Literature Review Template: A Section-by-Section Skeleton

This page is a structural skeleton, not another explanation of how to write a literature review. If you want the reasoning behind synthesis vs. summary, the three organizing patterns, or the synthesis-matrix technique, CASRAI’s How to Write a Literature Review guide covers that in depth. This page exists for a different moment: you already understand the craft, and you want the section headers and instructional prompts you can lift straight into a blank document and start filling in.

Two companion pages round this out: Literature Review Examples shows what finished synthesis writing actually looks like against real worked passages, and How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion covers the closing section in detail. Use this page to build the skeleton, those two to see and write the finished prose, and the how-to guide for the underlying reasoning.

How to use this template

Copy the section headers below into your own document in order. Each one carries a short instructional prompt in brackets — replace the bracketed prompt with your own writing, not the heading itself. The template assumes you’re writing a standard narrative literature review as a section of a paper, thesis, or dissertation chapter, not a standalone systematic review with a registered protocol; if that’s what you’re doing instead, see CASRAI’s literature review vs. systematic review vs. scoping review comparison first, since the two have different structural requirements.

Section 1 — Introduction: scope and research question

Introduction
[State the general topic area in one or two sentences. Narrow it to the specific question or problem your work addresses. State explicitly what this review covers and, just as importantly, what it deliberately excludes — a scope boundary a reader can hold you to. Close with one sentence previewing how the review is organized (thematically, chronologically, or methodologically — see Section 2).]

Section 2 — Declare your organizing principle

Pick one of the three patterns below before you start drafting synthesis paragraphs — mixing patterns without saying so is the most common structural weakness in early drafts. Use the literal sub-header pattern that matches your choice; delete the other two.

Option A — Thematic organization

[Theme 1 name]
[Theme 2 name]
[Theme 3 name — add or remove headers to match how many distinct themes your sources actually support]

Use this when the field is organized around a handful of recurring concepts, debates, or variables rather than a clean timeline — the most common choice for a field with active, ongoing debate.

Option B — Chronological organization

[Earliest period / foundational work]
[Middle period — how the field’s thinking shifted]
[Recent period — the current state of the debate]

Use this when the field’s understanding genuinely evolved over time and that evolution is itself part of the argument — not as a default, since a chronological review with no real intellectual development across periods reads as a list, not an argument.

Option C — Methodological organization

[Studies using Method A]
[Studies using Method B]
[Studies using Method C]

Use this when how a question has been studied is itself the point — for example, comparing what qualitative versus quantitative approaches have found on the same question.

Section 3 — Synthesis paragraphs (repeat per theme/period/method)

This is the section a template can’t write for you, but it can tell you what has to be in each block. For every sub-header from Section 2, write one synthesis paragraph following this prompt — not a source-by-source summary:

[Sub-header from Section 2]
[Open with the shared claim or pattern across sources in this group, not a single source’s finding. Group enough sources under one theme that the theme reads as a real pattern in the field rather than one paper’s isolated claim — a theme carried by a single citation usually means it belongs inside a different theme, not on its own. Note where sources agree, where they genuinely conflict, and where a source’s method or sample limits how far its finding can be trusted. Close with one sentence on what this theme still leaves unresolved.]

For the mechanics of turning individual source notes into this kind of paragraph — including the synthesis-matrix technique for checking coverage before you draft — see the synthesis section of How to Write a Literature Review, and Literature Review Examples for what the finished version of this paragraph looks like against real writing.

Section 4 — Identified-gap statement

The Gap
[State plainly what the synthesis above has NOT yet answered — a genuine open question, an unstudied population or context, a methodological limitation shared across the existing work, or a conflict in findings nobody has resolved. This sentence is the hinge the whole review turns on: everything above builds the case that this gap is real; everything after explains why your work is positioned to address it.]

Section 5 — Transition to methods / rationale

Transition
[One to three sentences connecting the gap named above directly to what you did. State explicitly that your study/thesis addresses this gap, and give the one-sentence version of how — the detailed methodology belongs in your Methods section, not here; this is the bridge, not the destination.]

Section 6 — A note on reference management

Tag and group sources by theme in a reference manager as you collect them, rather than sorting afterward — it keeps Section 2’s organizing structure visible from the start instead of being reconstructed at the end. See CASRAI’s guide to citation styles and referencing formats for how your reference manager should be configured for the citation style your venue requires.

The full skeleton, in one place

Everything above, condensed to headers and prompts only, ready to paste into a blank document:

Introduction — topic, scope (in/out), research question, organizing principle stated
[Sub-header 1] — synthesis paragraph: shared pattern, agreement/conflict, limitations, what’s unresolved
[Sub-header 2] — synthesis paragraph, same prompt
[Sub-header 3+] — repeat per theme/period/method
The Gap — the one unresolved thing the synthesis above establishes
Transition — how your work addresses that gap

Frequently asked questions

How many sections should a literature review template have?

The skeleton above has six functional parts — introduction/scope, organizing principle, synthesis paragraphs (one per theme, period, or method group), gap statement, transition, and reference-management practice — but the middle section repeats once per theme. A review with three themes has three synthesis blocks; one with six themes has six. The count of sections is driven by how many distinct themes your sources actually support, not a fixed template length.

Should I organize thematically, chronologically, or methodologically?

Thematic is the most common default for an actively-debated field with recurring concepts. Chronological only earns its place if the field’s thinking genuinely changed over time — otherwise it reads as a list. Methodological fits when how a question has been studied (not just what was found) is itself part of your argument. See Section 2 above for the literal header pattern for each.

How many sources belong in one synthesis paragraph?

Enough that the theme reads as a real pattern in the field, not one paper’s isolated finding — a “theme” carried by a single citation is a sign it belongs folded into a broader theme rather than standing alone. Beyond that floor, the right number depends on how established the field is and whether this is a journal article’s background section or a full thesis chapter; a synthesis matrix (see CASRAI’s main how-to guide) is the practical way to check whether a theme’s source count is thin before you draft it.

Is this the same as a systematic review template?

No. This skeleton is for a standard narrative literature review section of a paper or thesis. A systematic review is a distinct publication type with a registered protocol and a PRISMA-mandated reporting structure — see CASRAI’s literature review vs. systematic review vs. scoping review comparison for which one you’re actually being asked to write.

Related CASRAI resources

• Scholarly Writing pillar — the full manuscript-preparation and publishing-craft cluster this template belongs to
• How to Write a Literature Review — the full how-to: purpose, synthesis vs. summary, the synthesis-matrix technique, common pitfalls
• Literature Review Examples — annotated worked passages showing finished synthesis writing
• How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion — the closing section in depth
• The Literature Review Chapter of a Dissertation — how this template scales to a full thesis chapter
• Literature Review vs. Systematic Review vs. Scoping Review
• Critical Literature Review — the dictionary definition of the concept this template structures
• IMRaD Structure — where the literature review fits inside a manuscript’s overall structure
• Citation Styles and Referencing Formats