what each part of your literature review should contain and what it should not.


Quick Answer

A literature review outline is a structured plan that organizes the sources, themes, and arguments of a literature review before drafting begins. The standard format has five main parts: an introduction that establishes scope and purpose, a search strategy or methods section (for dissertation chapters and systematic reviews), a body organized thematically around major themes or claims, a conclusion that names the research gap, and a reference list. The body is the longest section and should be organized around themes, not around individual sources or publication dates. A copy-paste template is available below.


Page last reviewed: September 2026. Content reviewed by Debra F., PhD, Professional Academic Editor with 30+ years of experience.


Copy-Paste Literature Review Template

Select the block below and paste it into your Word document, Google Doc, or Overleaf project. The template gives you the full five-section structure with prompts in square brackets telling you what to write in each section. Replace the prompts with your own content. For dissertations and systematic reviews, keep the search strategy section. For humanities reviews and short journal-article reviews, delete it.


Your Literature Review Title

Your Name | Institution | Course or Committee | Date


I. Introduction

Topic and Significance

[Open with the topic of your review and why it matters. Establish the field, the problem, or the phenomenon your literature review addresses. Two to four sentences.]

Scope of the Review

[Define what your review includes and excludes. Specify the disciplines, populations, methods, or time periods you cover. Explain what you don't cover and why.]

Research Question or Argument

[State the research question your literature review will address, or the argument it will make. Write this as one clear sentence.]

Organization of the Review

[Preview the organization of the body. Name the themes that will appear and the order they will appear in. This is the roadmap for your reader.]


II. Search Strategy and Methods

[Required for dissertation chapters and systematic reviews. Delete this section for humanities reviews and short journal-article literature review sections.]

Databases Searched

[List every database searched (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, JSTOR).]

Date Range

[Specify the date range covered by your search.]

Search Terms and Boolean Strings

[List primary search terms and Boolean combinations. For systematic reviews, document the exact strings used in each database.]

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

[Inclusion criteria: study type, population, intervention, outcome, language, publication type.]

[Exclusion criteria: same categories, stated as what disqualifies a study.]

Screening and Selection Process

[Describe screening. Systematic reviews following PRISMA 2020 include a flow diagram showing records identified, screened, excluded, and included.]

Quality Appraisal

[For systematic reviews, describe the quality appraisal tool used (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, JBI Critical Appraisal Tools).]


III. Body (Organized Thematically)

[Three to six themes that build toward your research gap. Each theme should name a specific finding, debate, or angle, not just a topic. Duplicate the Theme block below as needed.]

Theme 1: [Replace with your specific theme]

Synthesis of Studies Supporting the Main Pattern

[What does the literature collectively show about this theme? Synthesize multiple studies rather than describing them one by one. Cite specific studies as evidence.]

Studies That Complicate or Contradict the Pattern

[What studies show a different pattern, a null result, or a contradictory finding? Engage with these directly rather than omitting them.]

Methodological Strengths and Limitations

[Assess methodological patterns across the studies in this theme. Where is the evidence strong? Where are the limitations?]

Transition to the Next Theme

[Connect this theme to the next. One or two sentences signaling how the argument moves forward.]

Theme 2: [Replace with your specific theme]

[Repeat the four subsections: synthesis, complications, methodological assessment, transition.]

Theme 3: [Replace with your specific theme]

[Repeat the four subsections.]

Theme 4: Gap-facing theme (the theme that motivates your study)

[Repeat the four subsections. This is the theme that most directly sets up the gap in your conclusion.]


IV. Conclusion

Summary of the Literature

[Synthesize what the literature collectively shows across your themes. This is a big-picture summary of the state of the field, not a section-by-section recap.]

Research Gap Identified

[Name the specific gap. Not "more research is needed" but a precise question the literature has not yet answered.]

Justification for the Proposed Study

[Explain how your proposed study or contribution addresses the gap. Connect the gap directly to your research question.]

Transition

[Brief transition to the next chapter or section, typically the methodology chapter for a dissertation.]


V. References

[Every source cited in the body, formatted in your required style (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard), alphabetical by first author surname. APA 7 sample entries below:]

Fisher, P. J., & Yao, R. (2017). Gender differences in financial risk tolerance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 191-202.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103-111.


Once you've pasted the template, replace every bracketed prompt with your own content and delete the sections you don't need. For APA-specific heading formatting, see the section below.


What Is a Literature Review Outline?

A literature review outline is a structured plan that organizes the sources, themes, and arguments of a literature review before drafting begins. It maps how the introduction sets up scope, how the body groups sources into themes that build an argument, and how the conclusion arrives at a specific research gap. The outline isn't the review itself. It's the scaffolding that makes the review coherent, so the drafting process becomes filling in sections rather than deciding what to write next.


Recent research on academic writing consistently supports the value of outlining. Working with a detailed outline reduces revision cycles, improves the logical flow of the finished draft, and makes it easier to identify where evidence is thin. For dissertation-length literature reviews and systematic reviews, an outline isn't optional. The scale of the document makes drafting without one nearly impossible to keep coherent.


How to Write a Literature Review Outline: The Standard Template

The template below works for most empirical literature reviews in the social sciences, education, and health sciences. Adjustments for humanities, dissertations, and STEM reviews are covered in later sections.


I. Introduction

  • State the topic and its significance
  • Define the scope of the review (what is included, what is excluded, and why)
  • State the research question or argument the review will address
  • Preview the organization of the review (which themes appear in what order)

II. Search Strategy and Methods (dissertation chapters and systematic reviews)

  • Databases searched and date range covered
  • Search terms and Boolean strings used
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Screening and selection process (PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic reviews)
  • Quality appraisal approach

III. Body, Organized Thematically

  • Theme 1: A major finding, debate, or sub-topic in the field
    • Synthesis of studies supporting the main pattern
    • Studies that complicate or contradict the pattern
    • Methodological strengths and limitations across the studies
    • Transition to Theme 2
  • Theme 2: A second major finding or angle
    • Synthesis, complications, methodological assessment, transition
  • Theme 3 (and beyond, as the topic requires)

IV. Conclusion

  • Summary of what the literature collectively shows
  • Specific research gap identified
  • Justification for the proposed study or contribution
  • Brief transition to the next chapter or section

V. References

  • Every source cited in the body, formatted in the required style (APA, MLA, Chicago, or other)
  • Alphabetical by first author surname

The five sections above form a complete outline for most literature reviews. The body section is where most writers struggle, and where the choice of organizational approach matters most.


Literature Review Format for APA Style

Literature reviews in APA format follow specific conventions that go beyond the outline structure. Headings follow APA 7th edition heading levels: the review title uses Level 1 (centered, bold, title case), main sections such as Introduction and Body use Level 2 (flush left, bold, title case), and thematic subsections use Level 3 (flush left, bold italic, title case). In-text citations follow the author-date format, with narrative citations reading "Smith (2023) argued that..." and parenthetical citations reading "(Smith, 2023)."


The reference list appears on a new page after the body, titled "References" (centered, bold), with entries formatted in hanging indent alphabetical by first author surname. For sources with three or more authors, APA 7 requires "et al." in the in-text citation after the first author's surname. For the full APA formatting rules, see our basic guide to APA style citation and APA literature review format guide.


Three Ways to Organize the Body of a Literature Review

The body of a literature review can be organized thematically, chronologically, or methodologically. Each approach produces a different argument and serves a different purpose. Most strong literature reviews are organized thematically, but the other two approaches are right for specific situations.


Thematic Organization

Sources are grouped by theme, finding, or sub-topic. This is the most common approach for empirical literature reviews because it produces the strongest synthesis. Each section makes a claim about the field and uses multiple sources to support, complicate, or contradict that claim.


Use thematic organization when your topic has clearly identifiable themes that emerge from the literature, when you're building toward a research gap, and when most of the sources you're reviewing speak to overlapping questions.


Chronological Organization

Sources are organized by date or by the development of the field over time. The argument traces how understanding of the topic has evolved, often through identifiable phases or paradigm shifts.


Use chronological organization when the historical development of the field is itself significant to your argument, when you're documenting a paradigm shift, or when older foundational work needs to be distinguished from current research. Chronological organization is more common in humanities reviews and in introductions to dissertations where the historical context is essential.


Methodological Organization

Sources are grouped by the research methods they used: qualitative vs. quantitative, randomized vs. observational, large-sample vs. small-sample, lab-based vs. field-based, and so on. The argument focuses on how methodological choices have shaped the available evidence.


Use methodological organization when your topic is studied across multiple methodological traditions, when methodological variation is itself a gap in the existing literature, or when your proposed study uses a method that addresses limitations in prior work.


Many strong literature reviews combine approaches: the overall structure is thematic, with chronological treatment within some themes and methodological treatment within others. What matters is that the organizational logic is visible to the reader and serves the argument.


Literature Review Outline Example: Empirical Social Science

Below is a complete outline for a literature review chapter on workplace burnout in early-career nurses. This is a real-style outline, not a stripped-down skeleton. It shows what level of specificity a thesis committee or journal reviewer expects.


I. Introduction

  • The clinical and economic significance of nurse burnout
  • Scope of the review: empirical research on burnout in nurses within the first five years of practice
  • Research question: What factors predict burnout in early-career nurses, and how does early-career burnout relate to long-term attrition?
  • Organization of the review

II. Search Strategy

  • Databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO
  • Date range: 2010-2025
  • Search terms and inclusion criteria

III. Body

  • Theme 1: Theoretical frameworks for understanding burnout
    • Maslach and Leiter's mismatch model
    • Job Demands-Resources model
    • Conservation of Resources theory
    • Convergences and divergences across frameworks
  • Theme 2: Organizational predictors of burnout
    • Workload and staffing levels
    • Autonomy and control
    • Reward and recognition
    • Workplace community and fairness
  • Theme 3: Individual predictors and moderators
    • Resilience and coping style
    • Demographic and educational factors
    • How individual factors interact with organizational factors
  • Theme 4: Burnout and long-term attrition
    • Cross-sectional evidence linking burnout to turnover intention
    • Limited longitudinal evidence on actual attrition
    • Methodological challenges in longitudinal nurse research

IV. Conclusion

  • Summary: Organizational factors are well-established predictors of burnout; individual factors moderate but do not eliminate organizational effects
  • Gap: Few longitudinal studies have followed early-career nurses beyond three years, leaving the relationship between first-year burnout and long-term attrition unresolved
  • Justification for the proposed five-year cohort study

V. References


Notice how each theme in Section III makes a claim about the field. The themes aren't topics in the abstract. They're angles the literature actually addresses, organized to build toward the gap in Theme 4. This is the structural move that separates a strong outline from a generic one.


Literature Review Outline Example: Humanities

A humanities literature review outline handles theoretical frameworks and critical debates differently, often organizing chronologically or by critical tradition rather than by empirical theme. Here's a short outline for a literature review on the reception of Toni Morrison's Beloved in feminist and Black studies criticism.


I. Introduction

  • Beloved's position in twentieth-century American literature and its critical reception since 1987
  • Scope: peer-reviewed criticism engaging with Beloved from feminist and Black studies perspectives, 1987-2024
  • Argument: The critical conversation has moved through three distinct phases that reflect broader theoretical shifts

II. Body (organized chronologically by critical phase)

  • Phase 1 (1987-1995): Feminist recovery and psychoanalytic readings
  • Phase 2 (1995-2010): Black studies and the historical archive
  • Phase 3 (2010-present): Afrofuturism, disability studies, and new theoretical frameworks

III. Conclusion

  • The critical conversation has broadened but has underexamined the intersection of trauma studies and disability studies frameworks
  • Contribution: This project extends recent disability studies readings by engaging directly with trauma-focused criticism from Phase 1

Humanities reviews typically omit the search strategy section entirely because the discipline doesn't expect systematic database searches. The body engages with theoretical frameworks and critical debates. The conclusion frames the writer's intervention as a contribution to ongoing scholarly conversation rather than as the filling of an empirical gap.


Dissertation Literature Review Outline (Chapter 2)

The literature review chapter of a doctoral dissertation, usually called Chapter 2, is longer, more comprehensive, and more heavily documented than a journal-article literature review. Committees expect a thorough search strategy, more themes, deeper synthesis, and explicit connections to the methodology chapter that follows. Dissertation literature reviews typically run 40 to 80 pages.


The five-section template above still applies to a dissertation Chapter 2, but every section expands. The search strategy section becomes a full PRISMA-style description with a flow diagram and quality appraisal. The body expands from three or four themes to six or more, each getting its own subsection with multiple sub-themes. The conclusion doesn't just name the gap. It builds the theoretical justification for the specific methodological choices that Chapter 3 will describe.


Doctoral candidates preparing dissertation Chapter 2 face two structural challenges that shorter literature reviews avoid. The first is scale: forty to eighty pages of thematic argument requires an outline detailed enough to prevent drift. The second is committee expectations: dissertation committees expect the literature review to demonstrate mastery of the field, not just knowledge of relevant sources. That means engaging critically with methodological limitations, theoretical debates, and gaps in existing evidence. For a dedicated service supporting doctoral writers at this stage, see Editor World's dissertation editing services.


Modern Considerations: PRISMA 2020 and AI-Assisted Searching

Literature review methodology has evolved significantly in recent years. The PRISMA 2020 statement updated reporting standards for systematic reviews, expanding the requirements around search strategy documentation, screening records, and reasons for exclusion. Any systematic review submitted since 2021 should follow PRISMA 2020 rather than the earlier 2009 version, and dissertation chapters that describe systematic components typically follow PRISMA 2020 as well.


AI-assisted searching tools such as Elicit, Research Rabbit, and Consensus have become widely used in the past three years. These tools can accelerate the identification of relevant literature, but they don't replace systematic database searching. Their outputs need verification against the primary sources, and their use should be documented in the search strategy section for transparency. Preregistration of systematic reviews through PROSPERO is increasingly common and is required by some journals.


Section Lengths by Document Type

The table below shows typical proportions across the most common types of literature review. Use it as a starting point and adjust based on the requirements of your program or target journal.


Section Journal article literature review (1-3 pages) Master's thesis chapter (15-25 pages) Doctoral dissertation chapter (40-80 pages)
Introduction 1-2 paragraphs 1-2 pages 2-4 pages
Search strategy Usually omitted 1-2 pages 3-5 pages
Body 1-2 pages 10-18 pages 30-65 pages
Conclusion 1 paragraph 1-2 pages 2-4 pages

From Outline to Draft

An outline is a planning tool, not a deliverable. Once you have a strong outline, the drafting process becomes a sequence of manageable tasks. Two practical strategies make the transition easier.


  1. Write theme by theme, not section by section. Most writers find it easier to draft each body theme as a self-contained mini-essay, then revise for transitions later. Trying to write the introduction first often produces a placeholder that gets rewritten three times.
  2. Use your outline as a citation grid. Under each subsection in your outline, list the specific sources that belong there. This prevents the common problem of drafting a section and realizing later that several relevant sources weren't included.

For the full drafting process, see our guide on how to write a literature review.


Common Literature Review Outline Mistakes

  • Organizing by author or by date rather than by theme. "Chapter on Smith (2018). Chapter on Jones (2019). Chapter on Brown (2020)" is not an outline; it's a list. Outlines need themes, not author lists.
  • Themes that are too broad to support paragraphs. "Theme 1: Burnout" is not a workable theme. "Theme 1: Organizational predictors of burnout" is, because it sets up a paragraph-level argument about what those predictors are and what the evidence shows.
  • No transition logic between themes. Each theme should connect to the next. If your outline has four themes that could appear in any order, the argument isn't structured yet.
  • No gap statement in the conclusion. An outline that ends with "Summary" rather than with a specific research gap leaves the literature review without a destination. Name the gap in the outline so the body sections build toward it.
  • Search strategy section that's just a list of databases. Dissertation committees and systematic review readers expect search terms, Boolean strings, date ranges, and inclusion criteria. A one-line list of databases isn't enough.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a literature review outline?

A literature review outline is a structured plan that organizes the sources, themes, and arguments of a literature review before drafting begins. It maps how the introduction sets up scope, how the body groups sources into themes that build an argument, and how the conclusion arrives at a specific research gap. The standard outline has five main sections: an introduction, a search strategy or methods section (for dissertations and systematic reviews), a thematically organized body, a conclusion that names the research gap, and a reference list.


How do you write a literature review outline?

To write a literature review outline, start by clarifying your research question in one sentence. List three to six themes that emerge from your sources, then add two or three sub-points under each theme with the specific studies that belong there. Draft an introduction outline that establishes scope and previews the themes. Draft a conclusion outline that names the specific research gap your review identifies. Add a search strategy section if you're writing a dissertation chapter or systematic review. Finally, arrange the themes in an order that builds toward your gap statement.


How long should a literature review be?

Literature review length depends on the document type. A journal article literature review section runs 1 to 3 pages. A master's thesis literature review chapter runs 15 to 25 pages. A doctoral dissertation Chapter 2 literature review runs 40 to 80 pages. Standalone literature review articles for publication in a review journal typically run 20 to 40 pages. Within any of these ranges, the body section is the longest, usually 60 to 80 percent of the total length, with the introduction and conclusion each taking 5 to 15 percent.


What are the main sections of a literature review?

A literature review has five main sections: an introduction that establishes scope and purpose, a search strategy or methods section (for dissertation chapters and systematic reviews), a body organized thematically around major themes or claims, a conclusion that names the research gap, and a reference list. The body is the longest and most important section.


Should I organize my literature review thematically or chronologically?

Thematic organization is the default for most empirical literature reviews because it produces stronger synthesis and builds toward a research gap. Chronological organization is appropriate when the historical development of the field is itself significant to your argument. Methodological organization is useful when methodological variation across studies is itself a gap or limitation. Many strong reviews combine approaches within a thematic overall structure.


How is a literature review outline different from a research outline?

A literature review outline organizes existing published research around themes to identify a gap. A research outline is the plan for a new study, covering research question, methodology, sample, data collection, and analysis. Some dissertations combine these into a single proposal document, but the outlines serve different functions. The literature review outline answers "what does the field currently know?" while the research outline answers "how will I address what the field doesn't yet know?"


How many themes should my literature review include?

Most literature reviews include three to six body themes. Fewer than three usually means the topic is too narrow for a full review, and the themes can be merged into a single section. More than six often means the writer hasn't grouped sources tightly enough, and several themes should be consolidated. The right number depends on the scope of the review and the available literature. Dissertation chapters typically use six or more.


Do I need a search strategy section?

Dissertation literature review chapters and systematic reviews typically require a documented search strategy. Journal article literature review sections and shorter undergraduate reviews usually don't. The search strategy section, when included, describes the databases searched, the search terms and Boolean strings used, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the screening process. Systematic reviews follow PRISMA 2020 reporting standards and include a flow diagram.


What goes in the conclusion of a literature review?

The conclusion summarizes what the literature collectively shows, names the specific research gap identified through the review, justifies the proposed study or contribution, and transitions to the next chapter or section. A literature review conclusion doesn't introduce new evidence or sources. Everything in the conclusion should follow from material covered in the body.


How is a literature review outline different from an annotated bibliography?

An outline organizes themes and arguments around which sources will be discussed. An annotated bibliography lists sources individually with a paragraph for each. The outline is a planning tool for a literature review. The annotated bibliography is a separate document type that can serve as a preparatory step toward writing a literature review. For the full comparison, see our article on annotated bibliography vs literature review.


Can I use AI tools to help write my literature review?

AI tools such as Elicit, Research Rabbit, and Consensus can accelerate the identification of relevant literature, but they don't replace systematic database searching or original synthesis. Their outputs need verification against primary sources. Many universities and journals now require disclosure of AI tool use in literature review preparation. If AI tools were used at any stage, disclose them in the search strategy section for transparency. Editor World doesn't use AI at any stage of its editing process, and a certificate of editing is available as an optional add-on for institutions that require confirmation of human-only editing.


More Resources on Literature Reviews

For the full drafting process from research question to final revision, read our guide on how to write a literature review. For sample passages across disciplines, see our five annotated literature review examples. For APA-specific formatting, see our APA literature review format guide. For the methodological choice between systematic and narrative formats, see systematic review vs literature review.


Why Researchers Choose Editor World for Literature Review Editing

Editor World edits literature review chapters, journal article literature review sections, and standalone reviews. Editors review for structural coherence, thematic synthesis, transition logic, citation accuracy, and language clarity. Many clients submit a draft built from an outline like the one in this guide and ask their editor to assess whether the structural logic is working.


  • 100% human editing, no AI at any stage. Every edit is performed by a native English-speaking editor from the USA, UK, or Canada.
  • 15 years of experience. Editor World was founded in 2010 by Patti Fisher, PhD, a professor of consumer economics, and has edited more than 100 million words for over 8,000 clients across 65+ countries.
  • Editors average 15 years of professional experience. Many hold advanced degrees and edit regularly within their own disciplines.
  • Recommended by Boston University and other top institutions.
  • Choose your editor. Clients browse editor profiles, review credentials and ratings, and select the editor who best fits the document.
  • BBB A+ accredited since 2010. 5.0 / 5 on Google Reviews and Facebook Reviews, with a 4.9 / 5 average editor rating.

About Editor World: Academic Editing Services

Editor World helps academic writers move through the research, writing, and publishing process more easily by providing fast, affordable editing and proofreading services. All editors on the Editor World team are native English speakers from the USA, UK, or Canada who have passed a stringent editing test. Academic editors are available 24/7, 365 days a year. For literature review work, our academic editing services, dissertation editing services, and journal article editing services are the most commonly requested. Our prices are transparent and among the lowest in the industry. Editor World is BBB A+ accredited since 2010 and is woman-founded by Patti Fisher, PhD.


Page last reviewed: September 2026. Content reviewed and edited by Debra F., PhD, Professional Academic Editor with 30+ years of experience. Editor World has edited more than 100 million words for 8,000+ clients in 65+ countries since 2010. BBB A+ accredited. 5.0 / 5 Google Reviews. Recommended by Boston University and other top institutions. 100% human editing, no AI at any stage.