• Corrections

Search Help

Get the most out of Google Scholar with some helpful tips on searches, email alerts, citation export, and more.

Finding recent papers

Your search results are normally sorted by relevance, not by date. To find newer articles, try the following options in the left sidebar:

  • click "Since Year" to show only recently published papers, sorted by relevance;
  • click "Sort by date" to show just the new additions, sorted by date;
  • click the envelope icon to have new results periodically delivered by email.

Locating the full text of an article

Abstracts are freely available for most of the articles. Alas, reading the entire article may require a subscription. Here're a few things to try:

  • click a library link, e.g., "FindIt@Harvard", to the right of the search result;
  • click a link labeled [PDF] to the right of the search result;
  • click "All versions" under the search result and check out the alternative sources;
  • click "Related articles" or "Cited by" under the search result to explore similar articles.

If you're affiliated with a university, but don't see links such as "FindIt@Harvard", please check with your local library about the best way to access their online subscriptions. You may need to do search from a computer on campus, or to configure your browser to use a library proxy.

Getting better answers

If you're new to the subject, it may be helpful to pick up the terminology from secondary sources. E.g., a Wikipedia article for "overweight" might suggest a Scholar search for "pediatric hyperalimentation".

If the search results are too specific for your needs, check out what they're citing in their "References" sections. Referenced works are often more general in nature.

Similarly, if the search results are too basic for you, click "Cited by" to see newer papers that referenced them. These newer papers will often be more specific.

Explore! There's rarely a single answer to a research question. Click "Related articles" or "Cited by" to see closely related work, or search for author's name and see what else they have written.

Searching Google Scholar

Use the "author:" operator, e.g., author:"d knuth" or author:"donald e knuth".

Put the paper's title in quotations: "A History of the China Sea".

You'll often get better results if you search only recent articles, but still sort them by relevance, not by date. E.g., click "Since 2018" in the left sidebar of the search results page.

To see the absolutely newest articles first, click "Sort by date" in the sidebar. If you use this feature a lot, you may also find it useful to setup email alerts to have new results automatically sent to you.

Note: On smaller screens that don't show the sidebar, these options are available in the dropdown menu labelled "Year" right below the search button.

Select the "Case law" option on the homepage or in the side drawer on the search results page.

It finds documents similar to the given search result.

It's in the side drawer. The advanced search window lets you search in the author, title, and publication fields, as well as limit your search results by date.

Select the "Case law" option and do a keyword search over all jurisdictions. Then, click the "Select courts" link in the left sidebar on the search results page.

Tip: To quickly search a frequently used selection of courts, bookmark a search results page with the desired selection.

Access to articles

For each Scholar search result, we try to find a version of the article that you can read. These access links are labelled [PDF] or [HTML] and appear to the right of the search result. For example:

A paper that you need to read

Access links cover a wide variety of ways in which articles may be available to you - articles that your library subscribes to, open access articles, free-to-read articles from publishers, preprints, articles in repositories, etc.

When you are on a campus network, access links automatically include your library subscriptions and direct you to subscribed versions of articles. On-campus access links cover subscriptions from primary publishers as well as aggregators.

Off-campus access

Off-campus access links let you take your library subscriptions with you when you are at home or traveling. You can read subscribed articles when you are off-campus just as easily as when you are on-campus. Off-campus access links work by recording your subscriptions when you visit Scholar while on-campus, and looking up the recorded subscriptions later when you are off-campus.

We use the recorded subscriptions to provide you with the same subscribed access links as you see on campus. We also indicate your subscription access to participating publishers so that they can allow you to read the full-text of these articles without logging in or using a proxy. The recorded subscription information expires after 30 days and is automatically deleted.

In addition to Google Scholar search results, off-campus access links can also appear on articles from publishers participating in the off-campus subscription access program. Look for links labeled [PDF] or [HTML] on the right hand side of article pages.

Anne Author , John Doe , Jane Smith , Someone Else

In this fascinating paper, we investigate various topics that would be of interest to you. We also describe new methods relevant to your project, and attempt to address several questions which you would also like to know the answer to. Lastly, we analyze …

You can disable off-campus access links on the Scholar settings page . Disabling off-campus access links will turn off recording of your library subscriptions. It will also turn off indicating subscription access to participating publishers. Once off-campus access links are disabled, you may need to identify and configure an alternate mechanism (e.g., an institutional proxy or VPN) to access your library subscriptions while off-campus.

Email Alerts

Do a search for the topic of interest, e.g., "M Theory"; click the envelope icon in the sidebar of the search results page; enter your email address, and click "Create alert". We'll then periodically email you newly published papers that match your search criteria.

No, you can enter any email address of your choice. If the email address isn't a Google account or doesn't match your Google account, then we'll email you a verification link, which you'll need to click to start receiving alerts.

This works best if you create a public profile , which is free and quick to do. Once you get to the homepage with your photo, click "Follow" next to your name, select "New citations to my articles", and click "Done". We will then email you when we find new articles that cite yours.

Search for the title of your paper, e.g., "Anti de Sitter space and holography"; click on the "Cited by" link at the bottom of the search result; and then click on the envelope icon in the left sidebar of the search results page.

First, do a search for your colleague's name, and see if they have a Scholar profile. If they do, click on it, click the "Follow" button next to their name, select "New articles by this author", and click "Done".

If they don't have a profile, do a search by author, e.g., [author:s-hawking], and click on the mighty envelope in the left sidebar of the search results page. If you find that several different people share the same name, you may need to add co-author names or topical keywords to limit results to the author you wish to follow.

We send the alerts right after we add new papers to Google Scholar. This usually happens several times a week, except that our search robots meticulously observe holidays.

There's a link to cancel the alert at the bottom of every notification email.

If you created alerts using a Google account, you can manage them all here . If you're not using a Google account, you'll need to unsubscribe from the individual alerts and subscribe to the new ones.

Google Scholar library

Google Scholar library is your personal collection of articles. You can save articles right off the search page, organize them by adding labels, and use the power of Scholar search to quickly find just the one you want - at any time and from anywhere. You decide what goes into your library, and we’ll keep the links up to date.

You get all the goodies that come with Scholar search results - links to PDF and to your university's subscriptions, formatted citations, citing articles, and more!

Library help

Find the article you want to add in Google Scholar and click the “Save” button under the search result.

Click “My library” at the top of the page or in the side drawer to view all articles in your library. To search the full text of these articles, enter your query as usual in the search box.

Find the article you want to remove, and then click the “Delete” button under it.

  • To add a label to an article, find the article in your library, click the “Label” button under it, select the label you want to apply, and click “Done”.
  • To view all the articles with a specific label, click the label name in the left sidebar of your library page.
  • To remove a label from an article, click the “Label” button under it, deselect the label you want to remove, and click “Done”.
  • To add, edit, or delete labels, click “Manage labels” in the left column of your library page.

Only you can see the articles in your library. If you create a Scholar profile and make it public, then the articles in your public profile (and only those articles) will be visible to everyone.

Your profile contains all the articles you have written yourself. It’s a way to present your work to others, as well as to keep track of citations to it. Your library is a way to organize the articles that you’d like to read or cite, not necessarily the ones you’ve written.

Citation Export

Click the "Cite" button under the search result and then select your bibliography manager at the bottom of the popup. We currently support BibTeX, EndNote, RefMan, and RefWorks.

Err, no, please respect our robots.txt when you access Google Scholar using automated software. As the wearers of crawler's shoes and webmaster's hat, we cannot recommend adherence to web standards highly enough.

Sorry, we're unable to provide bulk access. You'll need to make an arrangement directly with the source of the data you're interested in. Keep in mind that a lot of the records in Google Scholar come from commercial subscription services.

Sorry, we can only show up to 1,000 results for any particular search query. Try a different query to get more results.

Content Coverage

Google Scholar includes journal and conference papers, theses and dissertations, academic books, pre-prints, abstracts, technical reports and other scholarly literature from all broad areas of research. You'll find works from a wide variety of academic publishers, professional societies and university repositories, as well as scholarly articles available anywhere across the web. Google Scholar also includes court opinions and patents.

We index research articles and abstracts from most major academic publishers and repositories worldwide, including both free and subscription sources. To check current coverage of a specific source in Google Scholar, search for a sample of their article titles in quotes.

While we try to be comprehensive, it isn't possible to guarantee uninterrupted coverage of any particular source. We index articles from sources all over the web and link to these websites in our search results. If one of these websites becomes unavailable to our search robots or to a large number of web users, we have to remove it from Google Scholar until it becomes available again.

Our meticulous search robots generally try to index every paper from every website they visit, including most major sources and also many lesser known ones.

That said, Google Scholar is primarily a search of academic papers. Shorter articles, such as book reviews, news sections, editorials, announcements and letters, may or may not be included. Untitled documents and documents without authors are usually not included. Website URLs that aren't available to our search robots or to the majority of web users are, obviously, not included either. Nor do we include websites that require you to sign up for an account, install a browser plugin, watch four colorful ads, and turn around three times and say coo-coo before you can read the listing of titles scanned at 10 DPI... You get the idea, we cover academic papers from sensible websites.

That's usually because we index many of these papers from other websites, such as the websites of their primary publishers. The "site:" operator currently only searches the primary version of each paper.

It could also be that the papers are located on examplejournals.gov, not on example.gov. Please make sure you're searching for the "right" website.

That said, the best way to check coverage of a specific source is to search for a sample of their papers using the title of the paper.

Ahem, we index papers, not journals. You should also ask about our coverage of universities, research groups, proteins, seminal breakthroughs, and other dimensions that are of interest to users. All such questions are best answered by searching for a statistical sample of papers that has the property of interest - journal, author, protein, etc. Many coverage comparisons are available if you search for [allintitle:"google scholar"], but some of them are more statistically valid than others.

Currently, Google Scholar allows you to search and read published opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and US Supreme Court cases since 1791. In addition, it includes citations for cases cited by indexed opinions or journal articles which allows you to find influential cases (usually older or international) which are not yet online or publicly available.

Legal opinions in Google Scholar are provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed lawyer. Google does not warrant that the information is complete or accurate.

We normally add new papers several times a week. However, updates to existing records take 6-9 months to a year or longer, because in order to update our records, we need to first recrawl them from the source website. For many larger websites, the speed at which we can update their records is limited by the crawl rate that they allow.

Inclusion and Corrections

We apologize, and we assure you the error was unintentional. Automated extraction of information from articles in diverse fields can be tricky, so an error sometimes sneaks through.

Please write to the owner of the website where the erroneous search result is coming from, and encourage them to provide correct bibliographic data to us, as described in the technical guidelines . Once the data is corrected on their website, it usually takes 6-9 months to a year or longer for it to be updated in Google Scholar. We appreciate your help and your patience.

If you can't find your papers when you search for them by title and by author, please refer your publisher to our technical guidelines .

You can also deposit your papers into your institutional repository or put their PDF versions on your personal website, but please follow your publisher's requirements when you do so. See our technical guidelines for more details on the inclusion process.

We normally add new papers several times a week; however, it might take us some time to crawl larger websites, and corrections to already included papers can take 6-9 months to a year or longer.

Google Scholar generally reflects the state of the web as it is currently visible to our search robots and to the majority of users. When you're searching for relevant papers to read, you wouldn't want it any other way!

If your citation counts have gone down, chances are that either your paper or papers that cite it have either disappeared from the web entirely, or have become unavailable to our search robots, or, perhaps, have been reformatted in a way that made it difficult for our automated software to identify their bibliographic data and references. If you wish to correct this, you'll need to identify the specific documents with indexing problems and ask your publisher to fix them. Please refer to the technical guidelines .

Please do let us know . Please include the URL for the opinion, the corrected information and a source where we can verify the correction.

We're only able to make corrections to court opinions that are hosted on our own website. For corrections to academic papers, books, dissertations and other third-party material, click on the search result in question and contact the owner of the website where the document came from. For corrections to books from Google Book Search, click on the book's title and locate the link to provide feedback at the bottom of the book's page.

General Questions

These are articles which other scholarly articles have referred to, but which we haven't found online. To exclude them from your search results, uncheck the "include citations" box on the left sidebar.

First, click on links labeled [PDF] or [HTML] to the right of the search result's title. Also, check out the "All versions" link at the bottom of the search result.

Second, if you're affiliated with a university, using a computer on campus will often let you access your library's online subscriptions. Look for links labeled with your library's name to the right of the search result's title. Also, see if there's a link to the full text on the publisher's page with the abstract.

Keep in mind that final published versions are often only available to subscribers, and that some articles are not available online at all. Good luck!

Technically, your web browser remembers your settings in a "cookie" on your computer's disk, and sends this cookie to our website along with every search. Check that your browser isn't configured to discard our cookies. Also, check if disabling various proxies or overly helpful privacy settings does the trick. Either way, your settings are stored on your computer, not on our servers, so a long hard look at your browser's preferences or internet options should help cure the machine's forgetfulness.

Not even close. That phrase is our acknowledgement that much of scholarly research involves building on what others have already discovered. It's taken from Sir Isaac Newton's famous quote, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

  • Privacy & Terms

Proactive Grad

How to find Research Papers: A Cheat Sheet for Graduate Students

Aruna Kumarasiri

  • July 23, 2022
  • PRODUCTIVITY

How to find research papers

“I will read this paper later.” I thought to myself before adding another paper to my overflowing internet browser.

Of course, I didn’t read it later.

Since my workflow was unorganized, I missed out on reading many important papers.

This was a crucial period in my undergraduate career. I had been working with a company for my final year project and knew success would require a solid intellectual foundation. For many hours, I read papers, determined to master the literature in my field.

“How to find research papers quickly?” has been a never-ending question for me.

How to find research papers_meme

However, I was unable to succeed despite my best intentions, largely due to inefficiency. In addition, I did not have a system in place for keeping track of new papers being published daily in my topic area or checking if I had missed key studies.

Nothing is worse than forgetting where you saved an important research paper. If I couldn’t find that specific paper, I couldn’t do anything else, and sometimes a day would pass before I found it.

As I was about to begin my PhD, I convinced myself that I should be more organized.

This is the first post of the four-part blog series:  The Bulletproof Literature Management System . Follow the links below to read the other posts in the series:

  • How to How to find Research Papers (You are here)
  • How to Manage Research Papers
  • How to Read Research Papers
  • How to Organize Research Papers

My workflow has evolved through many iterations, and I have finally found a system that suits my needs after lots of trial and error.

These tips will help you how to find research papers quickly and more efficiently.

Get recommendations from your supervisor

You may have already received a folder of information from your supervisor regarding your thesis topic. Your supervisor should have already been working on the proposal before you were hired for a funded project.

My supervisor, for example, has a folder named “Literature” for each project folder that contains all the important papers one might need to complete that project.

Therefore, asking your supervisor is one of the most straightforward ways to find research papers.

Even though your supervisor has not put up a folder like that, you can still ask them for recommendations, and they can point out a couple of pertinent articles. From there, you can find the references in the papers they recommended.

Use feed aggregators

Feed aggregators, such as Feedly , Inoreader , and NewsBlur , help me organize my feeds. In the morning, I dedicate five minutes to scanning my feed. For most papers, I just glance at the title and scroll past. Whenever I come across something interesting, I add it to my ‘Read Later’ folder.

Instead of storing papers in an unsecured location, my papers are more secure. As a result, it is much easier for me to look at that folder later on.

Use literature mapping tools

ResearchRabbit , Inciteful , Litmaps , and Connected Papers are literature-mapping tools you can use to dig deeper into a topic. It lets you see which papers are the most groundbreaking in a given field based on their citation networks.

This might not be very helpful if you’re doing research in a relatively new area. Finding relevant research papers in such cases may be more challenging.

This is why checking research databases would be a better option.

Use standard research databases

Scopus has strong searching capabilities and publishes metrics that can measure the relative importance of papers in their fields. However, it may take up to 2 years before an article is included in Scopus.

It has more features for sorting and filtering, so you might not feel overwhelmed when searching.

Therefore, if you are just starting your research, SCOPUS might be an excellent option for finding research papers.

ResearchGate

In addition to traditional searching for publications, ResearchGate offers the following features:

  • Follow researchers in your field, so you can keep up with their work.
  • Keep up-to-date with the research projects of other researchers by following their research projects, and
  • Comment on publications, ask questions, and send direct messages to interact with others.

As most of the comments on ResearchGate are coming from experts in their respective fields, the QnA section may be a great resource for finding the right paper for your research.

An RSS(Really Simple Syndication) feed, as the name implies, is a straightforward solution. By subscribing to RSS, users can access content from specific websites.

You can find RSS feeds for nearly every major journal and preprint server on their home pages – just look for the orange icon. As new articles are added to PubMed or Google Scholar, you can even subscribe to specific keywords.

Use academic textbooks the right way

If you are new to a particular research area, it would be best to start by reading textbooks to understand the topic better.

Despite the lack of depth and detail in a textbook, it can provide you with the basic concepts you need to read further. Furthermore, textbooks often include extensive lists of references as well as this information to get you started . Download the relevant articles from these references.

You might feel overwhelmed if you try to read an academic textbook from beginning to end. For this reason, read only the sections which contain the information you need for your project.

Review papers are game changers

A review paper on your topic is a great starting point for finding good references and getting a broad overview of your research topic.

After reading the review paper, you can read the references cited therein.

You are reading a much more comprehensive summary of the topic than you would have found reading ten individual research papers on the same topic if you found a highly relevant review paper for your research.

Look for technical reports and theses

Make sure you don’t limit yourself to research papers when looking for references. A technical report or code document on your topic may contain important citations (as well as practical information).

There is nothing that compares to a PhD thesis when it comes to the depth and extent of analytical work. See which references students have cited in their theses on your topic.

If you find a relevant thesis for your literature review, you will have extensive information about the research topic in one place, saving you a ton of time.

Google Scholar

The best for the last!

Due to its versatility and efficiency in finding academic papers, I decided to include Google Scholar separately from the database section.

I enjoy using Google Scholar among all the fancy databases available. One drawback to Google Scholar is that it lacks the ability to search for keywords and filter results.

Therefore, if you are just starting your research and aren’t sure what “keywords” to search for, Google Scholar might not be your first choice.

The advantage of Google Scholar is that if you are already familiar with your field of study and already know what you are doing, you will be able to find relevant research papers more quickly.

Use Google Scholar’s search function to locate relevant articles. Furthermore, you can subscribe to updates from colleagues in your field to access the latest references. The publisher of a journal paper may also report an article faster to Google Scholar than another database, which can take up to two years to include an article.

Images courtesy: Internet marketing vector created by jcomp – www.freepik.com

Aruna Kumarasiri

Aruna Kumarasiri

Founder at Proactive Grad, Materials Engineer, Researcher, and turned author. In 2019, he started his professional carrier as a materials engineer with the continuation of his research studies. His exposure to both academic and industrial worlds has provided many opportunities for him to give back to young professionals.

Did You Enjoy This?

Then consider getting the ProactiveGrad newsletter. It's a collection of useful ideas, fresh links, and high-spirited shenanigans delivered to your inbox every two weeks.

I accept the Privacy Policy

Hand-picked related articles

how to stick to a schedule

How to stick to a schedule as a graduate student?

  • October 10, 2023

best note-taking apps for graduate students obsidian app

The best note-taking apps for graduate students: How to choose the right note-taking app

  • September 20, 2022

email writing to potential supervisors

A bulletproof system for organizing your email writing to potential supervisors

  • September 4, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Post Comment

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Med Libr Assoc
  • v.106(4); 2018 Oct

A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches

Associated data.

Creating search strategies for systematic reviews, finding the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, and translating search strategies between databases is challenging. Several methods describe standards for systematic search strategies, but a consistent approach for creating an exhaustive search strategy has not yet been fully described in enough detail to be fully replicable. The authors have established a method that describes step by step the process of developing a systematic search strategy as needed in the systematic review. This method describes how single-line search strategies can be prepared in a text document by typing search syntax (such as field codes, parentheses, and Boolean operators) before copying and pasting search terms (keywords and free-text synonyms) that are found in the thesaurus. To help ensure term completeness, we developed a novel optimization technique that is mainly based on comparing the results retrieved by thesaurus terms with those retrieved by the free-text search words to identify potentially relevant candidate search terms. Macros in Microsoft Word have been developed to convert syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. This method helps information specialists in developing librarian-mediated searches for systematic reviews as well as medical and health care practitioners who are searching for evidence to answer clinical questions. The described method can be used to create complex and comprehensive search strategies for different databases and interfaces, such as those that are needed when searching for relevant references for systematic reviews, and will assist both information specialists and practitioners when they are searching the biomedical literature.

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 [ 1 ]. Although several recommendations for the process of searching have been published [ 2 – 6 ], none describe the development of a systematic search strategy from start to finish.

Traditional methods of SR search strategy development and execution are highly time consuming, reportedly requiring up to 100 hours or more [ 7 , 8 ]. The authors wanted to develop systematic and exhaustive search strategies more efficiently, while preserving the high sensitivity that SR search strategies necessitate. In this article, we describe the method developed at Erasmus University Medical Center (MC) and demonstrate its use through an example search. The efficiency of the search method and outcome of 73 searches that have resulted in published reviews are described in a separate article [ 9 ].

As we aimed to describe the creation of systematic searches in full detail, the method starts at a basic level with the analysis of the research question and the creation of search terms. Readers who are new to SR searching are advised to follow all steps described. More experienced searchers can consider the basic steps to be existing knowledge that will already be part of their normal workflow, although step 4 probably differs from general practice. Experienced searchers will gain the most from reading about the novelties in the method as described in steps 10–13 and comparing the examples given in the supplementary appendix to their own practice.

CREATING A SYSTEMATIC SEARCH STRATEGY

Our methodology for planning and creating a multi-database search strategy consists of the following steps:

  • Determine a clear and focused question
  • Describe the articles that can answer the question
  • Decide which key concepts address the different elements of the question
  • Decide which elements should be used for the best results
  • Choose an appropriate database and interface to start with
  • Document the search process in a text document
  • Identify appropriate index terms in the thesaurus of the first database
  • Identify synonyms in the thesaurus
  • Add variations in search terms
  • Use database-appropriate syntax, with parentheses, Boolean operators, and field codes
  • Optimize the search
  • Evaluate the initial results
  • Check for errors
  • Translate to other databases
  • Test and reiterate

Each step in the process is reflected by an example search described in the supplementary appendix .

1. Determine a clear and focused question

A systematic search can best be applied to a well-defined and precise research or clinical question. Questions that are too broad or too vague cannot be answered easily in a systematic way and will generally result in an overwhelming number of search results. On the other hand, a question that is too specific will result into too few or even zero search results. Various papers describe this process in more detail [ 10 – 12 ].

2. Describe the articles that can answer the question

Although not all clinical or research questions can be answered in the literature, the next step is to presume that the answer can indeed be found in published studies. A good starting point for a search is hypothesizing what the research that can answer the question would look like. These hypothetical (when possible, combined with known) articles can be used as guidance for constructing the search strategy.

3. Decide which key concepts address the different elements of the question

Key concepts are the topics or components that the desired articles should address, such as diseases or conditions, actions, substances, settings, domains (e.g., therapy, diagnosis, etiology), or study types. Key concepts from the research question can be grouped to create elements in the search strategy.

Elements in a search strategy do not necessarily follow the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) structure or any other related structure. Using the PICO or another similar framework as guidance can be helpful to consider, especially in the inclusion and exclusion review stage of the SR, but this is not necessary for good search strategy development [ 13 – 15 ]. Sometimes concepts from different parts of the PICO structure can be grouped together into one search element, such as when the desired outcome is frequently described in a certain study type.

4. Decide which elements should be used for the best results

Not all elements of a research question should necessarily be used in the search strategy. Some elements are less important than others or may unnecessarily complicate or restrict a search strategy. Adding an element to a search strategy increases the chance of missing relevant references. Therefore, the number of elements in a search strategy should remain as low as possible to optimize recall.

Using the schema in Figure 1 , elements can be ordered by their specificity and importance to determine the best search approach. Whether an element is more specific or more general can be measured objectively by the number of hits retrieved in a database when searching for a key term representing that element. Depending on the research question, certain elements are more important than others. If articles (hypothetically or known) exist that can answer the question but lack a certain element in their titles, abstracts, or keywords, that element is unimportant to the question. An element can also be unimportant because of expected bias or an overlap with another element.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jmla-106-531-f001.jpg

Schema for determining the optimal order of elements

Bias in elements

The choice of elements in a search strategy can introduce bias through use of overly specific terminology or terms often associated with positive outcomes. For the question “does prolonged breastfeeding improve intelligence outcomes in children?,” searching specifically for the element of duration will introduce bias, as articles that find a positive effect of prolonged breastfeeding will be much more likely to mention time factors in their titles or abstracts.

Overlapping elements

Elements in a question sometimes overlap in their meaning. Sometimes certain therapies are interventions for one specific disease. The Lichtenstein technique, for example, is a repair method for inguinal hernias. There is no need to include an element of “inguinal hernias” to a search for the effectiveness of the Lichtenstein therapy. Likewise, sometimes certain diseases are only found in certain populations. Adding such an overlapping element could lead to missing relevant references.

The elements to use in a search strategy can be found in the plot of elements in Figure 1 , by following the top row from left to right. For this method, we recommend starting with the most important and specific elements. Then, continue with more general and important elements until the number of results is acceptable for screening. Determining how many results are acceptable for screening is often a matter of negotiation with the SR team.

5. Choose an appropriate database and interface to start with

Important factors for choosing databases to use are the coverage and the presence of a thesaurus. For medically oriented searches, the coverage and recall of Embase, which includes the MEDLINE database, are superior to those of MEDLINE [ 16 ]. Each of these two databases has its own thesaurus with its own unique definitions and structure. Because of the complexity of the Embase thesaurus, Emtree, which contains much more specific thesaurus terms than the MEDLINE Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus, translation from Emtree to MeSH is easier than the other way around. Therefore, we recommend starting in Embase.

MEDLINE and Embase are available through many different vendors and interfaces. The choice of an interface and primary database is often determined by the searcher’s accessibility. For our method, an interface that allows searching with proximity operators is desirable, and full functionality of the thesaurus, including explosion of narrower terms, is crucial. We recommend developing a personal workflow that always starts with one specific database and interface.

6. Document the search process in a text document

We advise designing and creating the complete search strategies in a log document, instead of directly in the database itself, to register the steps taken and to make searches accountable and reproducible. The developed search strategies can be copied and pasted into the desired databases from the log document. This way, the searcher is in control of the whole process. Any change to the search strategy should be done in the log document, assuring that the search strategy in the log is always the most recent.

7. Identify appropriate index terms in the thesaurus of the first database

Searches should start by identifying appropriate thesaurus terms for the desired elements. The thesaurus of the database is searched for matching index terms for each key concept. We advise restricting the initial terms to the most important and most relevant terms. Later in the process, more general terms can be added in the optimization process, in which the effect on the number of hits, and thus the desirability of adding these terms, can be evaluated more easily.

Several factors can complicate the identification of thesaurus terms. Sometimes, one thesaurus term is found that exactly describes a specific element. In contrast, especially in more general elements, multiple thesaurus terms can be found to describe one element. If no relevant thesaurus terms have been found for an element, free-text terms can be used, and possible thesaurus terms found in the resulting references can be added later (step 11).

Sometimes, no distinct thesaurus term is available for a specific key concept that describes the concept in enough detail. In Emtree, one thesaurus term often combines two or more elements. The easiest solution for combining these terms for a sensitive search is to use such a thesaurus term in all elements where it is relevant. Examples are given in the supplementary appendix .

8. Identify synonyms in the thesaurus

Most thesauri offer a list of synonyms on their term details page (named Synonyms in Emtree and Entry Terms in MeSH). To create a sensitive search strategy for SRs, these terms need to be searched as free-text keywords in the title and abstract fields, in addition to searching their associated thesaurus terms.

The Emtree thesaurus contains more synonyms (300,000) than MeSH does (220,000) [ 17 ]. The difference in number of terms is even higher considering that many synonyms in MeSH are permuted terms (i.e., inversions of phrases using commas).

Thesaurus terms are ordered in a tree structure. When searching for a more general thesaurus term, the more specific (narrower) terms in the branches below that term will also be searched (this is frequently referred to as “exploding” a thesaurus term). However, to perform a sensitive search, all relevant variations of the narrower terms must be searched as free-text keywords in the title or abstract, in addition to relying on the exploded thesaurus term. Thus, all articles that describe a certain narrower topic in their titles and abstracts will already be retrieved before MeSH terms are added.

9. Add variations in search terms (e.g., truncation, spelling differences, abbreviations, opposites)

Truncation allows a searcher to search for words beginning with the same word stem. A search for therap* will, thus, retrieve therapy, therapies, therapeutic, and all other words starting with “therap.” Do not truncate a word stem that is too short. Also, limitations of interfaces should be taken into account, especially in PubMed, where the number of search term variations that can be found by truncation is limited to 600.

Databases contain references to articles using both standard British and American English spellings. Both need to be searched as free-text terms in the title and abstract. Alternatively, many interfaces offer a certain code to replace zero or one characters, allowing a search for “pediatric” or “paediatric” as “p?ediatric.” Table 1 provides a detailed description of the syntax for different interfaces.

Field codes in five most used interfaces for biomedical literature searching

Searching for abbreviations can identify extra, relevant references and retrieve more irrelevant ones. The search can be more focused by combining the abbreviation with an important word that is relevant to its meaning or by using the Boolean “NOT” to exclude frequently observed, clearly irrelevant results. We advise that searchers do not exclude all possible irrelevant meanings, as it is very time consuming to identify all the variations, it will result in unnecessarily complicated search strategies, and it may lead to erroneously narrowing the search and, thereby, reduce recall.

Searching partial abbreviations can be useful for retrieving relevant references. For example, it is very likely that an article would mention osteoarthritis (OA) early in the abstract, replacing all further occurrences of osteoarthritis with OA . Therefore, it may not contain the phrase “hip osteoarthritis” but only “hip oa.”

It is also important to search for the opposites of search terms to avoid bias. When searching for “disease recurrence,” articles about “disease free” may be relevant as well. When the desired outcome is survival , articles about mortality may be relevant.

10. Use database-appropriate syntax, with parentheses, Boolean operators, and field codes

Different interfaces require different syntaxes, the special set of rules and symbols unique to each database that define how a correctly constructed search operates. Common syntax components include the use of parentheses and Boolean operators such as “AND,” “OR,” and “NOT,” which are available in all major interfaces. An overview of different syntaxes for four major interfaces for bibliographic medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, EBSCOhost, Embase.com, and ProQuest) is shown in Table 1 .

Creating the appropriate syntax for each database, in combination with the selected terms as described in steps 7–9, can be challenging. Following the method outlined below simplifies the process:

  • Create single-line queries in a text document (not combining multiple record sets), which allows immediate checking of the relevance of retrieved references and efficient optimization.
  • Type the syntax (Boolean operators, parentheses, and field codes) before adding terms, which reduces the chance that errors are made in the syntax, especially in the number of parentheses.
  • Use predefined proximity structures including parentheses, such as (() ADJ3 ()) in Ovid, that can be reused in the query when necessary.
  • Use thesaurus terms separately from free-text terms of each element. Start an element with all thesaurus terms (using “OR”) and follow with the free-text terms. This allows the unique optimization methods as described in step 11.
  • When adding terms to an existing search strategy, pay close attention to the position of the cursor. Make sure to place it appropriately either in the thesaurus terms section, in the title/abstract section, or as an addition (broadening) to an existing proximity search.

The supplementary appendix explains the method of building a query in more detail, step by step for different interfaces: PubMed, Ovid, EBSCOhost, Embase.com, and ProQuest. This method results in a basic search strategy designed to retrieve some relevant references upon which a more thorough search strategy can be built with optimization such as described in step 11.

11. Optimize the search

The most important question when performing a systematic search is whether all (or most) potentially relevant articles have been retrieved by the search strategy. This is also the most difficult question to answer, since it is unknown which and how many articles are relevant. It is, therefore, wise first to broaden the initial search strategy, making the search more sensitive, and then check if new relevant articles are found by comparing the set results (i.e., search for Strategy #2 NOT Strategy #1 to see the unique results).

A search strategy should be tested for completeness. Therefore, it is necessary to identify extra, possibly relevant search terms and add them to the test search in an OR relationship with the already used search terms. A good place to start, and a well-known strategy, is scanning the top retrieved articles when sorted by relevance, looking for additional relevant synonyms that could be added to the search strategy.

We have developed a unique optimization method that has not been described before in the literature. This method often adds valuable extra terms to our search strategy and, therefore, extra, relevant references to our search results. Extra synonyms can be found in articles that have been assigned a certain set of thesaurus terms but that lack synonyms in the title and/or abstract that are already present in the current search strategy. Searching for thesaurus terms NOT free-text terms will help identify missed free-text terms in the title or abstract. Searching for free-text terms NOT thesaurus terms will help identify missed thesaurus terms. If this is done repeatedly for each element, leaving the rest of the query unchanged, this method will help add numerous relevant terms to the query. These steps are explained in detail for five different search platforms in the supplementary appendix .

12. Evaluate the initial results

The results should now contain relevant references. If the interface allows relevance ranking, use that in the evaluation. If you know some relevant references that should be included in the research, search for those references specifically; for example, combine a specific (first) author name with a page number and the publication year. Check whether those references are retrieved by the search. If the known relevant references are not retrieved by the search, adapt the search so that they are. If it is unclear which element should be adapted to retrieve a certain article, combine that article with each element separately.

Different outcomes are desired for different types of research questions. For instance, in the case of clinical question answering, the researcher will not be satisfied with many references that contain a lot of irrelevant references. A clinical search should be rather specific and is allowed to miss a relevant reference. In the case of an SR, the researchers do not want to miss any relevant reference and are willing to handle many irrelevant references to do so. The search for references to include in an SR should be very sensitive: no included reference should be missed. A search that is too specific or too sensitive for the intended goal can be adapted to become more sensitive or specific. Steps to increase sensitivity or specificity of a search strategy can be found in the supplementary appendix .

13. Check for errors

Errors might not be easily detected. Sometimes clues can be found in the number of results, either when the number of results is much higher or lower than expected or when many retrieved references are not relevant. However, the number expected is often unknown, and very sensitive search strategies will always retrieve many irrelevant articles. Each query should, therefore, be checked for errors.

One of the most frequently occurring errors is missing the Boolean operator “OR.” When no “OR” is added between two search terms, many interfaces automatically add an “AND,” which unintentionally reduces the number of results and likely misses relevant references. One good strategy to identify missing “OR”s is to go to the web page containing the full search strategy, as translated by the database, and using Ctrl-F search for “AND.” Check whether the occurrences of the “AND” operator are deliberate.

Ideally, search strategies should be checked by other information specialists [ 18 ]. The Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist offers good guidance for this process [ 4 ]. Apart from the syntax (especially Boolean operators and field codes) of the search strategy, it is wise to have the search terms checked by the clinician or researcher familiar with the topic. At Erasmus MC, researchers and clinicians are involved during the complete process of structuring and optimizing the search strategy. Each word is added after the combined decision of the searcher and the researcher, with the possibility of directly comparing results with and without the new term.

14. Translate to other databases

To retrieve as many relevant references as possible, one has to search multiple databases. Translation of complex and exhaustive queries between different databases can be very time consuming and cumbersome. The single-line search strategy approach detailed above allows quick translations using the find and replace method in Microsoft Word (<Ctrl-H>).

At Erasmus MC, macros based on the find-and-replace method in Microsoft Word have been developed for easy and fast translation between the most used databases for biomedical and health sciences questions. The schema that is followed for the translation between databases is shown in Figure 2 . Most databases simply follow the structure set by the Embase.com search strategy. The translation from Emtree terms to MeSH terms for MEDLINE in Ovid often identifies new terms that need to be added to the Embase.com search strategy before the translation to other databases.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jmla-106-531-f002.jpg

Schematic representation of translation between databases used at Erasmus University Medical Center

Dotted lines represent databases that are used in less than 80% of the searches.

Using five different macros, a thoroughly optimized query in Embase.com can be relatively quickly translated into eight major databases. Basic search strategies will be created to use in many, mostly smaller, databases, because such niche databases often do not have extensive thesauri or advanced syntax options. Also, there is not much need to use extensive syntax because the number of hits and, therefore, the amount of noise in these databases is generally low. In MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the thesaurus terms must be adapted manually, as each database has its own custom thesaurus. These macros and instructions for their installation, use, and adaptation are available at bit.ly/databasemacros.

15. Test and reiterate

Ideally, exhaustive search strategies should retrieve all references that are covered in a specific database. For SR search strategies, checking searches for their recall is advised. This can be done after included references have been determined by the authors of the systematic review. If additional papers have been identified through other non-database methods (i.e., checking references in included studies), results that were not identified by the database searches should be examined. If these results were available in the databases but not located by the search strategy, the search strategy should be adapted to try to retrieve these results, as they may contain terms that were omitted in the original search strategies. This may enable the identification of additional relevant results.

A methodology for creating exhaustive search strategies has been created that describes all steps of the search process, starting with a question and resulting in thorough search strategies in multiple databases. Many of the steps described are not new, but together, they form a strong method creating high-quality, robust searches in a relatively short time frame.

Our methodology is intended to create thoroughness for literature searches. The optimization method, as described in step 11, will identify missed synonyms or thesaurus terms, unlike any other method that largely depends on predetermined keywords and synonyms. Using this method results in a much quicker search process, compared to traditional methods, especially because of the easier translation between databases and interfaces (step 13). The method is not a guarantee for speed, since speed depends on many factors, including experience. However, by following the steps and using the tools as described above, searchers can gain confidence first and increase speed through practice.

What is new?

This method encourages searchers to start their search development process using empty syntax first and later adding the thesaurus terms and free-text synonyms. We feel this helps the searcher to focus on the search terms, instead of on the structure of the search query. The optimization method in which new terms are found in the already retrieved articles is used in some other institutes as well but has to our knowledge not been described in the literature. The macros to translate search strategies between interfaces are unique in this method.

What is different compared to common practice?

Traditionally, librarians and information specialists have focused on creating complex, multi-line (also called line-by-line) search strategies, consisting of multiple record sets, and this method is frequently advised in the literature and handbooks [ 2 , 19 – 21 ]. Our method, instead, uses single-line searches, which is critical to its success. Single-line search strategies can be easily adapted by adding or dropping a term without having to recode numbers of record sets, which would be necessary in multi-line searches. They can easily be saved in a text document and repeated by copying and pasting for search updates. Single-line search strategies also allow easy translation to other syntaxes using find-and-replace technology to update field codes and other syntax elements or using macros (step 13).

When constructing a search strategy, the searcher might experience that certain parentheses in the syntax are unnecessary, such as parentheses around all search terms in the title/abstract portion, if there is only one such term, there are double parentheses in the proximity statement, or one of the word groups exists for only one word. One might be tempted to omit those parentheses for ease of reading and management. However, during the optimization process, the searcher is likely to find extra synonyms that might consist of one word. To add those terms to the first query (with reduced parentheses) requires adding extra parentheses (meticulously placing and counting them), whereas, in the latter search, it only requires proper placement of those terms.

Many search methods highly depend on the PICO framework. Research states that often PICO or PICOS is not suitable for every question [ 22 , 23 ]. There are other acronyms than PICO—such as sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, research type (SPIDER) [ 24 ]—but each is just a variant. In our method, the most important and specific elements of a question are being analyzed for building the best search strategy.

Though it is generally recommended that searchers search both MEDLINE and Embase, most use MEDLINE as the starting point. It is considered the gold standard for biomedical searching, partially due to historical reasons, since it was the first of its kind, and more so now that it is freely available via the PubMed interface. Our method can be used with any database as a starting point, but we use Embase instead of MEDLINE or another database for a number of reasons. First, Embase provides both unique content and the complete content of MEDLINE. Therefore, searching Embase will be, by definition, more complete than searching MEDLINE only. Second, the number of terms in Emtree (the Embase thesaurus) is three times as high as that of MeSH (the MEDLINE thesaurus). It is easier to find MeSH terms after all relevant Emtree terms have been identified than to start with MeSH and translate to Emtree.

At Erasmus MC, the researchers sit next to the information specialist during most of the search strategy design process. This way, the researchers can deliver immediate feedback on the relevance of proposed search terms and retrieved references. The search team then combines knowledge about databases with knowledge about the research topic, which is an important condition to create the highest quality searches.

Limitations of the method

One disadvantage of single-line searches compared to multi-line search strategies is that errors are harder to recognize. However, with the methods for optimization as described (step 11), errors are recognized easily because missed synonyms and spelling errors will be identified during the process. Also problematic is that more parentheses are needed, making it more difficult for the searcher and others to assess the logic of the search strategy. However, as parentheses and field codes are typed before the search terms are added (step 10), errors in parentheses can be prevented.

Our methodology works best if used in an interface that allows proximity searching. It is recommended that searchers with access to an interface with proximity searching capabilities select one of those as the initial database to develop and optimize the search strategy. Because the PubMed interface does not allow proximity searches, phrases or Boolean “AND” combinations are required. Phrase searching complicates the process and is more specific, with the higher risk of missing relevant articles, and using Boolean “AND” combinations increases sensitivity but at an often high loss of specificity. Due to some searchers’ lack of access to expensive databases or interfaces, the freely available PubMed interface may be necessary to use, though it should never be the sole database used for an SR [ 2 , 16 , 25 ]. A limitation of our method is that it works best with subscription-based and licensed resources.

Another limitation is the customization of the macros to a specific institution’s resources. The macros for the translation between different database interfaces only work between the interfaces as described. To mitigate this, we recommend using the find-and-replace functionality of text editors like Microsoft Word to ease the translation of syntaxes between other databases. Depending on one’s institutional resources, custom macros can be developed using similar methods.

Results of the method

Whether this method results in exhaustive searches where no important article is missed is difficult to determine, because the number of relevant articles is unknown for any topic. A comparison of several parameters of 73 published reviews that were based on a search developed with this method to 258 reviews that acknowledged information specialists from other Dutch academic hospitals shows that the performance of the searches following our method is comparable to those performed in other institutes but that the time needed to develop the search strategies was much shorter than the time reported for the other reviews [ 9 ].

CONCLUSIONS

With the described method, searchers can gain confidence in their search strategies by finding many relevant words and creating exhaustive search strategies quickly. The approach can be used when performing SR searches or for other purposes such as answering clinical questions, with different expectations of the search’s precision and recall. This method, with practice, provides a stepwise approach that facilitates the search strategy development process from question clarification to final iteration and beyond.

SUPPLEMENTAL FILE

Acknowledgments.

We highly appreciate the work that was done by our former colleague Louis Volkers, who in his twenty years as an information specialist in Erasmus MC laid the basis for our method. We thank Professor Oscar Franco for reviewing earlier drafts of this article.

Enago Academy

Finding Relevant Scholarly Research for Literature Review: How can we be systematic?

' src=

On an average, it takes 15 clicks for a researcher to find an article (which may or may not be related to their research topic) online. This time is not productive because it does not help them gain any knowledge and it could potentially be spent doing something more vital in fostering research and development. Moreover, as most researchers rely on two to three databases to find information for their literature review , the time to find relevant scholarly research data also increases.

Table of Contents

Navigating Through Multiple Scholarly Databases—Is it even necessary?

The Internet has revolutionized the way we access information. Websites and online resources within and outside of academic bibliography are significant resources of literature. However, the challenge in searching and managing the results is undeniable.

Considering the exponential growth in scholarly research data and literature, finding relevant information and reporting your research sooner is imperative. While Open Science has been a positive reform of information access, not all data is available at a click, let alone the relevant one. Researchers fear the possibility of missing out on critical information related to their research topic or accidentally committing plagiarism. Hence, they spend time in toggling through multiple scholarly databases.

In this process of searching for literature on multiple databases, researchers tend to download irrelevant information too. Furthermore, the probability of finding similar resources on multiple databases is higher if the resource is on an Open Access platform. These downloaded papers not only occupy the space in reference managers but also make researchers spend a lot of time deciding whether the paper is worth reading or not.

5 Major Challenges Faced on Multiple Scholarly Databases—How to overcome them?

Finding scholarly research data involves navigating through institutional login pages, subscriptions, and paywalls. Apart from the time, effort, and money spent there are several other challenges that researchers encounter while searching literature on multiple scholarly databases.

Here we discuss 5 major challenges faced by researchers while using multiple scholarly databases:

1. Identifying and Deciding the Resources to Search

The Internet provides information in numerous formats, viz. journal articles, preprints, video recordings, podcasts, infographics, conference proceedings, etc. This wide pool of knowledge gets deeper with advances in scholarly research and literature. Hence, while finding research data on multiple scholarly databases in multiple formats, it becomes difficult to identify and decide the resources to download based on their relevance to the research topic. However, these resources can be easily traced if they all are on a single platform.

2. Search or Navigate Resources Correctly

Researchers use keywords and questions to find scholarly data related to their topic of interest. Databases search for the exact words and phrases. Hence, if researchers use a different word or a synonym that describes the concept, the search results are not relevant. If a single database with optimized keywords is used to access billions of scholarly resources, it not only avoids information overload but also allows navigation of relevant information.

3. Assessing Obtained Search Results

Information overload makes it difficult for researchers to assess every discovered resource. One cannot decide the relevancy of search results based on the research paper ’s title. And reading all sections of all papers—abstract, introduction, results, and/or conclusion—will be extremely time consuming. Furthermore, spending time reading these sections of papers to later find out that it’s not related to your research topic will not help anyone. So, what if there was a tool that could search results beyond keywords using research ideas, questions, etc., and also could summarize the key aspects of each downloaded resource? Definitely something to ponder about.

4. Deciding Which Literature to Select and Cite

Scientists are often overwhelmed with the scholarly research data they find online. It is a never-ending task to decide which literature to select and cite. Thus, it is essential to download only relevant data and assess them based on their relevance to the research topic. Furthermore, citing the literature accurately by following journal-specific guidelines and writing style guides will avoid accidental plagiarism. Such cumbersome tasks can be handled with accuracy using an AI-based tool particularly designed to make academic research and publishing easier.

5. Retrieving Relevant Literature in an Accessible and Editable Format

The inability of some software to save, process, and/or retrieve data in all formats is displeasing in this age of digitization. Hence, scientists prefer software that allows accessing, downloading, managing, and editing research data files in all formats.

How to Find Scholarly Research Data with a Systematic Approach? – 7 simple steps

Given the amount of intelligence on the internet, it is only wise to resort to a reliable system. One which is smart, efficient, precise, accessible, and affordable to integrate the scattered information, help researchers through every step of research reporting and publishing, and save time, effort, and money.

A simple 7-step systematic approach to find relevant scholarly research data

  • Search literature based on research ideas, keywords, conference talks, author details, etc.
  • Assess the found resources based on their key aspects and findings.
  • Search, save, manage, read, and annotate relevant literature on a single platform.
  • Use easily accessible and editable formats.
  • Cite the literature to avoid plagiarism.
  • Follow journal guidelines and format the research paper.
  • Connect with co-authors and share your work with them for insights and edits.

An extensive and accurate literature search is the key to performing, reporting, and publishing authentic research. A systematic single-platform search database provides a much better comprehension of insights of the research topic. It helps draw comparisons faster as all results are saved and managed in one place! Moreover, it helps researchers to stimulate the interpretation of ideas, analyze shortcomings, and recognize opportunities of future research.

With advances in technology, this process can be simplified without compromising the quality of the final product. As Artificial Intelligence takes over other realms of society, it’s about time researchers leverage these advances to further streamline research publishing.

What are your ways of literature search? How many databases do you have to use simultaneously? Wouldn’t you want to have all your work on one platform without remembering several login IDs and passwords? This sounds like the future of publishing! What do you think?

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

how to find relevant research papers

Enago Academy's Most Popular

how to find relevant research papers

  • Old Webinars
  • Reporting Research

AI for Accuracy in Research and Academic Writing

Importance of Achieving Accuracy in Research Challenges Faced by Researchers Various Capabilities of AI Tools…

Best AI Content Detection Tools to Uphold Academic Integrity

  • AI in Academia
  • Publishing Research

Upholding Academic Integrity in the Age of AI: Challenges and solutions

In today’s academic landscape, one of the most pressing challenges is ensuring academic integrity. With…

Best AI-Based Literature Review Tools

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

AI-generated hypothesis

  • Trending Now

AI-Driven Hypotheses: Real world examples exploring the potential and challenges of AI-generated hypotheses in science

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer confined to mere automation; it is now an active…

Generative AI Guide

  • Thought Leadership

Launching a Practical Guide for Institutions on Using Generative AI in Research and Research Writing – Get Yours Now!

In an era where AI technologies like ChatGPT and similar generative AI tools are becoming…

Call for Responsible Use of Generative AI in Academia: The battle between rising…

Limitations of DeepL Write and ChatGPT in Scholarly Editing: How human editors…

how to find relevant research papers

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

  • 2000+ blog articles
  • 50+ Webinars
  • 10+ Expert podcasts
  • 50+ Infographics
  • 10+ Checklists
  • Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

how to find relevant research papers

When should AI tools be used in university labs?

Protolyst

How to Find Relevant Papers for your Research Project

Keeping up to date with new literature and reviewing the existing literature helps you to build deep knowledge and understanding in your field. Developing effective reading strategies and systems to retain and evolve your knowledge over time is a key part of your research project. With millions of papers published every year in more than ten thousand different journals, the challenge lies in finding relevant papers for your work, deciding which ones to read in-depth and working out how to retain and build an expansive knowledge over a long time frame, while balancing this alongside all your other research activities.  

In this multi-part Academic Reading Series we’ll focus on systems for reading and learning from academic papers, pooling information from our experiences in academia and advice from current researchers. In this first part we’ll cover searching for papers.

how to find relevant research papers

Why read Academic Papers?

Academic papers share the details of recent developments and discoveries, and are the most up to date records of advances in a field.  When starting a new project, you’ll typically first spend a lot of time reading.  This reading helps you to build a solid working knowledge, and learn about current areas of investigation and interest from researchers in your field.  

Every paper you read can also help you to:

  • learn standard techniques and methods for your project
  • discover emerging or new techniques and theories 
  • find and access relevant data sets for analysis
  • identify other relevant papers in reference sections
  • spot gaps for your exploration
  • notice opportunities for new projects and collaborations
  • save yourself time so you don’t repeat what’s already been done

Papers are an invaluable source of information that you can use to build your foundational knowledge, determine interesting directions and to generate novel ideas for your projects.

Papers and your Research Project

Publishing papers is the academic standard for disseminating ideas, discoveries and findings.  Through your research projects, you’ll add to the body of academic knowledge, ideally contributing something novel to your field.  Depending on your research stage your project may involve writing a thesis or dissertation, publishing a literature review or papers to share your ideas within the research community. 

Typically academic writing involves referring to previously conducted work in the field to provide the context for your own work and sharing the information and evidence that supports your approach or methodology, as well as your findings and interpretations.  So the papers you are reading will form a critical part in shaping your research and are also needed for your writing.  

While reading, you can start to create a personal catalogue of information and ideas that you can refer to when writing. Depending on how you build your catalogue and organise notes from your reading, you can then save yourself time searching for relevant knowledge when you sit down to write or want to plan out an investigation in future.  

Finding Relevant Papers when starting a Project

When you first start a project, you’ll likely be pointed in the direction of some relevant literature by your supervisor or PI.  There are several ways to find other relevant literature to read and would strongly recommend speaking with the experts around you, such as asking other researchers within your group, (if you are joining a group) or looking at your PI’s other publications, and exploring the publications of any collaborators on those papers.  Your PI may have varied research interests so keep in mind not all of their publications will be relevant for your project.

how to find relevant research papers

If you are continuing a project from a previous researcher, then their thesis or publications can hold relevant information, as well as point you towards other relevant literature from their references and bibliography.  

Recommendations from your PI and other researchers may point you in the direction of Seminal papers – the work that initiated or presents key ideas and theories in your field. These are the papers synonymous with your field so as you are searching for relevant papers, don’t disregard some of the older papers in your searches. 

Another way to identify relevant literature is finding relevant conferences in the field and exploring the presentations, posters and keynote speakers listed on the websites.  Again asking other researchers in your group and your supervisors will help you find conferences and meetings.  

It’s tempting to go search and uncover everything through searching online, but don’t forget to take advantage of the specific knowledge and expertise available from the people around you.

Finding Relevant Papers Online

As you deepen your familiarity with your research, you’ll start to notice and identify the most relevant recurring keywords in the papers you’re finding.  Take note of them for use in your future searches.  These keywords and combinations of those keywords can be used to help you with finding further relevant literature through literature databases like Google Scholar, PubMed or Web of Science.  You could even use these keywords to set up notifications to alert you about newly published papers related to these keywords.

Literature databases operate on keyword searches and have additional filters available to apply further parameters to your search, such as publication date or publication type as well as citation count. Generally high citation counts, when you consider the publication date, can indicate key papers and researchers in the field.  These high citation papers, and their authors offer another avenue for finding relevant papers for your project, from the references section of the paper and looking at other publications from these authors.   

Review papers can be a particularly good source of other relevant papers.  Reviews assess and analyse the published work in a field to date, and also highlight potential areas for further investigation.  The references section of these papers can point you towards several further relevant papers for your project. 

You might have come across the idea of a ‘Seed Paper’ and this is a paper you find that is very relevant to your work, which can act to point you in the direction of other relevant work. Tools like LitMaps can be useful here, as they show you the prior and derivative work based on the references in the paper, and which papers have since cited the paper. 

how to find relevant research papers

Ongoing Literature Search

Searching the literature is an expansive and iterative activity.  Finding relevant papers to read should be a regular part of your research activities. As you identify your keywords, you can take advantage of automated notifications when new papers are published. You might also identify particular journals that publish relevant research and you can monitor RSS feeds, using tools like Feedly to see new publications.

There are also lots of AI tools to help with your academic research from identifying relevant papers, generating summaries and ‘talking’ with collections of your papers.  These tools can definitely speed up your search and reading process. Keep in mind AI can be an incredibly useful tool, but you’ll need to analyse, interpret and apply the knowledge to direct your project in new and interesting directions.

Literature Searches are an iterative process, you might need to try several different combinations of keywords to find the most relevant results.  And as your project evolves or you follow different lines of inquiry in your work, you should search with updated and/or new keywords to unearth relevant literature.

It can be beneficial to save these searches, as well as the papers you want to look at in more detail. Some tools keep a log of all your searches performed, others you might need to keep track using your own system.  

Organising Relevant Papers

As you start finding relevant papers, it’s beneficial to make use of Reference Managers.  These tools capture the important information about a paper and contain a link or copy of the paper for you to access in future.  Adding your papers in you’ll start to build your own personal literature library, which will be an invaluable resource as you continue your project.

how to find relevant research papers

With a growing literature collection, which will only get larger over time, Reference Managers are a much better option than having a load of open Tabs, saved bookmarks in your browser or a Folder of PDFs on your desktop.   These Managers let you develop organisational systems to group related papers together and help you to add references into your academic writing. Proper referencing is a critical part of all academic writing and is made much quicker with a reference manager.  You can use popular reference management tools like Mendeley and Zotero , and Protolyst also has built-in referencing .

In the next part of this series, we’ll cover deciding which papers to read and different approaches to reading papers. 

  • There are many ways to identify relevant literature to build your knowledge and inform your research project direction.  You can search through literature databases, search using AI tools, and don’t forget to seek suggestions from your PI and other researchers in your group.
  • Once you’ve identified a relevant paper, look at the references in that paper and explore other publications from the Authors to continue building your knowledge.
  • Reading papers is an ongoing activity, consider using systems to organise your searches and the papers you discover
  • Keep track of your Keywords to iterate on your searches for relevant Literature
  • Make use of Reference Managers to keep track of all the papers you are discovering to read and refer to in future
  • Keep track of all relevant papers, you can decide which ones you should read and how to read them later

What tips and advice would you add? We’d love it if you let us know !

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.

You're wasting 1 day a week refinding the golden nuggets of info buried in your files and folders. Protolyst is a networked note taking web app where you can collect and categorise each individual highlight to find and use your most valuable info fast.

  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writing Referenced Articles Fast
  • Writing a Literature Review
  • Taking Notes on Research Papers
  • Building a Literature Database
  • Zettelkasten Notetaking System
  • Connecting Cornell Notes

Privacy Overview

Where to find peer reviewed articles for research

This is our ultimate guide to helping you get familiar with your research field and find peer reviewed articles in the Web of Science™. It forms part of our Research Smarter series. 

Finding relevant research and journal articles in your field is critical to a successful research project. Unfortunately, it can be one of the hardest, most time-consuming challenges for academics.

This blog outlines how you can leverage the Web of Science citation network to complete an in-depth, comprehensive search for literature. We share insights about how you can find a research paper and quickly assess its impact. We also explain how to create alerts to keep track of new papers in your field – whether you’re new to the topic or about to embark on a literature review.

  • Choosing research databases for your search
  • Where to find peer reviewed articles? Master the keyword search
  • Filter your results and analyze for trends
  • Explore the citation network
  • Save your searches and set up alerts for new journal articles

1. Choosing research databases for your search

The myriad search engines, research databases and data repositories all differ in reliability, relevancy and organization of data. This can make it tricky to navigate and assess what’s best for your research at hand.

The Web of Science stands out the most powerful and trusted citation database. It helps you connect ideas and advance scientific research across all fields and disciplines. This is made possible with best-in-class publication and citation data for confident discovery and assessment of journal articles. The Web of Science is also publisher-neutral, carefully-curated by a team of expert editors and consists of 19 different research databases.

The Web of Science Core Collection™ is the single most authoritative source for how to find research articles, discover top authors , and relevant journals . It only includes journals that have met rigorous quality and impact criteria, and it captures billions of cited references from globally significant journals, books and proceedings ( check out its coverage ). Researchers and organizations use this research database regularly to track ideas across disciplines and time.

Explore the Web of Science Core Collection

We recommend spending time exploring the Core Collection specifically because its advanced citation network features are unparalleled. If you are looking to do an exhaustive search of a specific field, you might want to switch to one of the field-specific databases like MEDLINE and INSPEC. You can also select “All databases” from the drop-down box on the main search page. This will cover all research databases your institution subscribes to. IF you are still unsure about where to find scholarly journal articles, you can learn more in our Quick Reference Guide, here, or try it out today.

“We recommend spending time exploring the Core Collection specifically because its advanced citation network features are unparalleled.”

Image: how to find research articles in the Web of Science database

2. Where to find peer reviewed articles? Master the keyword search

A great deal of care and consideration is needed to find peer review articles for research. It starts with your keyword search.

Your chosen keywords or search phrases cannot be too inclusive or limiting. They also require constant iteration as you become more familiar with your research field. Watch this video on search tips to learn more:

how to find relevant research papers

It’s worth noting that a repeated keyword search in the same Web of Science database will retrieve almost identical results every time, save for newly-indexed research. Not all research databases do this. If you are conducting a literature review and require a reproducible keyword search, it is best to steer clear of certain databases. For example, a research database that lacks overall transparency or frequently changes its search algorithm may be detrimental to your research.

3. Filter your search results and analyze trends

Group, rank and analyze the research articles in your search results to optimize the relevancy and efficiency of your efforts. In the Web of Science, researchers can cut through the data in a number of creative ways. This will help you when you’re stuck wondering where to find peer reviewed articles, journals and authors. The filter and refine tools , as well as the Analyze Results feature, are all at your disposal for this.

“Group, rank and analyze the research papers in your search results to optimize the relevancy and efficiency of your efforts.”

Where can I find scholarly journal articles? Try the Highly Cited and Hot Papers in Field option

Filter and Refine tools in the Web of Science

You can opt for basic filter and refine tools in the Web of Science. These include subject category, publication date and open access within your search results. You can also filter by highly-cited research and hot research papers. A hot paper is a journal article that has accumulated rapid and significant numbers of citations over a short period of time.

The Analyze Results tool does much of this and more. It provides an interactive visualization of your results by the most prolific author, institution and funding agency, for example. This, combined, will help you understand trends across your field.

4. Explore the citation network

Keyword searches are essentially an a priori view of the literature. Citation-based searching, on the other hand, leads to “systematic serendipity”. This term was used by Eugene Garfield, the founder of Web of Science. New scientific developments are linked to the global sphere of human knowledge through the citation network. The constantly evolving connections link ideas and lead to systematic serendipity, allowing for all sorts of surprising discoveries.

Exploring the citation network helps you to:

  • Identify a seminal research paper in any field. Pay attention to the number of times a journal article is cited to achieve this.
  • Track the advancement of research as it progresses over time by analyzing the research papers that cite the original source. This will also help you catch retractions and corrections to research.
  • Track the evolution of a research paper backward in time by tracking the work that a particular journal article cites.
  • View related references. A research paper may share citations with another piece of work (calculated from bibliographic coupling). That means it’s likely discussing a similar topic.

how to find relevant research papers

Visualizing the history discoveries in the citation network

The Web of Science Core Collection indexes every piece of content cover-to-cover. This creates a complete and certain view of more than 115 years of the highest-quality journal articles. The depth of coverage enables you to uncover the historical trail of a research paper in your field. By doing so, it helps you visualize how discoveries unfold through time. You can also learn where they might branch off into new areas of research.  Achieve this in your search by ordering your result set by date of publication.

As PhD student Rachel Ragnhild Carlson (Stanford University) recently wrote in a column for Nature: [1]

”As a PhD student, I’ve learnt to rely not just on my Web of Science research but on numerous conversations with seasoned experts. And I make sure that my reading includes literature from previous decades, which often doesn’t rise to the top of a web search. This practice is reinforced by mentors in my lab, who often find research gems by filtering explicitly for studies greater than ten years old.”

5. Save your search and set up alerts for new journal articles

Save time and keep abreast of new journal articles in your field by saving your searches and setting up email alerts . This means you can return to your search at any time. You can also stay up-to-date about a new research paper included in your search result. This will help you find an article more easily in the future. Head over to Web of Science to try it out today.

“Everyone should set up email alerts with keywords for PubMed, Web of Science, etc. Those keyword lists will evolve and be fine-tuned over time. However, it really helps to get an idea of recent publications.” Thorbjörn Sievert , PhD student, University of Jyväskylä

[1] Ragnhild Carlson, R. 2020 ‘How Trump’s embattled environment agency prepared me for a PhD’, Nature 579, 458

Related posts

2024 journal citation reports: changes in journal impact factor category rankings to enhance transparency and inclusivity.

how to find relevant research papers

New Web of Science Grants Index helps researchers develop more targeted grant proposals

how to find relevant research papers

Three ways research offices can lead researchers to more funding

how to find relevant research papers

  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Criminal Justice
  • Environment
  • Politics & Government
  • Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Research strategy guide for finding quality, credible sources

Strategies for finding academic studies and other information you need to give your stories authority and depth

Republish this article

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Keely Wilczek, The Journalist's Resource May 20, 2011

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/home/research-strategy-guide/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Knowing how to conduct deeper research efficiently and effectively is a critical skill for journalists — especially in the information age. It is, like other facets of the profession such as interviewing, a matter of practice and establishing good habits. And once you find a successful routine for information-gathering, it will pay dividends time and again.

Journalists need to be able to do many kinds of research. This article focuses on creating a research strategy that will help you find academic studies and related scholarly information. These sources can, among other things, give your stories extra authority and depth — and thereby distinguish your work. You can see examples of such studies — and find many relevant ones for your stories — by searching the Journalist’s Resource database . But that is just a representative sample of what exists in the research world.

The first step is to create a plan for seeking the information you need. This requires you to take time initially and to proceed with care, but it will ultimately pay off in better results. The research strategy covered in this article involves the following steps:

Get organized

Articulate your topic, locate background information.

  • Identify your information needs

List keywords and concepts for search engines and databases

Consider the scope of your topic, conduct your searches, evaluate the information sources you found, analyze and adjust your research strategy.

Being organized is an essential part of effective research strategy. You should create a record of your strategy and your searches. This will prevent you from repeating searches in the same resources and from continuing to use ineffective terms. It will also help you assess the success or failure of your research strategy as you go through the process. You also may want to consider tracking and organizing citations and links in bibliographic software such as Zotero . (See this helpful resource guide about using Zotero.)

Next, write out your topic in a clear and concise manner. Good research starts with a specific focus.

For example, let’s say you are writing a story about the long-range health effects of the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant based on a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives titled, “The Chernobyl Accident 20 Years On: An Assessment of the Health Consequences and the International Response.” (The study is summarized in Journalist’s Resource here .)

A statement of your topic might be, “Twenty years after the Chernobyl disaster, scientists are still learning the affects of the accident on the health of those who lived in the surrounding area and their descendants.”

If you have a good understanding of the Chernobyl disaster, proceed to the next step, “Identify the information you need.” If not, it’s time to gather background information. This will supply you with the whos and the whens of the topic. It will also provide you with a broader context as well as the important terminology.

Excellent sources of background information are subject-specific encyclopedias and dictionaries, books, and scholarly articles, and organizations’ websites. You should always consult more than one source so you can compare for accuracy and bias.

For your story about Chernobyl, you might want to consult some of the following sources:

  • Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions , International Atomic Agency
  • Chernobyl Accident 1986 , World Nuclear Association
  • Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment , New York Academy of Sciences, 2009.
  • “Chernobyl Disaster,” Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated 2013.

Identify the information you need

What information do you need to write your story? One way to determine this is to turn your overall topic into a list of questions to be answered. This will help you identify the type and level of information you need. Some possible questions on consequences of the Chernobyl accident are:

  • What are the proven health effects?
  • What are some theorized health effects?
  • Is there controversy about any of these studies?
  • What geographic area is being studied?
  • What are the demographic characteristics of the population being studied?
  • Was there anything that could have been done at the time to mitigate these effects?

Looking at these questions, it appears that scientific studies and scholarly articles about those studies, demographic data, disaster response analysis, and government documents and publications from the Soviet Union and Ukraine would be needed.

Now you need to determine what words you will use to enter in the search boxes within resources. One way to begin is to extract the most important words and phrases from the questions produced in the previous step. Next, think about alternative words and phrases that you might use. Always keep in mind that different people may write or talk about the same topic in different ways. Important concepts can referred to differently or be spelled differently depending on country of origin or field of study.

For the Chernobyl health story, some search keyword options are: “Chernobyl,” “Chornobyl”; “disaster,” “catastrophe,” “explosion”; “health,” “disease,” “illness,” “medical conditions”; “genetic mutation,” “gene mutation,” “germ-line mutation,” “hereditary disease.” Used in different combinations, these can unearth a wide variety of resources.

Next you should identify the scope of your topic and any limitations it puts on your searches. Some examples of limitations are language, publication date, and publication type. Every database and search engine will have its own rules so you may need to click on an advanced search option in order to input these limitations.

It is finally time to start looking for information but identifying which resources to use is not always easy to do. First, if you are part of an organization, find out what, if any, resources you have access to through a subscription. Examples of subscription resources are LexisNexis and JSTOR. If your organization does not provide subscription resources, find out if you can get access to these sources through your local library. Should you not have access to any subscription resources appropriate for your topic, look at some of the many useful free resources on the internet.

Here are some examples of sources for free information:

  • PLoS , Public Library of Science
  • Google Scholar
  • SSRN , Social Science Research Network
  • FDsys , U.S. Government documents and publications
  • World Development Indicators , World Bank
  • Pubmed , service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

More quality sites, and search tips, are here among the other research articles at Journalist’s Resource.

As you only want information from the most reliable and suitable sources, you should always evaluate your results. In doing this, you can apply journalism’s Five W’s (and One H):

  • Who : Who is the author and what are his/her credentials in this topic?
  • What: Is the material primary or secondary in nature?
  • Where: Is the publisher or organization behind the source considered reputable? Does the website appear legitimate?
  • When: Is the source current or does it cover the right time period for your topic?
  • Why: Is the opinion or bias of the author apparent and can it be taken into account?
  • How: Is the source written at the right level for your needs? Is the research well-documented?

Were you able to locate the information you needed? If not, now it is time to analyze why that happened. Perhaps there are better resources or different keywords and concepts you could have tried. Additional background information might supply you with other terminology to use. It is also possible that the information you need is just not available in the way you need it and it may be necessary to consult others for assistance like an expert in the topic or a professional librarian.

Keely Wilczek is a research librarian at the Harvard Kennedy School. Tags: training

About The Author

' src=

Keely Wilczek

  • For candidates
  • For employers
  • For members
  • English (EN)
  • Nederlands (NL)

How to find papers when you do your literature review

how to find relevant research papers

When you start your  literature review , you may feel intimidated by the quantity of work that you should go through. You may as well be worrying  where to start in the first place.

In today's post, we look at different places where you can find (references to) papers that could be of your interest. Not all papers will eventually be equally important for your thesis. Depending on the article and its contents,  you may simply browse the article for the main findings in less than 20 minutes, or you may sit down with the article for a week, pulling apart all its calculations and equations.  But of course, you can't know how important a reference is until you find it and have a first look at it.

Here are nine different places where you can find (references to) papers that you may want to check:

1. Ask your supervisor where to start

If your supervisor gave you your thesis topic, he/she may already have a folder with information on the topic. Especially when you are hired on a funded project, your supervisor must have already been doing some preliminary work to write the proposal.  Your first destination for your literature review is thus to ask your supervisor for references that can get you started.

2. Read up on the basics in a textbook

If you are new to a topic,  there is no harm in reading a textbook. While a textbook may not have the depth and information of a journal article, it can provide you with the basic concepts that you need to understand to start reading in more detail. In addition to this information to get you started, textbooks also typically have extensive lists of references. You can check out these references and download the relevant articles.

3. References from the research proposal

If you're hired on a funded project, then the references to the research proposal are a good place to start  familiarizing yourself with the work  that supported the proposal in the first place. Download the references cited in the proposal so that you have all relevant background.

4. Find a good review paper on your topic

An excellent starting place for finding good references as well as getting a broad overview of your research topic, is  by reading and analyzing a review paper on the topic . The references cited in the review paper can then be  next up on your reading list.

5. Look for technical reports, theses, code documents etc

Don't limit yourself to research papers to find references to other papers. In technical reports and code documents on your topic, you can find important citations (as well information of practical value). When it comes to depth and extent of analytical work, nothing is as complete as a PhD thesis. Look for theses from students who worked on your topic, and see which references they cited.

6. Google Scholar

Google Scholar can help you find  relevant articles  by using the search function. In addition, you can subscribe to updates of colleagues in your field, so that you have the latest references accessible. Depending on the publisher of a journal paper, Google Scholar may also be faster in reporting a certain article in their database than other database, which can take up to 2 years to include an article.

While Scopus has strong searching functions, and help with identifying the relative importance of a paper in its field with the published metrics, it may be slow in including articles (for my own publications, I have noticed it may take up to 2 years before an article is included).

8. ResearchGate

ResearchGate allows for "traditional" searching for publications, but it also allows you to do the following: 1) follow researchers in your field so you can see their updates, 2) follow research projects of other researchers to receive updates, and 3) interact by commenting on publications, asking questions, and sending direct messages.

9. References of papers

Just as for the list of references of a good review paper,  the list of references of any paper you read can be a good starting point to find more papers to read. Make it a habit to carefully check the list of  references  and see which publications you have "missed" so far.

Recent blog posts

How to compile your publication list, how to develop a publication strategy, centering your teaching around your teaching vision, transitioning into the last leg of your phd journey, what changes between a postdoc and assistant professorship, how to write an academic cv, writing a research vision document, how to prepare for a phd interview, developing leadership skills in a dutch university, 10 things to do when you move to the netherlands as a faculty member.

  • Research Guide
  • Academic Writing
  • Reference Management
  • Data Visualization

Finding Relevant Papers Fast with AI-Powered Academic Search Engines

how to find relevant research papers

In this blog post, I will discuss how AI-powered academic search engines can help you find relevant papers fast . Academic research can be a daunting task, especially when you are trying to find relevant papers to support your work. Traditional academic search engines can be slow and inefficient, and they often return irrelevant results.

In a previous post, I have shared a comprehensive post on Useful Academic Search Engine for Research where I have discussed traditional academic search engine.

You have to sift through hundreds or thousands of academic papers (using keywords, filters, and citation s) to find the most relevant scholarly article. And even then, you might miss some relevant papers that could make a difference in your research.

But what if there was a better way to find the right papers for your research in minutes? What if you could use the power of artificial intelligence (AI) to help you discover and explore the most relevant papers for your research topic?

That’s where AI-powered academic search engines come in.

In this blog post, we will take a look at some of the benefits of using AI-powered academic search engines, and I will recommend a few of the best options available.

Benefits of AI-Powered Academic Search Engines

There are several benefits to using AI-based academic search engines:

# Search across millions of academic papers from different domains and disciplines #Find relevant papers without perfect keyword match #Discover related works based on citation s, references, or semantic similarity #Analyze research trends and impact #Get personalized recommendations and alerts based on your interests and preferences #Summarize key takeaways from the academic papers specific to your question #Extract key information from the research papers such as authors, affiliations, abstract s, figures, tables, etc.

Best AI-Powered Academic Search Engines for Finding Relevant Papers

There are several AI-powered academic search engines available, but some of the best include:

#1 Semantic Scholar

A free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature that lets you search millions of scholarly articles for academic content relevant to your research topic.

It also offers an augmented reader that can provide more context and insights from the papers.

An AI research assistant that uses language models to help you automate research workflow s, such as literature review , summarization, and text classification.

Elicit can find relevant papers without perfect keyword match, summarize takeaways from the paper specific to your question, and extract key information from the papers.

It is an application that helps you in finding the most relevant information from academic journal articles by utilizing Large Language Models (LLM, specifically GPT-3).

In my prior blog post , I gave a comprehensive description of Elicit.

#3 Scinapse

An AI-powered research intelligence engine that helps you access over 200 million academic papers from various sources, such as PubMed, IEEE, Springer, and Elsevier.

Scinapse can help you find relevant papers, filter them by various criteria, and provide smart suggestions based on your queries.

Iris.ai is an intelligent research assistant that employs Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning techniques to assist researchers in exploring and validating scientific papers.

Its AI algorithm s analyze research articles and identify key concepts, methodologies, and connections between papers. Through an interactive interface, researchers can input their research questions or provide a summary of their study.

And Iris.ai uses its AI capabilities to suggest relevant papers. This AI-powered approach helps researchers quickly navigate through the vast sea of scientific literature and identify the most suitable papers for their research projects.

#5 Dimensions

Comprehensive Research Intelligence Dimensions is an AI-driven research platform that integrates scholarly literature, citation s, grants, clinical trials, and patents data into a unified database.

With its advanced AI algorithm s, Dimensions offers a comprehensive research intelligence solution. Researchers can easily search for relevant papers, identify influential works through citation analysis, and gain insights into funding opportunities and collaborations.

The AI-powered features of Dimensions enable researchers to make informed decisions and save time in their quest for the right papers.

#6 Concensus

If you are looking for evidence-based answers from scientific research, you might want to try Consensus, a new AI-powered search engine that can help you find and access relevant papers in seconds.

Consensus uses AI to analyze peer-reviewed, published sources and extract key findings that answer your research question. You can also explore related works, get personalized recommendations, and share your results with others.

Consensus is a free and ad-free tool that aims to democratize expert knowledge and make research easier and faster.

Here are some of the benefits of using Consensus:

  • It can understand natural language queries, so you can search for what you want without having to know the exact keywords.
  • It can provide more relevant results than traditional search engines.
  • It can help you find papers that are new or that have been recently updated.
  • It can help you find papers that are related to your research, even if they are not published in the same journal or conference.

If you’re looking for a way to speed up your academic research, then Consensus is a great option.

AI-powered academic search engines are a great way to speed up your academic research. By using one of these engines, you can find the right papers for your research in minutes.

AI-powered academic search engines have emerged as indispensable tools for researchers in their quest to find relevant papers efficiently.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Enhance your writing speed and quality with ai assistance, 5 best ai-powered abstract generator tools, an ai tool for instant research paper reading, ai-powered citation generator tool for academic research, 5 chatgpt plugins for exploring academic papers, 7 ai tools to create stunning presentations, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

EDITOR PICKS

How to find relevant papers faster and easier, popular posts, the best 8 ai-powered tools for literature review, how to generate an automatic summary of research paper, 10 ai tools for research paper summarization, popular category.

  • AI Tools 35
  • Research Guide 18
  • Discovery 17
  • Reference Management 8
  • Academic Writing 7
  • Data Visualization 7
  • Tutorials 6
  • Plagiarism 4
  • Privacy Policy

Finding a Paper Topic

What are the blogs talking about, what current awareness sources should i know about, what's being discussed in the academic journals, what have other dissertations or papers covered, how do i find a faculty advisor, refining your topic, getting help, how to use this guide.

This guide is aimed at law students, primarily LL.M.s, beginning the process of finding and narrowing a topic for a research paper.

Paper topic ideas may come from your lectures or course readings. Topics might come from your previous studies, work history or life experience. But, sometimes your initial subject idea is too broad, or you are interested in multiple subject areas. This guide will walk you though sources which will help you gain a sense of legal developments (if any) on your subject. It will also list sources that help you begin to find the academic conversation happening on a topic.

By browsing, searching, and reading broadly in these sources, you will hopefully find a topic that is deeply interesting to you. Enough so that you will stay engaged and motivated during the entirety of the writing process.

For HLS LL.M.s, this guide will provide links to sources from the Graduate Program which will help you determine if your topic is sufficiently narrow. It concludes with suggestions about how to identify possible HLS faculty supervisors.

Once you have decided on your topic, it is an appropriate time to request a research consult with a librarian. They can assist you by identifying targeted research sources and search strategies.

Using Blogs for Paper Topics

Blogs can be helpful to see what is "hot" in a particular field of law on a more current basis than traditional scholarly sources such as books or law review articles. You can browse them by topic area or run searches for some of your initial ideas.

Blog/Blawg Directories

  • Justia's Blawg Search This is one of the largest aggregators of legal blogs. Browse by topic or search and reset the order of results by date to find the newest discussions.
  • Legal Blogs via Westlaw (HLS only) Westlaw provides searchable access to over 200 law-related blogs. Topics cover almost all areas of US law, international law, and good coverage of Canadian law.
  • Law Professor Blogs Network This is a collection of approximately 100 blogs authored by law professors.

Specialized News Databases

Legal news sites will alert you to interesting litigation and policy developments. Like browsing blogs, legal news sources can help you identify legal developments that might serve as a good topic.   

  • Lexis Legal News Hub (HLS only) Legal news from multiple publishers including Law360.
  • Law.com (HLS only) Very current, short news items about legal developments in law and the legal industry.
  • Bloomberg Law News and Topic Selection Page (HLS Only) This page links to Bloomberg news offerings, and uniquely, coverage of “circuit splits”. A circuit split is when federal appellate courts are reaching different outcomes on the same topic of law. Current circuit splits can make interesting paper topics.

Legal Updates from Law Firms

Law firms often post public entries of interest to potential clients. These marketing materials are usually well crafted and cover new developments. The following sites aggregate this content for collective searching.

  • vLex Justis current news The home screen offers a combination of news and updates from major law firms from LexBlog, JD Supra, and Mondaq. Use the International News option for coverage of 100 countries.

Google Scholar

Using Google can be a good starting point, but using Google Scholar is a more efficient way to find academic content. Even better, using Harvard Google Scholar will (usually) allow you to link through to content available to you through Harvard Library subscriptions.

  • Harvard Google Scholar Using Google Scholar with your HarvardKey allows you to make the most of provided links, granting access to full text available through Harvard Library subscriptions.
  • Google Alerts

Working Papers Repositories

After browsing widely through current awareness services for ideas, hopefully you’re starting to have a few possible topics. Digging into working papers is a good next step in comparing your topic options. Working paper repositories host collections of scholarly articles. They include those not yet published or in final form. The benefit of searching in working paper repositories is to gain a sense of the current academic conversation on a topic.

  • SSRN (Social Science Research Network) SSRN is one of the most heavily used working paper sites for law professors. It is a public site but using this Harvard-affiliated access through HOLLIS will allow you to set up an individual account and subscribe to email alerts.
  • Law Commons This open access working paper site is easy to browse by topic, author, and institutional affiliation.
  • NBER Working Papers The National Bureau of Economic Research hosts working papers related to finance, banking, and law and economics.
  • EconPapers (RePEc)
  • OSF Preprints Multidisciplinary repository more global in scope than those listed above.

Law Journal Articles

As you explore possible topics, beyond searching through current sources, it's important to explore the published literature on the topic. This is the stage where you are both refining your topic and beginning your research.

There are many sources to find law journal articles. Below are some of the main collections of legal literature and good starting points. Be aware that these collections are very large. Putting in one or two search terms may result in large result lists, so consider searching with multiple keywords, phrases, etc. For assistance with advanced search techniques, please Ask a Librarian .

  • Hein Online Law Journal Library (Harvard Key) Provides pdf format for law review articles in 3200 law journals. For most, coverage is from inception. Includes a good collection of non-U.S. journals.
  • Lexis+ Law Reviews and Journals (HLS Only)
  • Westlaw Law Reviews & Journals (HLS Only)
  • LegalTrac Topic Finder (HLS) LegalTrac is an index (descriptions of articles) and has some full text. It is included here for its topic finder tool which allows you to put in some general topics, and then refine the terms to generate a list of linked articles.

Academic Articles, Books and Book Chapters

It is beyond the scope of this guide to cover specialized sources for non-U.S. and International law and legal literature. Neither does this guide cover sources for law-related literature, such as the literature of political science, economics, gender studies, etc. To find academic journal content across disciplines, the best starting point is to use HOLLIS.

  • HOLLIS Catalog and Articles Beyond finding the books, ebooks, and journals owned by the Harvard Library system, using HOLLIS in its default mode (Catalog & Articles) allows you to find articles from many subscription sources. Before settling on a paper topic, running some searches in HOLLIS is a must.

Dissertations, Theses and Papers

As you refine your topic ideas, it is often helpful to browse the titles of dissertations and papers by SJDs, LLMs, or JD students, either generally, or those which touch on your subject area. This can help you understand how people have framed their research topic in a discrete, specific way. See additional sources for student-authored works in  HLS Dissertations, Theses and Third Year Papers .

  • HLS LL.M. Papers in HOLLIS To refine these search results by topic, faculty advisor, seminar or date, click Add a New Line.
  • HLS SJD Dissertations
  • Proquest Dissertations and Theses (Harvard Key) This database includes dissertations and theses from many academic institutions but has not included HLS SJD dissertations or LL.M. papers in recent years.

Tips on Finding a Faculty Advisor

LL.M. written work requires faculty supervision. The following sources will help you identify HLS faculty members by research interests. You can also view HOLLIS records of LL.M. papers to identify the HLS professors who supervised papers in your subject area.

  • HLS Faculty Directory The directory can be searched by keyword or filtered by area of interest and by categories of appointment. Directory pages usually include courses taught, publications, and research interest area. Note that some professors are here for only part of the year. Faculty supervisors must have a teaching appointment in the semester in which the paper is to be turned in.
  • HLS Course Catalog This is the best source to determine who is currently teaching in your topic subject area.
  • HLS Faculty Bibliography This is a collective list of publications of the HLS faculty covering recent years.
  • HLS Programs of Study Programs of study are course grouping suggestions for students who want to focus their academic and career development within a field of law. Each program lists HLS faculty members associated with that field of law.

Tips for Refining a Topic

As you’ve browsed blogs, news, law reviews and other LL.M. papers, you have hopefully arrived at some topic ideas that are original and will hold your continued interest as you write the paper. It is also important to refine your paper topic to a discrete, narrow idea. Resources to help you make sure your topic is sufficiently narrow are included in the HLS Graduate Program Writing Resources Canvas Site . See especially: 

  • The Six-Point Exercise in the module “Developing Your Proposal and Drafting Your Paper”
  • Worksheets for Senior Thesis Writers and Others in the module “Recommended Materials on Writing”
  • Archetypal Legal Scholarship: A Field Guide, 63 J. Legal Educ. 65 (2013) HLS Prof. Minow's article defines the different types of papers in the legal literature. It is helpful to read her framework as you finalize your paper topic.
  • Academic Legal Writing Law Review Articles, Student Notes, Seminar Papers, and Getting on Law Review UCLA Prof. Eugene Volokh's book is a good resource as you begin a writing project. Specifcally, the section on Choosing a Claim is worth scanning before finalizing your topic.
  • This publicly available excerpt from a prior edition of Volokh's book contains the chapter on Choosing a Claim. See the section beginning on page 25.

Contact Us!

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

  • Last Updated: Sep 12, 2023 10:46 AM
  • URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/findingapapertopic

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published: 19 February 2024

‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice

  • Annette Boaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1294 1 ,
  • Juan Baeza 2 ,
  • Alec Fraser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-1551 2 &
  • Erik Persson 3  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  15 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1758 Accesses

68 Altmetric

Metrics details

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice.

We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions ( n  = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves.

Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

Considerable time and money is invested in implementing and evaluating strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.

The growing body of evidence is not providing the anticipated clear lessons to support improved implementation.

Instead what is needed is better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice.

This would involve a more central role in implementation science for a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences and for greater use of different types of synthesis, such as realist synthesis.

Introduction

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice [ 1 , 2 ]. In recent years researchers have worked to improve the consistency in the ways in which these interventions (often called strategies) are described to support their evaluation. One notable development has been the emergence of Implementation Science as a field focusing explicitly on “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” ([ 3 ] p. 1). The work of implementation science focuses on closing, or at least narrowing, the gap between research and practice. One contribution has been to map existing interventions, identifying 73 discreet strategies to support research implementation [ 4 ] which have been grouped into 9 clusters [ 5 ]. The authors note that they have not considered the evidence of effectiveness of the individual strategies and that a next step is to understand better which strategies perform best in which combinations and for what purposes [ 4 ]. Other authors have noted that there is also scope to learn more from other related fields of study such as policy implementation [ 6 ] and to draw on methods designed to support the evaluation of complex interventions [ 7 ].

The increase in activity designed to support the implementation of research into practice and improvements in reporting provided the impetus for an update of a review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to support the use of research in clinical practice [ 8 ] which was itself an update of the review conducted by Grimshaw and colleagues in 2001. The 2001 review [ 9 ] identified 41 reviews considering a range of strategies including educational interventions, audit and feedback, computerised decision support to financial incentives and combined interventions. The authors concluded that all the interventions had the potential to promote the uptake of evidence in practice, although no one intervention seemed to be more effective than the others in all settings. They concluded that combined interventions were more likely to be effective than single interventions. The 2011 review identified a further 13 systematic reviews containing 313 discrete primary studies. Consistent with the previous review, four main strategy types were identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs). Nine of the reviews reported on MFIs. The review highlighted the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. MFIs claimed an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, although effect sizes remained small to moderate and this improvement in effectiveness relating to MFIs has been questioned in a subsequent review [ 10 ]. In updating the review, we anticipated a larger pool of reviews and an opportunity to consolidate learning from more recent systematic reviews of interventions.

This review updates and extends our previous review of systematic reviews of interventions designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. To identify potentially relevant peer-reviewed research papers, we developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the Grimshaw et al. [ 9 ] and Boaz, Baeza and Fraser [ 8 ] overview articles. To ensure optimal retrieval, our search strategy was refined with support from an expert university librarian, considering the ongoing improvements in the development of search filters for systematic reviews since our first review [ 11 ]. We also wanted to include technology-related terms (e.g. apps, algorithms, machine learning, artificial intelligence) to find studies that explored interventions based on the use of technological innovations as mechanistic tools for increasing the use of evidence into practice (see Additional file 1 : Appendix A for full search strategy).

The search was performed in June 2022 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched for articles published since the 2011 review. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Reference lists of relevant papers were also examined.

We uploaded the results using EPPI-Reviewer, a web-based tool that facilitated semi-automation of the screening process and removal of duplicate studies. We made particular use of a priority screening function to reduce screening workload and avoid ‘data deluge’ [ 12 ]. Through machine learning, one reviewer screened a smaller number of records ( n  = 1200) to train the software to predict whether a given record was more likely to be relevant or irrelevant, thus pulling the relevant studies towards the beginning of the screening process. This automation did not replace manual work but helped the reviewer to identify eligible studies more quickly. During the selection process, we included studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. Studies were included if they met the following pre-determined inclusion criteria:

The study was a systematic review

Search terms were included

Focused on the implementation of research evidence into practice

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed as part of the review

Study populations included healthcare providers and patients. The EPOC taxonomy [ 13 ] was used to categorise the strategies. The EPOC taxonomy has four domains: delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements and implementation strategies. The implementation strategies domain includes 20 strategies targeted at healthcare workers. Numerous EPOC strategies were assessed in the review including educational strategies, local opinion leaders, reminders, ICT-focused approaches and audit and feedback. Some strategies that did not fit easily within the EPOC categories were also included. These were social media strategies and toolkits, and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs) (see Table  2 ). Some systematic reviews included comparisons of different interventions while other reviews compared one type of intervention against a control group. Outcomes related to improvements in health care processes or patient well-being. Numerous individual study types (RCT, CCT, BA, ITS) were included within the systematic reviews.

We excluded papers that:

Focused on changing patient rather than provider behaviour

Had no demonstrable outcomes

Made unclear or no reference to research evidence

The last of these criteria was sometimes difficult to judge, and there was considerable discussion amongst the research team as to whether the link between research evidence and practice was sufficiently explicit in the interventions analysed. As we discussed in the previous review [ 8 ] in the field of healthcare, the principle of evidence-based practice is widely acknowledged and tools to change behaviour such as guidelines are often seen to be an implicit codification of evidence, despite the fact that this is not always the case.

Reviewers employed a two-stage process to select papers for inclusion. First, all titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer to determine whether the study met the inclusion criteria. Two papers [ 14 , 15 ] were identified that fell just before the 2010 cut-off. As they were not identified in the searches for the first review [ 8 ] they were included and progressed to assessment. Each paper was rated as include, exclude or maybe. The full texts of 111 relevant papers were assessed independently by at least two authors. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. 32 papers met the inclusion criteria and proceeded to data extraction. The study selection procedure is documented in a PRISMA literature flow diagram (see Fig.  1 ). We were able to include French, Spanish and Portuguese papers in the selection reflecting the language skills in the study team, but none of the papers identified met the inclusion criteria. Other non- English language papers were excluded.

figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. Source: authors

One reviewer extracted data on strategy type, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact from the included studies. Two reviewers then independently read each paper and noted key findings and broad themes of interest which were then discussed amongst the wider authorial team. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a Quality Assessment Checklist based on Oxman and Guyatt [ 16 ] and Francke et al. [ 17 ]. Each study was rated a quality score ranging from 1 (extensive flaws) to 7 (minimal flaws) (see Additional file 2 : Appendix B). All disagreements were resolved through discussion. Studies were not excluded in this updated overview based on methodological quality as we aimed to reflect the full extent of current research into this topic.

The extracted data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns in the data linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

Thirty-two studies were included in the systematic review. Table 1. provides a detailed overview of the included systematic reviews comprising reference, strategy type, quality score, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact (see Table  1. at the end of the manuscript). Overall, the quality of the studies was high. Twenty-three studies scored 7, six studies scored 6, one study scored 5, one study scored 4 and one study scored 3. The primary focus of the review was on reviews of effectiveness studies, but a small number of reviews did include data from a wider range of methods including qualitative studies which added to the analysis in the papers [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. In this section, we discuss the different EPOC-defined implementation strategies in turn. Interestingly, we found only two ‘new’ approaches in this review that did not fit into the existing EPOC approaches. These are a review focused on the use of social media and a review considering toolkits. In addition to single interventions, we also discuss multi-faceted interventions. These were the most common intervention approach overall. A summary is provided in Table  2 .

Educational strategies

The overview identified three systematic reviews focusing on educational strategies. Grudniewicz et al. [ 22 ] explored the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour and patient outcomes and concluded they were not effective in any of these aspects. Koota, Kääriäinen and Melender [ 23 ] focused on educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency room/accident and emergency nurses and found that interventions involving face-to-face contact led to significant or highly significant effects on patient benefits and emergency nurses’ knowledge, skills and behaviour. Interventions using written self-directed learning materials also led to significant improvements in nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based practice. Although the quality of the studies was high, the review primarily included small studies with low response rates, and many of them relied on self-assessed outcomes; consequently, the strength of the evidence for these outcomes is modest. Wu et al. [ 20 ] questioned if educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes. Although based on evaluation projects and qualitative data, their results also suggest that positive changes on patient outcomes can be made following the implementation of specific evidence-based approaches (or projects). The differing positive outcomes for educational strategies aimed at nurses might indicate that the target audience is important.

Local opinion leaders

Flodgren et al. [ 24 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on opinion leaders. The review found that local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence‐based practice, but this varies both within and between studies and the effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The review found that, overall, any intervention involving opinion leaders probably improves healthcare professionals’ compliance with evidence-based practice but varies within and across studies. However, how opinion leaders had an impact could not be determined because of insufficient details were provided, illustrating that reporting specific details in published studies is important if diffusion of effective methods of increasing evidence-based practice is to be spread across a system. The usefulness of this review is questionable because it cannot provide evidence of what is an effective opinion leader, whether teams of opinion leaders or a single opinion leader are most effective, or the most effective methods used by opinion leaders.

Pantoja et al. [ 26 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on manually generated reminders delivered on paper included in the overview. The review explored how these affected professional practice and patient outcomes. The review concluded that manually generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably led to small to moderate increases in adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single quality improvement intervention. However, the authors indicated that this intervention would make little or no difference to patient outcomes. The authors state that such a low-tech intervention may be useful in low- and middle-income countries where paper records are more likely to be the norm.

ICT-focused approaches

The three ICT-focused reviews [ 14 , 27 , 28 ] showed mixed results. Jamal, McKenzie and Clark [ 14 ] explored the impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care. They examined the impact of electronic health record, computerised provider order-entry, or decision support system. This showed a positive improvement in adherence to evidence-based guidelines but not to patient outcomes. The number of studies included in the review was low and so a conclusive recommendation could not be reached based on this review. Similarly, Brown et al. [ 28 ] found that technology-enabled knowledge translation interventions may improve knowledge of health professionals, but all eight studies raised concerns of bias. The De Angelis et al. [ 27 ] review was more promising, reporting that ICT can be a good way of disseminating clinical practice guidelines but conclude that it is unclear which type of ICT method is the most effective.

Audit and feedback

Sykes, McAnuff and Kolehmainen [ 29 ] examined whether audit and feedback were effective in dementia care and concluded that it remains unclear which ingredients of audit and feedback are successful as the reviewed papers illustrated large variations in the effectiveness of interventions using audit and feedback.

Non-EPOC listed strategies: social media, toolkits

There were two new (non-EPOC listed) intervention types identified in this review compared to the 2011 review — fewer than anticipated. We categorised a third — ‘care bundles’ [ 36 ] as a multi-faceted intervention due to its description in practice and a fourth — ‘Technology Enhanced Knowledge Transfer’ [ 28 ] was classified as an ICT-focused approach. The first new strategy was identified in Bhatt et al.’s [ 30 ] systematic review of the use of social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. They reported that the use of social media resulted in a significant improvement in knowledge and compliance with evidence-based guidelines compared with more traditional methods. They noted that a wide selection of different healthcare professionals and patients engaged with this type of social media and its global reach may be significant for low- and middle-income countries. This review was also noteworthy for developing a simple stepwise method for using social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. However, it is debatable whether social media can be classified as an intervention or just a different way of delivering an intervention. For example, the review discussed involving opinion leaders and patient advocates through social media. However, this was a small review that included only five studies, so further research in this new area is needed. Yamada et al. [ 31 ] draw on 39 studies to explore the application of toolkits, 18 of which had toolkits embedded within larger KT interventions, and 21 of which evaluated toolkits as standalone interventions. The individual component strategies of the toolkits were highly variable though the authors suggest that they align most closely with educational strategies. The authors conclude that toolkits as either standalone strategies or as part of MFIs hold some promise for facilitating evidence use in practice but caution that the quality of many of the primary studies included is considered weak limiting these findings.

Multi-faceted interventions

The majority of the systematic reviews ( n  = 20) reported on more than one intervention type. Some of these systematic reviews focus exclusively on multi-faceted interventions, whilst others compare different single or combined interventions aimed at achieving similar outcomes in particular settings. While these two approaches are often described in a similar way, they are actually quite distinct from each other as the former report how multiple strategies may be strategically combined in pursuance of an agreed goal, whilst the latter report how different strategies may be incidentally used in sometimes contrasting settings in the pursuance of similar goals. Ariyo et al. [ 35 ] helpfully summarise five key elements often found in effective MFI strategies in LMICs — but which may also be transferrable to HICs. First, effective MFIs encourage a multi-disciplinary approach acknowledging the roles played by different professional groups to collectively incorporate evidence-informed practice. Second, they utilise leadership drawing on a wide set of clinical and non-clinical actors including managers and even government officials. Third, multiple types of educational practices are utilised — including input from patients as stakeholders in some cases. Fourth, protocols, checklists and bundles are used — most effectively when local ownership is encouraged. Finally, most MFIs included an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation [ 35 ]. In contrast, other studies offer little information about the nature of the different MFI components of included studies which makes it difficult to extrapolate much learning from them in relation to why or how MFIs might affect practice (e.g. [ 28 , 38 ]). Ultimately, context matters, which some review authors argue makes it difficult to say with real certainty whether single or MFI strategies are superior (e.g. [ 21 , 27 ]). Taking all the systematic reviews together we may conclude that MFIs appear to be more likely to generate positive results than single interventions (e.g. [ 34 , 45 ]) though other reviews should make us cautious (e.g. [ 32 , 43 ]).

While multi-faceted interventions still seem to be more effective than single-strategy interventions, there were important distinctions between how the results of reviews of MFIs are interpreted in this review as compared to the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ], reflecting greater nuance and debate in the literature. This was particularly noticeable where the effectiveness of MFIs was compared to single strategies, reflecting developments widely discussed in previous studies [ 10 ]. We found that most systematic reviews are bounded by their clinical, professional, spatial, system, or setting criteria and often seek to draw out implications for the implementation of evidence in their areas of specific interest (such as nursing or acute care). Frequently this means combining all relevant studies to explore the respective foci of each systematic review. Therefore, most reviews we categorised as MFIs actually include highly variable numbers and combinations of intervention strategies and highly heterogeneous original study designs. This makes statistical analyses of the type used by Squires et al. [ 10 ] on the three reviews in their paper not possible. Further, it also makes extrapolating findings and commenting on broad themes complex and difficult. This may suggest that future research should shift its focus from merely examining ‘what works’ to ‘what works where and what works for whom’ — perhaps pointing to the value of realist approaches to these complex review topics [ 48 , 49 ] and other more theory-informed approaches [ 50 ].

Some reviews have a relatively small number of studies (i.e. fewer than 10) and the authors are often understandably reluctant to engage with wider debates about the implications of their findings. Other larger studies do engage in deeper discussions about internal comparisons of findings across included studies and also contextualise these in wider debates. Some of the most informative studies (e.g. [ 35 , 40 ]) move beyond EPOC categories and contextualise MFIs within wider systems thinking and implementation theory. This distinction between MFIs and single interventions can actually be very useful as it offers lessons about the contexts in which individual interventions might have bounded effectiveness (i.e. educational interventions for individual change). Taken as a whole, this may also then help in terms of how and when to conjoin single interventions into effective MFIs.

In the two previous reviews, a consistent finding was that MFIs were more effective than single interventions [ 8 , 9 ]. However, like Squires et al. [ 10 ] this overview is more equivocal on this important issue. There are four points which may help account for the differences in findings in this regard. Firstly, the diversity of the systematic reviews in terms of clinical topic or setting is an important factor. Secondly, there is heterogeneity of the studies within the included systematic reviews themselves. Thirdly, there is a lack of consistency with regards to the definition and strategies included within of MFIs. Finally, there are epistemological differences across the papers and the reviews. This means that the results that are presented depend on the methods used to measure, report, and synthesise them. For instance, some reviews highlight that education strategies can be useful to improve provider understanding — but without wider organisational or system-level change, they may struggle to deliver sustained transformation [ 19 , 44 ].

It is also worth highlighting the importance of the theory of change underlying the different interventions. Where authors of the systematic reviews draw on theory, there is space to discuss/explain findings. We note a distinction between theoretical and atheoretical systematic review discussion sections. Atheoretical reviews tend to present acontextual findings (for instance, one study found very positive results for one intervention, and this gets highlighted in the abstract) whilst theoretically informed reviews attempt to contextualise and explain patterns within the included studies. Theory-informed systematic reviews seem more likely to offer more profound and useful insights (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ]). We find that the most insightful systematic reviews of MFIs engage in theoretical generalisation — they attempt to go beyond the data of individual studies and discuss the wider implications of the findings of the studies within their reviews drawing on implementation theory. At the same time, they highlight the active role of context and the wider relational and system-wide issues linked to implementation. It is these types of investigations that can help providers further develop evidence-based practice.

This overview has identified a small, but insightful set of papers that interrogate and help theorise why, how, for whom, and in which circumstances it might be the case that MFIs are superior (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 ] once more). At the level of this overview — and in most of the systematic reviews included — it appears to be the case that MFIs struggle with the question of attribution. In addition, there are other important elements that are often unmeasured, or unreported (e.g. costs of the intervention — see [ 40 ]). Finally, the stronger systematic reviews [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ] engage with systems issues, human agency and context [ 18 ] in a way that was not evident in the systematic reviews identified in the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ]. The earlier reviews lacked any theory of change that might explain why MFIs might be more effective than single ones — whereas now some systematic reviews do this, which enables them to conclude that sometimes single interventions can still be more effective.

As Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 7) note ‘Study findings concerning the effectiveness of various approaches are continuously synthesized and assembled in systematic reviews’. We may have gone as far as we can in understanding the implementation of evidence through systematic reviews of single and multi-faceted interventions and the next step would be to conduct more research exploring the complex and situated nature of evidence used in clinical practice and by particular professional groups. This would further build on the nuanced discussion and conclusion sections in a subset of the papers we reviewed. This might also support the field to move away from isolating individual implementation strategies [ 6 ] to explore the complex processes involving a range of actors with differing capacities [ 51 ] working in diverse organisational cultures. Taxonomies of implementation strategies do not fully account for the complex process of implementation, which involves a range of different actors with different capacities and skills across multiple system levels. There is plenty of work to build on, particularly in the social sciences, which currently sits at the margins of debates about evidence implementation (see for example, Normalisation Process Theory [ 52 ]).

There are several changes that we have identified in this overview of systematic reviews in comparison to the review we published in 2011 [ 8 ]. A consistent and welcome finding is that the overall quality of the systematic reviews themselves appears to have improved between the two reviews, although this is not reflected upon in the papers. This is exhibited through better, clearer reporting mechanisms in relation to the mechanics of the reviews, alongside a greater attention to, and deeper description of, how potential biases in included papers are discussed. Additionally, there is an increased, but still limited, inclusion of original studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries as opposed to just high-income countries. Importantly, we found that many of these systematic reviews are attuned to, and comment upon the contextual distinctions of pursuing evidence-informed interventions in health care settings in different economic settings. Furthermore, systematic reviews included in this updated article cover a wider set of clinical specialities (both within and beyond hospital settings) and have a focus on a wider set of healthcare professions — discussing both similarities, differences and inter-professional challenges faced therein, compared to the earlier reviews. These wider ranges of studies highlight that a particular intervention or group of interventions may work well for one professional group but be ineffective for another. This diversity of study settings allows us to consider the important role context (in its many forms) plays on implementing evidence into practice. Examining the complex and varied context of health care will help us address what Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 1) described as, ‘society’s health problems [that] require research-based knowledge acted on by healthcare practitioners together with implementation of political measures from governmental agencies’. This will help us shift implementation science to move, ‘beyond a success or failure perspective towards improved analysis of variables that could explain the impact of the implementation process’ ([ 6 ] p. 2).

This review brings together 32 papers considering individual and multi-faceted interventions designed to support the use of evidence in clinical practice. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been conducted. As a whole, this substantial body of knowledge struggles to tell us more about the use of individual and MFIs than: ‘it depends’. To really move forwards in addressing the gap between research evidence and practice, we may need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed. Harvey et al. [ 53 ] suggest that when context is likely to be critical to implementation success there are a range of primary research approaches (participatory research, realist evaluation, developmental evaluation, ethnography, quality/ rapid cycle improvement) that are likely to be appropriate and insightful. While these approaches often form part of implementation studies in the form of process evaluations, they are usually relatively small scale in relation to implementation research as a whole. As a result, the findings often do not make it into the subsequent systematic reviews. This review provides further evidence that we need to bring qualitative approaches in from the periphery to play a central role in many implementation studies and subsequent evidence syntheses. It would be helpful for systematic reviews, at the very least, to include more detail about the interventions and their implementation in terms of how and why they worked.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Before and after study

Controlled clinical trial

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care

High-income countries

Information and Communications Technology

Interrupted time series

Knowledge translation

Low- and middle-income countries

Randomised controlled trial

Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362:1225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of research into practice: why we can’t “just do it.” J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005;18:541–5. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541 .

Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 .

Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, et al. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2013;8:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-63 .

Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Eldh AC, et al. A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar. Implementation Sci. 2018;13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0 .

Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A, European Implementation Score Collaborative Group (EIS). Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:212. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior – an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39 8Suppl 2:II2–45.

Google Scholar  

Squires JE, Sullivan K, Eccles MP, et al. Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 .

Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:561–74. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1223 .

Thomas JM. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation? OA Evid Based Med. 2013;1:1–6.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). The EPOC taxonomy of health systems interventions. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2016. epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy . Accessed 9 Oct 2023.

Jamal A, McKenzie K, Clark M. The impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care: a systematic review. Health Inf Manag. 2009;38:26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335830903800305 .

Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Kastner M, et al. Strategies for rehabilitation professionals to move evidence-based knowledge into practice: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1024–32. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0451 .

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-38 .

Jones CA, Roop SC, Pohar SL, et al. Translating knowledge in rehabilitation: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2015;95:663–77. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130512 .

Scott D, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GDC, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-70 .

Wu Y, Brettle A, Zhou C, Ou J, et al. Do educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;70:109–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.026 .

Yost J, Ganann R, Thompson D, Aloweni F, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0286-1 .

Grudniewicz A, Kealy R, Rodseth RN, Hamid J, et al. What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0347-5 .

Koota E, Kääriäinen M, Melender HL. Educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency nurses: a systematic review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;41:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2018.06.004 .

Flodgren G, O’Brien MA, Parmelli E, et al. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub5 .

Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Durieux P, et al. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001175.pub4 .

Pantoja T, Grimshaw JM, Colomer N, et al. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001174.pub4 .

De Angelis G, Davies B, King J, McEwan J, et al. Information and communication technologies for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines to health professionals: a systematic review. JMIR Med Educ. 2016;2:e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.6288 .

Brown A, Barnes C, Byaruhanga J, McLaughlin M, et al. Effectiveness of technology-enabled knowledge translation strategies in improving the use of research in public health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e17274. https://doi.org/10.2196/17274 .

Sykes MJ, McAnuff J, Kolehmainen N. When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.013 .

Bhatt NR, Czarniecki SW, Borgmann H, et al. A systematic review of the use of social media for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.10.008 .

Yamada J, Shorkey A, Barwick M, Widger K, et al. The effectiveness of toolkits as knowledge translation strategies for integrating evidence into clinical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006808 .

Afari-Asiedu S, Abdulai MA, Tostmann A, et al. Interventions to improve dispensing of antibiotics at the community level in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2022;29:259–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2022.03.009 .

Boonacker CW, Hoes AW, Dikhoff MJ, Schilder AG, et al. Interventions in health care professionals to improve treatment in children with upper respiratory tract infections. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:1113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.008 .

Al Zoubi FM, Menon A, Mayo NE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the uptake of clinical practice guidelines and best practices among musculoskeletal professionals: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3253-0 .

Ariyo P, Zayed B, Riese V, Anton B, et al. Implementation strategies to reduce surgical site infections: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019;3:287–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.355 .

Borgert MJ, Goossens A, Dongelmans DA. What are effective strategies for the implementation of care bundles on ICUs: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0306-1 .

Cahill LS, Carey LM, Lannin NA, et al. Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012575.pub2 .

Pedersen ER, Rubenstein L, Kandrack R, Danz M, et al. Elusive search for effective provider interventions: a systematic review of provider interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression. Implement Sci. 2018;13:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0788-8 .

Jenkins HJ, Hancock MJ, French SD, Maher CG, et al. Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2015;187:401–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141183 .

Bennett S, Laver K, MacAndrew M, Beattie E, et al. Implementation of evidence-based, non-pharmacological interventions addressing behavior and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review focused on implementation strategies. Int Psychogeriatr. 2021;33:947–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220001702 .

Noonan VK, Wolfe DL, Thorogood NP, et al. Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.62 .

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Snelgrove-Clarke E, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies to promote research uptake in child health settings. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31:235–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.12.002 .

Campbell A, Louie-Poon S, Slater L, et al. Knowledge translation strategies used by healthcare professionals in child health settings: an updated systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;47:114–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.026 .

Bird ML, Miller T, Connell LA, et al. Moving stroke rehabilitation evidence into practice: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33:1586–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519847253 .

Goorts K, Dizon J, Milanese S. The effectiveness of implementation strategies for promoting evidence informed interventions in allied healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06190-0 .

Zadro JR, O’Keeffe M, Allison JL, Lembke KA, et al. Effectiveness of implementation strategies to improve adherence of physical therapist treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines for musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2020;100:1516–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa101 .

Van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, Nache AM, et al. Translating knowledge on best practice into improving quality of RRT care: a systematic review of implementation strategies. Kidney Int. 2011;80:1021–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2011.222 .

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10Suppl 1:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530 .

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2012;7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33 .

Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008592. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008592 .

Metz A, Jensen T, Farley A, Boaz A, et al. Is implementation research out of step with implementation practice? Pathways to effective implementation support over the last decade. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221105585 .

May CR, Finch TL, Cornford J, Exley C, et al. Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: What needs to be done? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-131 .

Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Wilson P, et al. Connecting the science and practice of implementation – applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2023.1162762 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Kathryn Oliver for her support in the planning the review, Professor Steve Hanney for reading and commenting on the final manuscript and the staff at LSHTM library for their support in planning and conducting the literature search.

This study was supported by LSHTM’s Research England QR strategic priorities funding allocation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Grant number NIHR200152. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or Research England.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, The Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6LE, UK

Annette Boaz

King’s Business School, King’s College London, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, UK

Juan Baeza & Alec Fraser

Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Campus Universitário Reitor João Davi Ferreira Lima, Florianópolis, SC, 88.040-900, Brazil

Erik Persson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AB led the conceptual development and structure of the manuscript. EP conducted the searches and data extraction. All authors contributed to screening and quality appraisal. EP and AF wrote the first draft of the methods section. AB, JB and AF performed result synthesis and contributed to the analyses. AB wrote the first draft of the manuscript and incorporated feedback and revisions from all other authors. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix a., additional file 2: appendix b., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Boaz, A., Baeza, J., Fraser, A. et al. ‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice. Implementation Sci 19 , 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

Download citation

Received : 01 November 2023

Accepted : 05 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

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

  • Implementation
  • Interventions
  • Clinical practice
  • Research evidence
  • Multi-faceted

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

  • Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
  • General enquiries: [email protected]

how to find relevant research papers

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on September 24, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on March 27, 2023.

Writing a Research Paper Introduction

The introduction to a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

  • Present your topic and get the reader interested
  • Provide background or summarize existing research
  • Position your own approach
  • Detail your specific research problem and problem statement
  • Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The introduction looks slightly different depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument by engaging with a variety of sources.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

Step 1: introduce your topic, step 2: describe the background, step 3: establish your research problem, step 4: specify your objective(s), step 5: map out your paper, research paper introduction examples, frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.

The first job of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening hook.

The hook is a striking opening sentence that clearly conveys the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a brief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.

For example, the following could be an effective hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:

A more empirical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:

Don’t feel that your hook necessarily has to be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more important than catchiness. The key thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

This part of the introduction differs depending on what approach your paper is taking.

In a more argumentative paper, you’ll explore some general background here. In a more empirical paper, this is the place to review previous research and establish how yours fits in.

Argumentative paper: Background information

After you’ve caught your reader’s attention, specify a bit more, providing context and narrowing down your topic.

Provide only the most relevant background information. The introduction isn’t the place to get too in-depth; if more background is essential to your paper, it can appear in the body .

Empirical paper: Describing previous research

For a paper describing original research, you’ll instead provide an overview of the most relevant research that has already been conducted. This is a sort of miniature literature review —a sketch of the current state of research into your topic, boiled down to a few sentences.

This should be informed by genuine engagement with the literature. Your search can be less extensive than in a full literature review, but a clear sense of the relevant research is crucial to inform your own work.

Begin by establishing the kinds of research that have been done, and end with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to respond to.

The next step is to clarify how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses.

Argumentative paper: Emphasize importance

In an argumentative research paper, you can simply state the problem you intend to discuss, and what is original or important about your argument.

Empirical paper: Relate to the literature

In an empirical research paper, try to lead into the problem on the basis of your discussion of the literature. Think in terms of these questions:

  • What research gap is your work intended to fill?
  • What limitations in previous work does it address?
  • What contribution to knowledge does it make?

You can make the connection between your problem and the existing research using phrases like the following.

Now you’ll get into the specifics of what you intend to find out or express in your research paper.

The way you frame your research objectives varies. An argumentative paper presents a thesis statement, while an empirical paper generally poses a research question (sometimes with a hypothesis as to the answer).

Argumentative paper: Thesis statement

The thesis statement expresses the position that the rest of the paper will present evidence and arguments for. It can be presented in one or two sentences, and should state your position clearly and directly, without providing specific arguments for it at this point.

Empirical paper: Research question and hypothesis

The research question is the question you want to answer in an empirical research paper.

Present your research question clearly and directly, with a minimum of discussion at this point. The rest of the paper will be taken up with discussing and investigating this question; here you just need to express it.

A research question can be framed either directly or indirectly.

  • This study set out to answer the following question: What effects does daily use of Instagram have on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls?
  • We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls.

If your research involved testing hypotheses , these should be stated along with your research question. They are usually presented in the past tense, since the hypothesis will already have been tested by the time you are writing up your paper.

For example, the following hypothesis might respond to the research question above:

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.

how to find relevant research papers

Try for free

The final part of the introduction is often dedicated to a brief overview of the rest of the paper.

In a paper structured using the standard scientific “introduction, methods, results, discussion” format, this isn’t always necessary. But if your paper is structured in a less predictable way, it’s important to describe the shape of it for the reader.

If included, the overview should be concise, direct, and written in the present tense.

  • This paper will first discuss several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then will go on to …
  • This paper first discusses several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then goes on to …

Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

  • Argumentative paper
  • Empirical paper

Are cows responsible for climate change? A recent study (RIVM, 2019) shows that cattle farmers account for two thirds of agricultural nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. These emissions result from nitrogen in manure, which can degrade into ammonia and enter the atmosphere. The study’s calculations show that agriculture is the main source of nitrogen pollution, accounting for 46% of the country’s total emissions. By comparison, road traffic and households are responsible for 6.1% each, the industrial sector for 1%. While efforts are being made to mitigate these emissions, policymakers are reluctant to reckon with the scale of the problem. The approach presented here is a radical one, but commensurate with the issue. This paper argues that the Dutch government must stimulate and subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle farmers, to transition to sustainable vegetable farming. It first establishes the inadequacy of current mitigation measures, then discusses the various advantages of the results proposed, and finally addresses potential objections to the plan on economic grounds.

The rise of social media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. This correlation has received significant academic attention: Various empirical studies have been conducted into Facebook usage among adolescent girls (Tiggermann & Slater, 2013; Meier & Gray, 2014). These studies have consistently found that the visual and interactive aspects of the platform have the greatest influence on body image issues. Despite this, highly visual social media (HVSM) such as Instagram have yet to be robustly researched. This paper sets out to address this research gap. We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls. It was hypothesized that daily Instagram use would be associated with an increase in body image concerns and a decrease in self-esteem ratings.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

  • A hook to catch the reader’s interest
  • Relevant background on the topic
  • Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

  • A thesis statement or research question
  • Sometimes an overview of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

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.

Caulfield, J. (2023, March 27). Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved February 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Stephanie Blog

  • The Correct Way to Do Your Research: 5 Tips for Students

Mastering the art of research is a fundamental skill that underpins academic success across all disciplines. Whether you’re embarking on a simple essay or delving into a complex thesis, the ability to conduct thorough and effective research is invaluable. Yet, many students find themselves overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available, struggling to sift through data, discern credible sources, and organize their findings cohesively. This challenge underscores the need for a structured approach to research, one that simplifies the process while enhancing the quality of the outcomes.

Recognizing the critical role research plays in academic achievement, this article aims to demystify the process, offering five key tips to guide students toward more productive and less stressful research experiences. These strategies are designed to not only streamline your research process but also improve the caliber of your work, potentially transforming the daunting task of starting to dissertation writing help into a more manageable and even enjoyable endeavor. By applying these tips, students can develop a robust framework for research that supports academic growth and fosters confidence in their ability to tackle complex topics.

Tip 1: Define Your Research Question Clearly

A well-defined research question is the cornerstone of any successful research endeavor. It guides the direction of your study, helping to focus your efforts on finding relevant information. Start by identifying the main topic or issue you wish to explore, then narrow it down to a specific question that is both clear and concise. This question should be specific enough to provide direction but broad enough to allow for comprehensive exploration. Examples of effective research questions include “What impact does daily technology use have on teenagers’ social skills?” or “How do renewable energy sources affect global economic policies?”

Tip 2: Use Reliable Sources

The credibility of your research largely depends on the sources you choose. To ensure your work is grounded in reliable information, prioritize sources that are peer-reviewed, such as academic journals, books published by reputable publishers, and websites with authoritative domain extensions (e.g., .edu, .gov). Utilize academic databases like JSTOR, PubMed, and Google Scholar to find scholarly articles. Additionally, learning to assess the author’s credentials, the publication date and the presence of citations can help you determine the reliability of your sources.

Tip 3: Organize Your Research Efficiently

An organized research process is key to managing the wealth of information you’ll encounter. Digital tools and software, such as citation management software like Zotero or EndNote, can be incredibly helpful for keeping track of sources, notes, and bibliographies. Creating a structured outline early on, based on your preliminary findings, can guide your research and writing process, ensuring that you cover all necessary aspects of your topic systematically. This approach not only saves time but also helps maintain a clear focus throughout your project.

Tip 4: Take Effective Notes

Effective note-taking is crucial for capturing important information and ideas from your sources. Develop a system that works for you, whether it’s digital note-taking apps, traditional notebooks, or annotated bibliographies. Focus on summarizing key points in your own words, which aids comprehension and helps avoid unintentional plagiarism. Be sure to record bibliographic details for each source, making it easier to cite them correctly in your work. Highlighting or color-coding can also be useful for categorizing notes by theme or relevance.

By adhering to these foundational tips, students can enhance their research skills, leading to more insightful, well-supported academic papers. The next steps will delve into evaluating and synthesizing information, rounding out the comprehensive guide to conducting effective research.

Tip 5: Evaluate and Synthesize Information

Critical evaluation is essential to differentiate between information that genuinely supports your research question and data that is irrelevant or biased. Assess each source’s purpose, its context, and the evidence it presents. Look for patterns and relationships between the information gathered from various sources. Synthesizing this information involves integrating ideas from multiple sources to construct a comprehensive understanding of your topic. This step is crucial for developing a well-argued thesis or research paper that reflects a deep understanding of the subject matter.

Incorporating Feedback and Revising

Once you’ve drafted your research paper, seeking feedback is a valuable step in refining your work. Share your draft with peers, mentors, or educators who can offer constructive criticism. Be open to suggestions and willing to revise your work based on this feedback. This iterative process of writing, receiving feedback, and revising helps enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall impact of your research.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical research practices are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of your academic work. This includes properly citing all sources to avoid plagiarism, ensuring the confidentiality and privacy of any participants if conducting original research, and being honest about the limitations of your study. Understanding and adhering to these ethical guidelines is crucial for building trust and credibility in your academic endeavors.

The Role of Technology in Research

Technology plays an increasingly significant role in the research process. From digital libraries and academic databases to specialized research software and plagiarism detection tools, leveraging technology can streamline the research process, enhance the quality of your work, and ensure its originality. Familiarize yourself with the technological tools available in your field of study to take full advantage of these resources.

Mastering the art of research is a journey that involves continuous learning, practice, and refinement. By defining clear research questions, utilizing reliable sources, organizing your research efficiently, taking effective notes, and critically evaluating and synthesizing information, you can elevate the quality of your academic work. Remember, incorporating feedback, adhering to ethical guidelines, and leveraging technology are also key components of successful research. For students seeking additional support, turning to the best paper writing service can provide guidance and assistance in navigating the complexities of academic writing and research. Ultimately, developing strong research skills is an investment in your academic success and a valuable asset in your future career.

Recent Posts

  • Budgeting Basics for Young Entrepreneurs
  • Why are students opting for UG in the USA? Exploring the Education System of the US in Detail
  • Top Linux Commands Even Fresh Students Should Know
  • College Care Package Ideas For Guys

Recent Comments

IMAGES

  1. How to Write the Results/Findings Section in Research

    how to find relevant research papers

  2. 9 Ways to Find Research Articles that Can Elevate Your Practice

    how to find relevant research papers

  3. How to Find Relevant Research Papers to Speed Up Your Literature Review

    how to find relevant research papers

  4. How to use connected papers to find similar and relevant research

    how to find relevant research papers

  5. The Research Process

    how to find relevant research papers

  6. Apa format research paper guidelines

    how to find relevant research papers

VIDEO

  1. #9- Research Process ( Finding and formulating research question )

  2. How to find research papers for ur literature review using IA #academicwriting #researchtips #thesis

  3. How to find research papers in the easiest way

  4. Contribution in research paper

  5. 4. CBSE Sample Paper Chapter-3 File Handling

  6. SciSpace AI Literature Review

COMMENTS

  1. How to find relevant papers: thinking like a researcher

    In addition to identifying relevant papers, you should also try to find rele-vant scholars, research groups, confer-ences, and journals. Begin with a search on Google Scholar using a set of seed keywords, then refine the keywords based on re-turned results. You should identify the top cited papers. Try using a forward citation search to find ...

  2. How to Find Sources

    Research databases. You can search for scholarly sources online using databases and search engines like Google Scholar. These provide a range of search functions that can help you to find the most relevant sources. If you are searching for a specific article or book, include the title or the author's name. Alternatively, if you're just ...

  3. Connected Papers

    Get a visual overview of a new academic field. Enter a typical paper and we'll build you a graph of similar papers in the field. Explore and build more graphs for interesting papers that you find - soon you'll have a real, visual understanding of the trends, popular works and dynamics of the field you're interested in.

  4. Google Scholar Search Help

    First, do a search for your colleague's name, and see if they have a Scholar profile. If they do, click on it, click the "Follow" button next to their name, select "New articles by this author", and click "Done". If they don't have a profile, do a search by author, e.g., [author:s-hawking], and click on the mighty envelope in the left sidebar ...

  5. How to find Research Papers: A Cheat Sheet for Graduate Students

    Finding relevant research papers in such cases may be more challenging. This is why checking research databases would be a better option. Use standard research databases SCOPUS. Scopus has strong searching capabilities and publishes metrics that can measure the relative importance of papers in their fields. However, it may take up to 2 years ...

  6. Eight Ways (and More) To Find and Access Research Papers

    Google Scholar is a free search engine that provides access to research in multiple disciplines. The sources include academic publishers, universities, online repositories, books, and even judicial opinions from court cases. Based on its indexing, Google Scholar provides citation counts to allow authors and others to track the impact of their work.

  7. How to find the right journal for your research (using ...

    We share tips for using publisher-neutral data and statistics to find the right journal for your research paper. The right journal helps your research flourish. It puts you in the best position to reach a relevant and engaged audience, and can extend the impact of your paper through a high-quality publishing process.

  8. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to

    The results should now contain relevant references. If the interface allows relevance ranking, use that in the evaluation. If you know some relevant references that should be included in the research, search for those references specifically; for example, combine a specific (first) author name with a page number and the publication year.

  9. 7 Steps to Find Relevant Research Data for Literature Review

    2. Search or Navigate Resources Correctly. Researchers use keywords and questions to find scholarly data related to their topic of interest. Databases search for the exact words and phrases. Hence, if researchers use a different word or a synonym that describes the concept, the search results are not relevant.

  10. Relevance of Your Dissertation Topic

    Revised on May 31, 2023. A relevant dissertation topic means that your research will contribute something worthwhile to your field in a scientific, social, or practical way. As you plan out your dissertation process, make sure that you're writing something that is important and interesting to you personally, as well as appropriate within your ...

  11. Find a journal

    Find the right journal for your research. Looking for the best journal match for your paper? Search the world's leading source of academic journals using your abstract or your keywords and other details. More on how it works. Match my abstract Search by keywords, aims & scope, ...

  12. How to Find Relevant Papers for your Research Project

    discover emerging or new techniques and theories. find and access relevant data sets for analysis. identify other relevant papers in reference sections. spot gaps for your exploration. notice opportunities for new projects and collaborations. save yourself time so you don't repeat what's already been done.

  13. How to find an academic research paper

    Reach out to the journal and the scholar. (The scholar's email is often on the abstract page. Also, scholars generally have an easy-to-find webpage.) One is likely to give you a free copy of the paper, especially if you are a member of the press. In regular Google, search for the study by title and you might find a free version.

  14. How to search for research papers effectively

    To quickly get the relevant research paper, search websites by date because, by default, search engines use the term "anytime" to determine how recent the information is. You have the option to change this default setting to the most recent time, the previous 24 hours, or any other time in the last week, month, or year. On Google, users can ...

  15. How and where to find research papers for literature reviews

    Regardless of whether you are just starting a career in research or are a veteran in the field, looking for relevant sources for a literature review can be time-consuming and frustrating. In this article, we will provide valuable tips and explore various resources to understand how to find research papers relevant to literature reviews efficiently.

  16. Where to find peer reviewed articles for research

    This is our ultimate guide to helping you get familiar with your research field and find peer reviewed articles in the Web of Science™. It forms part of our Research Smarter series. Finding relevant research and journal articles in your field is critical to a successful research project. Unfortunately, it can be one of the hardest, most time ...

  17. A Total Beginners Guide to Research Rabbit // How to find relevant

    Discover the 4 steps to using Research Rabbit to discover relevant papers without stress in less than 10 minutes!Get the 30-day Research Jumpstart Guide: htt...

  18. Research strategy guide for finding quality, credible sources

    The research strategy covered in this article involves the following steps: Get organized. Articulate your topic. Locate background information. Identify your information needs. List keywords and concepts for search engines and databases. Consider the scope of your topic.

  19. How to find papers when you do your literature review

    4. Find a good review paper on your topic. An excellent starting place for finding good references as well as getting a broad overview of your research topic, is by reading and analyzing a review paper on the topic. The references cited in the review paper can then be next up on your reading list. 5.

  20. How can I tell which sources are relevant to my research?

    Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth. This involves: Reading abstracts, prefaces, introductions, and conclusions. Looking at the table of contents to determine the scope of the work. Consulting the index for key terms or the names of important scholars.

  21. Finding Relevant Papers Fast with AI-Powered Academic ...

    There are several benefits to using AI-based academic search engines: # Search across millions of academic papers from different domains and disciplines. #Find relevant papers without perfect keyword match. #Discover related works based on citation s, references, or semantic similarity. #Analyze research trends and impact.

  22. Home

    How to Use this Guide. This guide is aimed at law students, primarily LL.M.s, beginning the process of finding and narrowing a topic for a research paper. Paper topic ideas may come from your lectures or course readings. Topics might come from your previous studies, work history or life experience. But, sometimes your initial subject idea is ...

  23. 'It depends': what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies

    To identify potentially relevant peer-reviewed research papers, we developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the Grimshaw et al. ... The full texts of 111 relevant papers were assessed independently by at least two authors. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion ...

  24. Writing a Research Paper Introduction

    Step 1: Introduce your topic. Step 2: Describe the background. Step 3: Establish your research problem. Step 4: Specify your objective (s) Step 5: Map out your paper. Research paper introduction examples. Frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.

  25. The Correct Way to Do Your Research: 5 Tips for Students

    A well-defined research question is the cornerstone of any successful research endeavor. It guides the direction of your study, helping to focus your efforts on finding relevant information. Start by identifying the main topic or issue you wish to explore, then narrow it down to a specific question that is both clear and concise.

  26. San Choudhury on Instagram: "Every year there are more journal articles

    1,235 likes, 18 comments - phdwithsan on February 13, 2024: "Every year there are more journal articles published than the year before! And here's the thi..."