Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20
Transport Reviews
ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20
How to Write a Literature Review Paper?
Bert Van Wee & David Banister
To cite this article: Bert Van Wee & David Banister (2016) How to Write a Literature Review
Paper?, Transport Reviews, 36:2, 278-288, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
Published online: 10 Jul 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 14582
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
How to Write a Literature Review Paper?
BERT VAN WEE∗§ AND DAVID BANISTER∗∗
∗Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628
BX Delft, The Netherlands; ∗ ∗Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment,
Oxford University, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
(Received 17 April 2015; revised 16 June 2015; accepted 19 June 2015)
ABSTRACT This paper discusses the question about how to write a literature review paper (LRP).
It stresses the primary importance of adding value, rather than only providing an overview, and it
then discusses some of the reasons for (or not) actually writing an LRP, including issues relating to
the nature and scope of the paper. It also presents different types of LRPs, advises on reporting the
methodology used for the selection of papers for review, and the structure of an LRP. An important
conclusion is that the heterogeneity in LRPs is very large. This paper also presents some of the aspects
that the authors feel are important structural and contextual considerations that help produce highquality review papers.
1. Introduction
Literature review papers (LRPs) are often very helpful for researchers, as the
reader gets an up-to-date and well-structured overview of the literature in a
specific area, and the review adds value. This added value can, for example, be
that the research gaps are made explicit, and this may be very helpful for
readers who plan to do research in the same area for the first time. Alternatively,
the review can outline the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used and
the implications of the findings are discussed. This can be very helpful for the
reader who needs to interpret and use the findings. A review can also help to
refresh the information base of a researcher returning to a subject area after
some time away from it. The basic question covered in this paper is about how
to carry out an LRP and to illustrate this with examples from transport.
Writing an LRP is much less straightforward than writing a mainstream
research paper, as many choices with respect to the structure need to be made.
Therefore, some conceptual and methodological guidance for researchers planning to write an LRP would be helpful. But to the best of our knowledge there
is no academic paper in the transport literature that takes the aspiring writer
through the thought processes surrounding the issues about how to write an
LRP. This paper aims to fill this gap.
There is a Transportation Research Board paper giving some guidance,
especially for literature reviews as part of wider projects (Avni et al., 2015), and
§
Corresponding author. Email: g.p.vanwee@tudelft.nl
Transport Reviews, 2016
Vol. 36, No. 2, 278–288, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
# 2015 Taylor & Francis
the paper also refers to tutorials (videos and websites). And there are papers
giving guidance for LRPs in other areas. For example, Webster and Watson
(2002) discuss literature review in the information systems area, and Denney
and Tewksbury (2013) in the area of criminal justice. This paper aims to fill this
gap. In the medical literature, many papers publish empirical results for tests of
medicine, prescribing protocols for data collections (e.g. double blind), and analyses (standard methods), but in the field of transport a much larger variety of
methods is applied, making LRP reviewing methods very different. In the area
of engineering and physics, the stochastic component of research is much less
important than in social sciences (and often absent), reducing the importance of
related aspects in empirical studies. What is very important in social sciences in
general, but certainly also in the field of transport, is the fact that many variables
influence an independent variable (e.g. travel behaviour) in a complex way, resulting in complex causal relationships, and a multitude of data analysis methods and
interpretations.
In addition to LRPs, there are many empirical papers that review the literature,
but we do not discuss how this should be done in case of empirical studies and
limit ourselves to LRPs. We define an LRP as a journal paper that provides a comprehensive overview of (or a selection of) the literature in a specific area, bringing
together the material in a clearly structured way, and adding value through
coming to some interesting conclusions. Our focus is on the more general LRPs,
excluding the specifics of more quantitative methods, such as meta-analyses
(see below) or scientometric analyses (see Van Meeteren, Poorthuis, Derudder,
& Witlox, in press, for an example).
The approach used in this paper is the ‘learning by doing’ method. ‘Doing’ in our
case is the combination of writing LRPs ourselves (often with co-authors), reviewing such papers, teaching Ph.D. students how to write such papers, deciding as
editors on the suitability of papers for publication (based on external review
reports), and discussing the topic with editorial board members of transport journals, and other academics. The paper aims to provide help for researchers interested
in writing an LRP, but we do not provide a template. Rather, we discuss a list of
topics that we hope is relevant and helpful. As there are many types of LRPs and
many ways to structure high-quality reviews, it makes no sense to present a ‘one
size fits all’ solution. We limit the paper to writing an LRP for an academic
journal in the transport domain. Nevertheless, some of the content may be relevant
for other purposes, such as discussing the literature as part of a Ph.D. thesis.
Section 2 explains why to (not) write an LRP, and it includes a discussion on the
different means by which the issue of added value can be addressed in writing an
LRP. Section 3 presents some examples of types of LRP, and Section 4 outlines the
means by which different methodologies can be used to select papers for inclusion
in the review. Section 5 gives some guidance on the different means to structure
the LRP. Section 6 emphasises the important issue of choice of journal to submit
an LRP to, and some of the reasons why many review papers are rejected.
2. The Rationale for Writing an LRP and Added Value
There are many reasons for thinking about writing a review paper, but it must
have a clear rationale and the key issue of added value needs to be the central
concern throughout the paper. In terms of the rationale, writing a literature
review implies a wide range of reading, resulting in the researcher acquiring a
How to Write a Literature Review Paper? 279
substantial amount of knowledge in the research area, and this on its own might
generate the enthusiasm to write an LRP. As a consequence of this, the paper may
become heavily cited and this will build the reputation of the author(s), and help
in promoting their standing as a learned scholar in the field. This in turn allows
researchers to position their own research clearly in the academic literature. As
part of their job, many academics would read a substantial range of the literature
anyway, and so writing an LRP implies one can ‘harvest’ all the reading in an
explicit way, and get credit for doing it. It is also one of the research activities
that can be carried out independently, as one only needs access to the books,
the journal articles, and other literature. For example, there is no need to plan
for data collection (e.g. questionnaires). Therefore, writing an LRP is to a large
extent a ‘stand-alone’ activity, and it is one form of research output that does in
some cases (but definitively not all cases) get well cited. For example, in Transport
Reviews (since 1994), some papers have received more than 200 citations through
the Web of Science (Goodwin, Dargay & Hanley, 2004; Pucher & Buehler, 2008;
Yang & Bell, 1998). Literature reviews are also used for teaching, as well as
research purposes. For example, we are aware of several teachers who use the
Geurs and van Wee (2004) paper for an introduction to the topic of accessibility.
Apart from the positive messages given above about the reasons for wanting to
write an LRP, there may also be reasons for not even thinking about the possibility.
The most obvious reason might be that the LRP a researcher intends to write has
already been published, and if it has the same potential scope as the author has in
mind, a new review would be redundant. However, in many cases there might
still be potential for an additional review, if a different literature is to be used,
or if an existing review needs updating, or even if the same literature is used,
but a new angle is being taken resulting in substantially different conclusions.
For example, an already published review might have an empirical focus,
whereas the new review might have more of a methodological focus. The topic
of residential self-selection provides a nice example: Mokhtarian and Cao (2008)
review the literature from a methodological angle, whereas Cao, Mokhtarian,
and Handy (2009) review this literature from an empirical angle. If the review
was carried out some time ago, and since then new and ‘better’ methodologies
have been applied, then there may be a case for a new review, focusing on the
recent literature. Alternatively, there may not be enough papers to include in
the review, and this may be a reason for not writing an LRP, but the solution
here would be to expand the scope of the review. The opposite is more likely,
where there are too many papers, and then narrowing down the scope might be
the solution. Writing a highly regarded LRP is not an insignificant task, and it is
often a time-consuming activity. Not only does the selection and reading of literature in many cases take a considerable time, but so does the writing, as an LRP is
much less straightforward than writing a mainstream research paper, and consequently the writing stage might take a considerable time.
When examining research outputs, the review paper is often given less weight
than a more traditional paper, as it might not have as much ‘original research’ as
the traditional paper, but this possibility should not reduce its value. It could be
argued that a high-quality review paper is of more value to the research community than a high-quality research paper, written within a more conventional
research structure and on a more focused topic. As already stated, this may in
part be a consequence of the fact that there is no standard template for LRPs,
and this might also deter potential authors from writing an LRP. The perception
280 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
that a review paper is of less value than a research paper (Steward, 2004) may also
result from the confusion between the general overview paper and the critical
review paper.
The crucial difference between the more general overview paper and the more
critical review paper is central to the issue of added value (Table 1): an overview
paper does not need to add value, but review paper does. The many options
include the full range of paper types, ranging from conceptual, theoretical, and
methodological, to more case study and practice-based reviews. The options
can be synthetic, bringing together of different approaches, they can be critical
in terms of the review, and they can be innovative in terms of proposing new conceptual frameworks.
Taking the option of empirical insights as an example, the results can be presented in many ways, for example, in the form of a range of quantitative effects
of an independent variable on a dependent variable. Meta-analyses are a more rigorous way to present empirical results, because these do not only provide such a
range, but also insights into the quantitative importance of influencing factors. For
example, Brons, Nijkamp, Pels, and Rietveld (2008) present a meta-analysis of
Table 1. Options for the added value of LRPs
Options for added
value Comments Main output (examples)
Empirical insights A synthesis of what is already known
(and maybe what is not)
State of knowledge
Gaps in literature
Weaknesses of methodologies used
Methodologies An analysis of methods used, and their
advantages and disadvantages
Overview of dominant
methodologies used
Pros and cons of methodologies
used
Opportunities for new methods
Theories An investigation of different theories
used, and their importance. This
might cover the implications for the
results
Overview of main theories used
Strengths and weaknesses
Impact of theories used on results
Potential for other theories
Gaps in literature and
a research agenda
This can relate to reviews with an
empirical, methodological, and
theoretical focus — to explore
omissions and limitations in
approaches and suggest ways
forward
Main gaps in literature
Avenues for future research
Relevance for realworld applications
A discussion or synthesis of how useful
the literature is for real-world
applications (policy, planning, etc.) —
perhaps with the use of case studies
Overview of knowledge available
for real-world applications
Design guidance
Examples of real-world cases that
are (not) underpinned by results
from literature
Comparison between cases or
countries
Conceptual model Provides explicit structure on how
dependent and independent
variables are related. Can be
presented preceding or following the
review part of a paper
Scheme, figure presenting the
conceptual model
Overview of which parts are (not)
well founded/underpinned by
literature
How to Write a Literature Review Paper? 281
gasoline price elasticities, including as explanatory factors short-term versus longterm focus, geographic area, year of the study, data type, time horizon, and the
functional specification of the demand equation. Another example: reviews can
aim to be relevant for real-world applications. For example, Givoni (2006)
reviews the literature on high-speed rail, disentangling components of highspeed rail operations, and translating these into design guidance.
A sign of a good review is that the value added permeates the whole review and
not just the conclusions. For example, Schwanen’s review (2013, p. 232) states,
Thinking about sociotechnical transitions comes, however, in many varieties. One could mobilise, for instance, evolutionary economic theory
(Dosi, 1982; Nelson & Winter, 1982); long-wave economic theory
(Freeman & Louca, 2001); the multilevel perspective and affiliated
approaches (Geels, 2011; Nill & Kemp, 2009); practice theory (Shove &
Walker, 2010); and sociologies of complexity (Urry, 2011). Nonetheless,
whilst expanding rapidly, applications of transition thinking in transport
and mobilities research are as yet fairly limited in number and tend to be
animated by the multi-level perspective, practice theory and sociologies
of complexity.
This quote demonstrates both a wide-ranging knowledge about several different
literatures, and it imposes a clear structure on their usefulness in thinking about
sociotechnical transitions.
The key lessons from this section relate to the scope of the review and the added
value. The scope needs to take a balance between specificity and generality, as
being too specific restricts the range of literature that can be covered and being
too general makes it much harder to produce a high-quality review, as there is
so much material available. The key here is to have a clear focus to the review,
as it is easier to ‘grow’ a review by extending its scope, rather than trying to
‘restrict’ a review as the scope is already too large.
In terms of the added value, an LRP needs to have a clear message and
interpretation, and this should indeed be a central part of the rationale for
writing the paper in the first place. Perhaps it is best to take a problem that can
be specified as a series of objectives, and then to structure the review around
these. This type of review is very much evidence-based and is similar to a conventional paper. Alternatively, there is also the potential to use a more heuristic
approach and leave the objectives more open-ended. This might provide a more
appealing approach, but it means that the clear conclusions need to be drawn at
the end. In both cases, the interpretation of the material used is central to a
high-quality LRP, and a paper with weak or no conclusions must be avoided.
Some of these issues are now discussed in more detail.
3. Types of LRPs
Building on the typology outlined in Table 1, LRPs come in many different forms.
A classic LRP would first outline the structure and purpose of the review, and it
would then present the literature in a logical way, commenting on the differences
and similarities between the materials cited, and this would then be followed by
discussion and conclusions — it is this last part that relates to the added value of
the LRP. But there are many more types. In some cases, a paper can have an
282 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
empirical question, and the method adopted in the review is to answer the question by reviewing the literature. A literature review is then used to answer these
questions. An alternative is to take a new or non-conventional approach to a wellknown problem — this can be important for many reasons, such as to shed new
light on an existing topic, to disentangle concepts in subcomponents, or to put
the results in another perspective. An example is provided by Geurs and Van
Wee (2004), which reviews the literature on accessibility measures. Instead of
taking the standard perspective of categories of accessibility measures, they
examine the components that contribute to the accessibility measures (land use,
transport, the temporal, and the individual component). Another alternative is a
paper that does not aim to review all (main) literature in an area, but to cover a
specific theme. For example, Banister, Anderton, Bonilla, Givoni, and Schwanen
(2011) review on transport and the environment had a clear focus on lowcarbon transport systems, behavioural and technological options, demand
reduction, and the role of international agreements. But the real core of the
review was on rethinking governance with respect to low-carbon transport
systems and the means to implement policy change within a fragmented
decision-making process. This example illustrates how an under-researched
area can be identified for further investigation, even though it is embedded
within a well-covered research area. It provides a starting point for new research.
A final alternative might be to present a conceptual model and then to explore the
literature that might help support such an innovative framework. As for theme
papers, not all (main) literature then needs to be reviewed, but the references discussed serve the purpose of underpinning the conceptual model. Van Acker, Van
Wee, and Witlox (2010) adopted this approach in their study of travel behaviour
by introducing a new framework at an early stage in their paper, and then
review the literature on travel behaviour from this perspective. The heterogeneity
of types of LRPs all contribute to the fact that writing an LRP is not straightforward, but interesting, challenging, and rewarding.
4. Methodology: Selection of Papers
One of the weakest elements in LRPs is that they are not explicit in the methodologies used. The issue here is different to the conventional paper, where there
is often a section in the paper devoted to the methods that will be used, and comments are then made at the end of the paper on the strengths and weaknesses of
the methods used. In LRPs, the section on methods is often very short or not
present at all, as the literature used in the review is ‘drawn’ from the extensive
publications available. There are different ways to address this limitation and
our strong recommendation is for authors to be explicit on the methodologies
being used and the selection of the material that forms the source material for
the review. In case a paper aims to review more or less all main literature in an
area, the most obvious sources are the numerous databases that are widely available (e.g. Web of Science, SCOPUS, Scholar Google, and TRID), and information
needs to be given as to how these have been systematically ‘searched’. For
example, comments would need to cover the key words used for the search
(including strings, such as ‘transport∗’ to include both transport and transportation), and if the selection has been heavily influenced by the Boolean operators
(AND, OR, and NOT). In all cases, we recommend making the use of these operators explicit. An excellent example of making explicit the search strategy is the
How to Write a Literature Review Paper? 283
LRP produced by Scheepers et al. (2014), where they explicitly report on databases, languages included, keywords, search strategy, and some other aspects.
In addition, the languages covered should be made explicit, especially if literature
in other languages than English is covered. The time frame should also be made
explicit, as well as the reasons for the choice. For example, an LRP could consider
the post-1998 literature only, because an LRP describing the literature up to that
year already exists, or because the methods reviewed were first introduced in
that year. In some cases, LRPs can be limited to specific contexts, for example, a
country or category of countries, because the context may have an important
impact on results. For example, the impact of land use on travel behaviour in
the USA can differ from several EU countries because of differences in the
public transport system, cycling culture, fuel prices, and the availability of sidewalks, legitimating an LRP on studies carried out in the USA or (a selection of)
EU countries only.
Often snowballing is used, and this should be made explicit. Forward snowballing implies finding citations to a paper, whereas backward snowballing implies
finding citations in a paper (Jalali & Wohlin, 2012). Even if the selection of
papers to be included in the review is based on more subjective criteria, such as
personal knowledge, extensive research in an area, brainstorming with experts,
and other open-ended approaches, there is a methodological section that needs
to be written on the process by which papers have been selected, together with
comment and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses.
A search often results in too many papers being found for inclusion in the
review, even after narrowing down the scope. We do not provide a precise
threshold value, but LRPs in most cases might have a minimum threshold of 30
papers cited, and it is unlikely that more than 100 papers would be covered in
the field of transport. If there are ‘too’ many papers, the solution may be to not
include all papers, but to impose a (stratified) selection. This process should
also be made explicit, and there should be a clear rationale to the logic of the
process adopted for final selection. Reasons could relate to impact of papers
(e.g. measured by citations — total or per year), geographical area, quality,
whether the paper is recent or not, whether it is seminal or not, and many more
criteria.
There are more methodological issues that deserve attention. As authors of
LRPs should avoid criticising authors of original papers for things they did
(not) do that do not match the scope of the LRP. For example, an LRP may
review a paper on different levels of cycling, but an empirical study may only
focus on utilitarian cycling, excluding recreational cycling. Excluding recreational
cycling then should not be a criticism, but just an observation. The same applies to
authors of empirical papers having used methods that were considered state of
the art at the time of doing the research that in recent years have been considered
as not the state of the art anymore. Reviewers should avoid simple averaging
quantitative results. For example, if multiple studies review the impact of one
variable on another, but some studies are based on only a few cases, whereas
others include many more, averaging is misleading. It is better to present the individual results, combined with the number of cases, or weighing results in case of
calculating averages. If averages are presented we also recommend presenting the
range of results because probably the range is at least as important as the average.
It is also very important to make explicit if conclusions and interpretations are
provided by the authors of the original papers, or by the authors of the LRP.
284 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
Finally, a discussion on the ‘why’ behind results can be very helpful for the reader.
This may be speculative to some extent, as long as this is made explicit. Speculation on reasons for patterns in the results may not only be helpful in trying to
understand these patterns, but may also inspire readers in their own future
research.
5. The Structure of a Paper
The LRP can be written in many different ways, and here we present a set of
options but no recommended practice. The introduction can be very similar to a
conventional research paper, discussing the background of the topic, what is
already known in terms of the main lines of enquiry, the gap(s) in the literature,
the motivation and aim of the paper related to the gap(s), the research questions,
and for whom is the review targeted. The precise scope should be explained, preferably presented in a clear storyline. The methodology to be used could also be
included in the introduction, but in light of the comments in Section 4 there
may be a case for a separate methodology section. If there are already literature
reviews in the same area this needs to be made explicit, as well as the position
of the current LRP compared to those previously published LRPs in the same area.
Next, one would expect to see the presentation of an overview of the literature
reviewed, often in the form of a table or a series of tables. Several ‘templates’ for
such a presentation can be found. One common template for structuring the
inputs to the review is to have as columns: author(s), descriptive characteristics
such as the year of publication, geographical area, and sample size, but not the
results of the review. The rows below are the papers/sources to be reviewed.
For example, Hunt, Kriger, and Miller (2005) reviewing land-use transport frameworks used six columns to describe the software developed, the lead researcher,
the history of the particular approach, the data platform, the commercial availability, and the support for the software. Six different models were selected, and
they are then explicitly compared and commented on under each of the headings
outlined above. Another template could be where the rows are a priori clusters of
papers, for example, by world region or methodology. If a table is very long, it can
be included as an appendix (see, for example, Salomon & Singer, 2014, where the
authors review a range of travel measures over four time points).
In the case of papers with an empirical or methodological focus, the results of
the review can also be presented in a table form, especially if the number of
sources is relatively large, more than ten being a rough indication. This again
can be structured with the papers/sources as rows. The columns provide the
main content of the papers, and these are clearly linked to the aims of the
review. For example, Nicolaisen and Driscoll (2014) use this approach to structure
their ex post analysis of travel demand in a series of tables that systematically
compare the results of the different studies by a consistent set of metrics.
The objective in using different formats and summary tables is to synthesise
large amounts of information in a clear and concise way that makes it easy for
the reader to both understand and to make comparisons between the broader
approaches being reviewed. It is much easier to summarise with the use of
tables, graphics, and other illustrative material, and it should also make the narrative easier to follow for the reader.
There are more options to structure the review paper than by source. It is also an
option to have ‘results’ or content-related clustering as the guiding principle. For
How to Write a Literature Review Paper? 285
example, if the papers review methods, it can also be that the first column presents
key methods, and for each method then a description or typology is given, and
next a column presents the sources that apply the method. Goodwin et al.
(2004) in an LRP on price and income elasticities structure some of the content
of their paper by distinguishing between the short- and the long-term elasticities.
In case there are too many sources to be included in the LRP (see above), the
author can decide to only present example papers, but explanation would be
required.
Tables are not the only means to present substantial amounts of information,
and in many cases, the use of text does the job just as well. Whether in table
form or through other presentation devices, there are many options to structure
the results section, depending on the aim of the paper. Examples would include
the research area, the research period, the empirical focus, method(s), results, theories, etc. And in some cases figures can clearly present findings.
One observation is that authors of LRPs sometimes overlook the ‘obvious
results’ that are often, but not necessarily, descriptive and characterise the body
of literature in general terms. Examples of ‘obvious results’ might include the
omission of studies published before a certain date originating from the USA,
or that all studies found significant impacts of variable A on variable B, or that
80% of the studies were carried out after 2005, or that recent papers apply other
methodologies. What might seem obvious to some needs to be explained, as it
might be less obvious to others. A general tip is to present those obvious results
in an early stage in the results section. A key element in the selection of papers
is the audience for the LRP and their level of prior knowledge on the topic, as
this determines the decision as to whether to include or exclude particular comments and results. This issue is difficult to give advice on, as the purpose of the
LRP is to appeal to a wide readership that includes both experts in the subject
area (for updating) and newcomers to the subject area (for more general background). The final decision here must reside with the author(s).
6. Final Remarks: Journal Choice, Abstract, Rejections of LRPs
Before writing any journal paper it is important to think about the journal of first
choice for submission. Several transport journals do not (or only in very exceptional cases) accept LRPs, and examples here would be Transportation Research
Parts A and B. Transport Reviews and Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review explicitly have ‘review’ in the journal title. Journals like
the Journal of Transport Geography and Urban Studies also accept LRPs. Before
choosing the journal of first choice it is wise to read recent examples of LRPs published in that journal, to get an impression of the tradition for LRPs. Some journals
impose a maximum number of words for any paper and this limit needs to be
checked, and all journals give authors guidance on the scope and expectations.
Word limits for any paper often create problems, as authors have difficulties in
keeping to externally imposed constraints, and an LRP is no exception. We have
the impression it is even more difficult to stay within the word limit in case of
an LRP, as there is always more to tell. Referees are also fond of asking for more
material in an LRP, but are not so keen on suggesting what parts of a review
paper should be shortened or omitted.
In most cases it is helpful that the abstract of an LRP not only describes the
paper but also includes the main conclusions and added value. We realise that
286 B. Van Wee and D. Banister
different journals have different guidelines for the length of an abstract. In case of
relatively long abstracts it could also include the background/introduction of the
topic, its research questions, and its methodologies. This paper is intended to help
aspiring writers of reviews to think about how writing an LRP can best be
approached, and its purpose has been to highlight both the positives and the negatives in an open and informative way. The main reasons for rejection are not difficult to summarise. The key element is whether the paper is really a review or
more of an overview, and here the key element is the added value. It should be
written in an authoritative and constructively critical narrative. Another reason
for rejection is that its aims are not met. The paper should clearly state its objectives in the introduction, and the conclusion should return to these objectives to
assess whether they have been achieved. A third reason for rejection is that the
paper has not been fully developed, as it is really an early draft. This means
that the structure is weak, the evidence is partial, and there is no real content or
thought in the LRP. In turn, this may result in a paper that is poorly constructed
and has been submitted for external refereeing prematurely. The rejection levels
are increasing for all major academic journals, and transport journals have rejection rates of between 50% and 90%. However, we see no reason why it should a
priori be more difficult to get an LRP accepted in a high-quality transport
journal than getting a conventional research paper accepted.
In summary, the LRP should primarily be a review paper that covers a wide
range of literature from an authoritative and critical perspective, and that it
comes to a set of conclusions that are supported by the evidence cited and adds
value to the debate. Ideally, the paper should also be readable, interesting, and
even exciting to read. Because of the high added value for readers, our intention
is that this paper inspires potential authors to write an LRP that follows the Transport Reviews golden rule: a good review “takes a comprehensive overview of a
subject, bringing together the material and coming to some interesting conclusions” (http://www.tandfdc.com/journals/printview/?issn=0144-1647&sub
category=GE250000&linktype=1).
Acknowledgement
We thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on our draft
paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Avni, A., Burley, P., Casey, P., Cherney, J., Christiansen, L., Saunders Daly, J., … Yu, H. (2015, March).
Literature searches and literature reviews for transportation research projects. How to search, where to
search, and how to put it all together: Current practices. Transportation Research Board, Transportation
Research Circular Number E-C194. Retrieved April 7, 2015, from http://www.trb.org/
Publications/Blurbs/172271.aspx
Banister, D., Anderton, K., Bonilla, D., Givoni, M., & Schwanen, T. (2011). Transportation and the
environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 247–270.
Brons, M., Nijkamp, P., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline
demand: A SUR approach. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2105–2122.
How to Write a Literature Review Paper? 287
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on
travel behaviour: A focus on empirical findings. Transport Reviews, 29(3), 359–395.
Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 24(2), 218–234.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of
the determinants and directions of social change. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.
Freeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geels, F. W. (2011). The multilevel perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven
criticism. Environmental Innovation and Societal Changes, 1, 24–40.
Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility Assessment of land-use and transport strategies: Review
and research directions. Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140.
Givoni, M. (2006). The development and impact of the modern high speed train. Transport Reviews,
26(5), 593–612.
Goodwin, P., Dargay, J., & Hanly, M. (2004). Elasticities of road traffic and fuel consumption with
respect to price and income: A review. Transport Reviews, 24(3), 275–292.
Hunt, J. D., Kriger, D. S., & Miller, E. J. (2005). Current operational urban land-use-transport modelling
frameworks: A review. Transport Reviews, 25(3), 329–376.
Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012, September 19–20). Systematic literature studies: Database searchers vs. backward snowballing. Paper presented at the international conference on Empirical Software Engineering
and Measurement, ESEM’12, Lund, Sweden. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.wohlin.eu/
esem12a.pdf
Mokhtarian, P. L., & Cao, X. (2008). Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies. Transportation Research Part B, 42(3), 204–228.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belnap
Press.
Nicolaisen, M. S., & Driscoll, P. A. (2014). Ex-post Assessments of demand forecast accuracy: A literature
review. Transport Reviews, 34(4), 540–557.
Nill, J., & Kemp, R. (2009). Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to
paradigm? Research Policy, 38, 668–680.
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands. Denmark and
Germany: Transport Reviews, 28(4), 495–528.
Salomon, I., & Singer, M. E. (2014). Informal travel: A new conceptualization of travel patterns? Transport Reviews, 34(5), 645–662.
Scheepers, C. E., Wendel-Vos, G. C. W., den Broeder, J. M., van Kempen, E. E. M. M., van Wesemael,
P. J. V., & Schuit, A. J. (2014). Shifting from car to active transport: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Transportation Research Part A, 70, 264–280.
Schwanen, T. (2013). Sociotechnical transition in the transport system. In M. Givoni & D. Banister (Eds.),
Moving towards low carbon mobility (pp. 231–254). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.
Steward, B. (2004). Writing a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(11), 495–500.
Urry, J. (2011). The system of automobility, theory. Culture and Society, 21, 25–39.
Van Acker, V., Van Wee, B., & Witlox, F. (2010). When transport geography meets social psychology:
Toward a conceptual model of travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 30(2), 219–240.
Van Meeteren, M., Poorthuis, A., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (in press). Pacifying Babel’s Tower: A scientometric analysis of polycentricity in urban research Urban Studies. Urban Studies.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), Xiii–Xxiii.
Yang, H., & Bell, M. G. H. (1998). Models and algorithms for road network design: A review and some
new developments. Transport Reviews, 18(4), 257–278.
288 B. Van Wee and D. Banister

Published by

Dissertations

View all posts