Research Skills

Searching for Information


Ready to move beyond typing random words into search engines?

Searching for Information

How to search the library's catalogue (OPAC)

Our online catalogue (OPAC) contains all of our holdings, including:

To perform a keyword search, simply type your search in the search field and press enter.

The Advanced Search will allow you to narrow or broaden your search as needed, based on expanded criteria.

Search in specific fields

If you're interested in learning more, see the article on advanced search techniques

opac-search-fields.png

While Keyword is the default search, there are many additional fields that can be searched specifically by selecting them from the drop-down menu. The most relevant are Title, Author and Subject.

Subject

Subject headings are important because you can use them to find similar information more efficiently. Once you've found a record of interest, you may want to note the assigned subject headings to find similar items.

subject-headings-opac.png

More on Subject Headings

A subject heading is a specific word or phrase used to find and organise books and articles by topic. Subject headings can be a great way to easily find things related directly to your topic.  Once you have identified a book or article that is worthwhile, look at the subject headings.  In the online catalogue these are found in the catalog record and you can click directly on the subject heading to get a list of books on the same subject.

Subject headings are different from keywords in that they are specific terms assigned to a subject by a subject analyst or the author.

In the library catalogue and many databases, an items's subject(s) will be a link, so that you can click on the subject heading to find similar items. You also might want to note the exact words to search them as a keyword later.

Combine search fields

Sometimes searching in a specific field still returns too many results when you're looking for something specific. IN those cases, it is helpful to combine two or more search fields using AND, OR , or NOT form the drop-down menus to the left of the search field.

Example: A title search for 'human resource management' may return dozens of results, but when combined with an author search, as in the screenshot below, only items with 'human resource management' in the title AND 'Crawshaw' as an author will be returned. 

combining-search-fields.png

Results

Once your search has returned results, you can narrow those results, or refine your search based on varied criteria, eg author, availability, item type or topic. 

By Availability

refine-your-search-availability.png

By Item Type

refine-your-search-item.png


Searching for Information

Developing a search strategy

Overview

Searching for academic literature is different from using Google. A simple web search guesses what you mean; academic databases match your exact words. This means you must build a structured search strategy to ensure you find the most relevant literature without missing crucial studies. This guide outlines how to translate your research question into a database search.

Writing a systematic literature review? See our advanced guide on Conducting Your Search for instructions on building complex concept blocks and testing search strings.

Prerequisites

Before building a search strategy, you must have completed:

Step 1: Identify Your Key Concepts

Do not type your entire research question into a library database. Instead, break it down into its core concepts (the most important nouns). Ignore instructional words (like "assess" or "describe") and relationship words (like "impact" or "effect").

Example Research Question:

"How do recent European Union regulations impact the marketing strategies of fast fashion retailers?"

Key Concepts:

Step 2: Brainstorm Alternative Search Terms

Authors use different words to describe the same idea. If you only search for "fast fashion," you will miss articles that use the term "disposable clothing." For each concept, list synonyms, broader terms, and narrower terms.

Concept 1: Regulations Concept 2: Marketing Concept 3: Fast Fashion
European Union Marketing strategy Fast fashion
EU law Advertising Disposable clothing
Legislation Public relations Ultra-fast fashion
Policy Branding Apparel industry

Using Truncation and Wildcards

Save time by searching for multiple word endings at once using an asterisk (*). This is called truncation.

Step 3: Combine Your Terms with Boolean Operators

boolean operators

Library databases use three commands—AND, OR, and NOT—to connect your search terms. These must usually be typed in ALL CAPS.

  1. OR (Expands your search): Connects synonyms. It tells the database to find articles containing any of the words.
    • Example: "fast fashion" OR "apparel industry"
  2. AND (Narrows your search): Connects different concepts. It tells the database to find articles containing all of the words.
    • Example: "fast fashion" AND marketing
  3. NOT (Excludes terms): Removes irrelevant results. Use with caution, as it might remove good articles that happen to mention the excluded word.
    • Example: "fast fashion" NOT footwear

Building the Search String

Use brackets to group your synonyms (your OR terms) before connecting them with AND.

("fast fashion" OR "apparel industry") AND (marketing OR advertising) AND ("European Union" OR EU)

Step 4: Choose the Right Tool

Now that you have a search string, you need to decide where to run it. Different tools hold different types of information.

Library Access: Remember to use the EZProxy Bookmarklet to access paywalled articles from off-campus.

Step 5: Search, Review, and Adjust (Iterative Searching)

Searching is an iterative process. You will rarely get perfect results on your first try.

Using Generative AI to Design Searches

Generative AI can help you brainstorm synonyms and structure your Boolean strings. You can prompt an AI with: "I am researching the impact of EU regulations on fast fashion marketing. Generate a list of academic synonyms for these concepts and format them into a Boolean search string."

Always review the AI's string before using it, as it may include unnecessary punctuation or overly complex terms. For more guidance, see Enhancing Search Queries with AI.

Next Steps

Once you have found a selection of relevant books and articles, you must evaluate them for academic credibility before deciding to use them in your writing.

Adapted from My Learning Essentials resources developed by the University of Manchester Library and licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0.

Searching for Information

Advanced Search Techniques

For more information on using generative AI to design searches, see Enhancing Search Queries with AI.

Keyword

Generally keywords are the default for search queries, and it's important to know how a keyword search works.

Keyword searches will return results in which the keyword appears anywhere in the record, whether title, description, author, etc. A search for multiple keywords will return results in which both keywords appear anywhere in the record, not necessarily beside each other.

Example: industrial design would return all results that include the terms industrial and design irrespective of where the terms were in relation to each other

Grouping keywords with quotation marks

An easy way to group keywords is to enclose them in quotation marks. This can be particularly helpful when searching for specific titles of items.

Example: 'industrial design' would only return results where industrial and design were located beside each other

Boolean Operators (AND, OR, NOT)

s-andornot-1.png

AND

Use the Boolean operator AND to narrow search terms more effectively.

Example: Bauhaus AND Albers would return results that include both Bauhaus and Albers

OR

Use the Boolean operator OR to combine search terms.

The Boolean operator OR is helpful for search terms with varying spelling, e.g. o/ou or s/z in English; or when looking for a search term in different languages:

Example: 'labor policy' OR 'labour policy' would return results containing either labor or labour.

Example: 'industrial design' OR Industriedesign would return results containing either industrial design or Industriedesign

NOT

Use the Boolean operator NOT to exclude results.

Example: bauhaus NOT band would return only results which include the term bauhaus but do not include the term band

Wildcards

Wildcards are used in search terms to represent one or more other characters.

The two most commonly used wildcards are:

An asterisk (*) may be used to specify any number of characters. It is typically used at the end of a root word, when it is referred to as "truncation." This is great when you want to search for variable endings of a root word.

Example: searching for librar* would tell the database to look for all possible endings to that root. Results will include library, libraries, librarian, librarians or librarianship.

A question mark (?) may be used to represent a single character, anywhere in the word. It is most useful when there are variable spellings for a word, and you want to search for all variants at once.

Example: Searching for colo?r would return both color and colour.

Wildcard characters can vary among search providers


Searching for Information

Making the most of Generative AI (ChatGPT etc.)

Overview

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Claude can assist with many parts of the research and writing process. They can help you brainstorm, draft, refine prompts, and structure search queries. They can also produce convincing but inaccurate content, fabricate sources, and reflect biases present in their training data.

This guide helps you use these tools critically and responsibly. It covers:

Before you use any AI tool in your coursework, check your course or assignment guidelines. Policies vary by instructor, department, and faculty. If the policy is not stated, ask.

What generative AI does and does not do

Generative AI tools produce text (and sometimes images or code) by drawing on patterns learned during training on large datasets. How they handle information at the point of use varies by tool and by how you access it.

Some tools work from training data alone. These have a knowledge cutoff: they cannot access recent publications, current events, or library resources. Their outputs reflect what was in their training data, nothing more.

Other tools can retrieve external content before generating a response, a technique often called retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Tools such as Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and certain modes of ChatGPT can search the web or draw on connected sources. Some research-oriented tools (Perplexity, Elicit, Scite) are designed specifically to retrieve and summarize scholarly content.

Retrieval capability does not make a tool reliable. Even tools with web access can:

In practice, you should not assume that because a tool "searched the web" its output is accurate or that its citations are correct. Verify any source an AI tool mentions before citing it, regardless of which tool you used.

Other risks apply across most current tools:

If you are unsure how a specific tool handles data or retrieval, check its documentation or ask a librarian.

Citation and Attribution

Citation practices for generative AI are still evolving. Each major style has issued guidance, but all note that their recommendations may change. Always check your assignment requirements and consult with your instructor if you are unsure whether and how to disclose AI use.

The general principle across styles is: if you use AI-generated content in your work, disclose it. This applies to quoted or paraphrased text, images, and data.

Citing Generative AI: APA

Citing Generative AI: Chicago

Writing Prompts

Expand

Crafting effective prompts for a Generative AI tool is crucial for obtaining high-quality outputs. This guide provides a concise overview and tips to enhance your prompts:

Be Specific:

Generic prompts yield generic results. Specify the type, genre, audience, length, and tone for better outcomes.

Create a visually engaging poster promoting a sustainable design exhibition for a design-savvy audience. Keep it concise and modern.

Draft a concise business proposal outlining key strategies for a sustainable product launch in the current market. Target audience: investors and industry professionals.

"Act as if..." Approach:

Request the AI to assume a certain role, process, or object. This provides context and refines responses, e.g., "Act as if you are my personal trainer" when seeking recipe suggestions.

Act as if you are a design consultant. Provide creative suggestions for enhancing user experience in a mobile app focusing on simplicity and aesthetics.

Act as if you are a marketing strategist. Develop a marketing plan for a new business venture, considering target demographics and competition.

Specify Output Format:

Clearly state the desired output format, such as code, stories, reports, etc. Use phrases like "Present this in the form of..." or "Create a [output format] about/that contains..."

Design an infographic illustrating the evolution of graphic design trends in the last decade. Present this in the form of a visually appealing and informative graphic.

Compose a market analysis report on emerging e-commerce trends. Present this in the form of a concise and visually appealing slide deck for a business presentation.

Use "Do" and "Don't":

Save time and improve results by specifying preferences. For instance, "Create a recipe that includes tomatoes, chicken, and carbs, but exclude chili peppers and wheat-containing ingredients."

Develop a logo for a startup specializing in sustainable packaging solutions. Do incorporate eco-friendly elements and vibrant colors. Don't use overly complex designs.

Draft a proposal for a business event sponsorship. Do highlight the potential benefits for sponsors. Don't include excessive jargon or technical details.

Provide Examples:

Offer a sample sentence or paragraph for the AI to reference, avoiding copyrighted material. This helps shape the desired output.

Provide a description of a modern furniture design studio. For example, discuss the studio's philosophy, materials used, and signature design elements.

Describe a successful case study of a business implementing sustainable practices. For example, highlight the specific strategies adopted and the resulting positive impact on the company's image and profitability.

Consider Tone and Audience:

Specify the audience and desired tone. For example, "Give me ideas for a funny and heartwarming best man's speech suitable for a family audience."

Generate ideas for a creative pitch introducing a new design tool to fellow design students. Ensure the tone is inspiring and resonates with the enthusiasm of budding designers.

Develop content for a promotional video targeting potential investors in a tech startup. Ensure the tone is professional, highlighting the innovation and market potential of the product.

Build on Previous Prompts:

Start with a basic question and refine it over time. Adjust wording, tone, or add more context to guide the AI toward the desired output.

What are the key elements to consider in designing an interactive and user-friendly website? Build on this by providing examples relevant to design students' projects.

Begin with a basic outline for a business plan. Now, add more details about market analysis, financial projections, and potential challenges faced by startups in the current economic landscape.

Correct Mistakes and Give Feedback:

Treat the AI like a colleague, providing feedback on useful parts and areas for improvement. Correct any mistakes to enhance future responses.

The design concept is great, but it needs more emphasis on sustainability. Could you provide alternative color schemes and materials that align with eco-friendly principles?

The market analysis is insightful. However, it lacks information on potential risks. Please incorporate a section discussing potential challenges and mitigation strategies.

Ask for Prompt Creation Assistance:

If unsure how to formulate a prompt, ask the AI for help in creating one. Seek guidance by asking, "What should I ask you to help me write a blog post about AI?"

I'm brainstorming ideas for a design blog post. What prompt should I use to generate content about the impact of minimalist design on user experience?

I need to create a persuasive pitch for a business idea. How can I structure a prompt to gather information on effective strategies for presenting market potential and profitability?

Inquire about Additional Needs:

Conclude prompts by asking, "Tell me what else you need to do this" to fill in any gaps and enhance the AI's ability to generate better outputs.

I want to design a portfolio showcasing my best work. Tell me what else you need to generate prompts that will guide me in creating a visually appealing and impactful portfolio.

I'm preparing a business report on the future of e-commerce. Tell me what additional details or data you need to generate prompts that will help me gather comprehensive insights for the report.

Enhancing Search Queries with AI

Expand

Constructing advanced search queries can be difficult, even for advanced researchers. Research databases use structured query syntax: Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), wildcards, and phrase searching. Constructing complex queries takes practice. Generative AI can help you build an initial query structure based on your research question.

Prompt:

Given the research question below, construct a search query to be used in a research database that uses synonyms and employs nesting, booleans (AND, OR, NOT) and wildcards (*):

"How does critical design contribute to the reimagining of urban spaces, specifically focusing on its impact on community engagement, sustainability, and the overall user experience in the architectural design process?"

Response:

("critical design" OR "speculative design" OR "design fiction") AND 
("urban spaces" OR "city planning" OR "urban development") AND 
("community engagement" OR "public participation" OR "stakeholder involvement") AND 
("sustainability" OR "environmental impact" OR "ecological design") AND 
("user experience" OR "human-centered design" OR "occupant satisfaction") AND 
("architectural design process" OR "built environment design" OR "architectural innovation")

Important: Always test AI-generated search queries in the actual database and adjust them. Different databases use different syntax, and the AI does not know which database you are using or what terms it indexes. Treat AI-generated queries as a starting draft, not a final product.

Hallucinations and fabricated citations

Generative AI tools frequently produce inaccurate or entirely invented citations. This is sometimes called "hallucination": the AI generates plausible-sounding but false information. This is a well-documented limitation, not an occasional bug.

When asked to produce a list of sources, an AI tool may return:

This happens inconsistently. A single response may include both real and fabricated citations, with no indication of which is which.

Do not cite any source from an AI output without first verifying it exists, using your library catalog, a database such as Scopus or Web of Science, or Google Scholar. Submitting fabricated citations in academic work is a serious integrity issue, regardless of whether the AI produced them.

The same caution applies to AI-generated factual claims, statistics, and quotations. These should always be verified against a primary or reliable secondary source before you use them.

Prompt:

Please provide a list of books, including author, about architecture in extreme or adverse environments.

ai-hal.png

In the next below, ChatGPT was provided with the following prompt:


Please provide two to three paragraphs with in-text citations about architecture in extreme or adverse environments.

The only reference returned that appears to be real is the first, though the author seems to be incorrect. The others are not real.

ai-hal II.png

Searching for Information

Open Access (OA)

What Is Open Access?

Open Access (OA) refers to the free, immediate, online availability of research outputs such as journal articles or books, combined with the rights to use these outputs fully in the digital environment. Unlike traditional subscription-based journals, OA content is open to all readers with no access fees. Most open access publications are released under Creative Commons licenses, allowing for broader reuse and distribution while maintaining proper attribution.

Open access is not a fringe movement: it is the direction in which scholarly publishing is heading worldwide. Berlin itself is a birthplace of the modern OA movement — the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) remains one of the foundational documents of the global open access movement and has been signed by hundreds of research institutions. As a holder of the Open Library Badge, the Klingemann Library is committed to advancing these principles at Berlin International.

Models of Open Access

Open access is commonly described using a colour system. The four models most relevant to researchers at Berlin International are summarised below.

Comparison of the four primary open access models
Model How It Works Who Pays? When Is It Open?
Gold OA Published in a fully open access journal. Peer-reviewed and freely available at the point of publication. Often an Article Processing Charge (APC) paid by the author, institution, or funder. Many Gold OA journals, however, charge no fees at all (see Diamond OA). Immediately upon publication.
Green OA The author self-archives a version of the work (preprint or accepted manuscript) in an institutional or disciplinary repository. Free for the author. The article may also be published in a subscription journal. Immediately, or after an embargo period set by the publisher. Check policies via Sherpa/Romeo.
Diamond OA A special form of Gold OA: the journal charges no fees to authors or readers. Typically community-driven and non-commercial. Funded by institutions, scholarly societies, or volunteers — not by authors. Immediately upon publication.
Hybrid OA Individual articles are made open access within a subscription journal, usually by paying an APC. The rest of the journal remains behind a paywall. An APC paid by the author or institution (often higher than in fully OA journals). Immediately for the paid article; the journal itself remains subscription-based.

csm_OA_Wege_eng_0f928b6521.png
Source: open-access.network (2021), Pathways of Open Access (CC BY 4.0 International)

A note on Hybrid OA and “double dipping”

Hybrid journals collect subscription fees from libraries and APCs from individual authors who choose to publish open access. Critics call this “double dipping” because the publisher is paid twice for the same content. If you are considering a hybrid journal, check whether your institution or funder has a transformative agreement with the publisher that offsets the APC. In Germany, the DEAL agreements with Wiley and Springer Nature are examples of such arrangements, though Berlin International is not currently a DEAL participant.

Why Open Access Matters at Berlin International

Open access offers concrete advantages for researchers and students at a small, international institution:

Finding Open Access Resources

Via the Library's Catalog

Many open access items in our catalog can be identified by the OA symbol Open Access logo. Thanks to enrichment data from the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), these resources link directly to the open access full text, ensuring immediate access without restrictions. This is part of our broader commitment to openness, as recognised by the Open Library Badge.

Via the Research Database Index

The library's Research Database Index lists all research databases available to the BI community. Many of these include open access content alongside subscription resources. When searching for journal articles, try combining subscription databases with the open access discovery tools below to ensure you find the broadest range of sources.

Open Access Discovery Tools

Open Access Resources by Discipline

The following resources are particularly relevant to the disciplines taught at Berlin International. For a full list of all databases available to the BI community, consult the Research Database Index.

Design and Architecture
Business and Management

How to Publish Open Access

Publishing open access can seem complex, but the steps below provide a practical roadmap. Faculty members are encouraged to contact the library at any stage for personalised support.

1. Identify Suitable Journals or Publishers

Use Sherpa/Romeo to check publisher policies on open access. This platform provides detailed information about copyright and self-archiving policies for thousands of journals, helping you identify where and how you can publish your work openly. You can also search the DOAJ to find quality-assessed open access journals in your discipline, and consult the Research Database Index for an overview of all databases available to the BI community.

2. Deposit Work in Repositories

Repositories are essential for Green OA. Berlin International's Institutional Repository is now live and accepting deposits. Faculty members can deposit accepted manuscripts, preprints, working papers, and other research outputs directly. Students should consult the thesis submission guide for instructions on depositing completed theses.

Additional repository options include:

What is the Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht (secondary publication right)?

Under German copyright law (§ 38(4) UrhG), authors of scholarly articles resulting from publicly funded research may make the accepted manuscript version publicly available twelve months after initial publication, regardless of any exclusive rights granted to the publisher. This right applies to articles in periodical publications that appear at least twice per year, and it cannot be waived by contract. It provides a straightforward legal basis for Green OA self-archiving in the BI Institutional Repository. For further details, see the open-access.network guide on the Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht.

3. Disseminate Your Research

After publication, make sure your work reaches the widest possible audience:

4. Create and Share Open Educational Resources (OERs)

Faculty members can contribute to open education by developing and sharing teaching materials. Platforms include:

Understanding Licensing: Creative Commons

When publishing open access, selecting the right license is essential. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are the standard in scholarly publishing. They allow you to retain copyright while specifying how others may reuse your work. All CC licenses require attribution (credit to the original author); the differences lie in what additional restrictions apply.

Overview of the six Creative Commons licenses (version 4.0)
License Commercial Use? Adaptations? Notes
CC BY Yes Yes Most permissive. Recommended by the Berlin Declaration and most funders. Maximises reuse and citation potential.
CC BY-SA Yes Yes, under the same license “Share Alike” ensures derivative works remain open. Used by Wikipedia.
CC BY-NC No Yes Restricts commercial use. Note: the definition of “commercial” can be ambiguous (e.g., educational fee-charging institutions).
CC BY-NC-SA No Yes, under the same license Combines non-commercial and share-alike conditions. Used by the Klingemann Library LibGuides.
CC BY-ND Yes No “No Derivatives” prevents others from adapting the work. Rarely recommended for academic use.
CC BY-NC-ND No No Most restrictive CC license. Limits both commercial reuse and adaptation.
Which license should I choose?

For maximum impact and compliance with the Berlin Declaration and most funder mandates, CC BY is recommended. It allows the broadest possible reuse while always requiring attribution. If you have specific concerns about commercial exploitation of your work, CC BY-NC is a common compromise, but be aware that it can restrict legitimate uses (e.g., a commercial educational platform redistributing your paper). The Creative Commons website provides an interactive License Chooser to help you decide. For further guidance, see the open-access.network page on licenses.

Recognising and Avoiding Predatory Publishers

Predatory publishers exploit the open access model by charging publication fees without providing genuine peer review, editorial oversight, or lasting archival. Their journals may look professional at first glance, but the work they publish lacks quality assurance and may damage your academic reputation. This is a particular risk for researchers at international institutions who may receive unsolicited publication invitations in English.

Warning Signs

How to Check a Journal

Tools and strategies for evaluating journals

For a detailed German-language checklist, see the open-access.network's guidance on predatory publishing.

Open Access in Berlin and Germany

Berlin International operates within a rich regional and national OA ecosystem. The following resources provide context and support:

Key resources in the Berlin and German OA landscape

Support from the Library

The Klingemann Library is here to assist you at every step of the open access process. We provide:

For more information or personalised support, please email us or chat via Teams.

Structuring Your Paper

Structuring Your Paper

How to Write an Outline

Overview

An outline is a structural framework for your paper. It organises your ideas, sources, and arguments before you write the first draft. Taking the time to build a thorough outline prevents writer's block, exposes gaps in your research, and ensures your final argument flows logically from start to finish.

Prerequisites

Before you attempt to write an outline, you must have:

Choosing an Outline Format

Different disciplines and learning styles benefit from different outlining methods. Choose the one that best fits your workflow.

1. The Linear Outline (Standard Alphanumeric)

This is the traditional, top-down approach. It works exceptionally well for Business Administration (FoB) reports and empirical research papers. You use a combination of numbers and letters to establish a hierarchy of ideas.

2. The Visual Outline (Mind Mapping)

Some students think spatially rather than linearly. A visual outline or mind map allows you to group concepts on a blank canvas before forcing them into a linear sequence.

Spray_diagram_Student_learning_characteristics.png
"Spray diagram Student learning characteristics" by CS Odessa is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

The Standard Academic Structure

Regardless of whether you outline visually or linearly, most academic papers require three core components:

The Introduction

Your introduction should account for roughly ten percent of your total word count. It must provide the background context, introduce the specific problem you are investigating, and end with a clear thesis statement. The thesis statement is the direct answer to your research question.

The Body Paragraphs

This is the core of your paper. Do not organise your body paragraphs by author (e.g., "Smith says X. Jones says Y."). Instead, organise them by theme or concept.

Plan each body paragraph using the Topic-Evidence-Analysis structure:

  1. Topic Sentence: State the main idea of the paragraph clearly.
  2. Evidence: Introduce your paraphrased sources, data, or precedent analyses.
  3. Analysis: Explain exactly how this evidence proves your point. Do not leave the reader to guess why the evidence matters.

The Conclusion

The conclusion should also account for roughly ten percent of your paper. It must restate your thesis in a new way, summarise the main findings from your body paragraphs, and explain the broader implications of your research. Never introduce new evidence or new sources in a conclusion.

Tip: Write the introduction last. Many students get stuck trying to write the perfect introduction. Outline the whole paper, draft your body paragraphs first, and then write the introduction once you know exactly what your paper actually says.

Reverse Outlining: A Tool for Editing

If you have already written a messy first draft and feel like the argument is completely lost, use a technique called "reverse outlining."

  1. Read your draft and highlight the main point of every single paragraph.
  2. Write those main points in a numbered list on a separate piece of paper.
  3. Read the list.

Does the list make logical sense? Are there leaps in logic; are ideas repeated in paragraphs three and seven; does a paragraph lack a clear main point? Rearrange or delete the paragraphs based on this reverse outline to instantly fix the structure of your paper.

Using Generative AI for Outlining

Generative AI tools are excellent structural assistants, provided you supply the ideas.

Example Prompt:

"I am writing a BA thesis on sustainable materials in interior design. My main themes are cost, durability, and aesthetic flexibility. My thesis statement is [insert statement]. Suggest a logical, highly detailed structural outline for a thirty-page academic paper based on these themes."

Academic Integrity: Do not ask an AI to write the content of the outline for you. You must provide the themes, the thesis statement, and the evidence. The AI should only be used to suggest the structural sequence. Review the library's guide on Making the most of Generative AI.

Managing Citations


Learn more about creating citations and citation management software such as Zotero.

Managing Citations

Creating Citations & Avoiding Plagiarism

What are citations?

Citations are addresses. They tell readers where to find a specific piece of research.

Think of a postal address. There are certain pieces of information that must be included and they must be presented in a certain order (format) so that a letter can find its destination. Postal addresses may vary slightly in different countries or regions, but in the end they all contain the same pieces of critical information. This can be compared to the slightly varied formats of different style guides for citations.

Citations provide basic information like author, title, publisher and year of publication that allow researchers to locate a particular piece of information.

Why are citations needed?

How to write citations?

Just like addresses, citations have a very specific format, and different academic disciplines may have slightly different ways that they format citations; adopting the format from one of several style-guides.

Please note: FoB uses APA-style citations and FoAD uses Chicago-style citations.

APA

Read more

APA-style citations are outlined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: the Official Guide to APA Style, but the basic format is as follows:

Surname of Author(s), Initial of first name of Author(s).(Year of Publication). Title (Edition No.). Publisher. URL
Basic Example
Maesse, J., Pühringer, S., Rossier, T., & Benz, P. (Eds.). (2021). Power and influence of economists: Contributions to the social studies of economics (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367817084
Further Examples

Chicago

Read more

Chicago-style is outlined in The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), but the basic format consists of two parts:

  1. An in-text citation (Author-Date Format)
  2. A bibliography

Plagiarism

What is plagiarism?

Plagiarism means presenting someone else’s work, or your own previous work in the case of self-plagiarism, as your own. Plagiarism is intellectual theft and is regarded as academic misconduct.

Types of plagiarism

There are different types of plagiarism and all are serious violations of academic honesty.

  • Direct plagiarism: the word-for-word transcription of part of someone else’s work, without attribution and without quotation marks.
  • Mosaic Plagiarism occurs when a student borrows phrases from a source without using quotation marks, or finds synonyms for the author’s language while keeping to the same general structure and meaning of the original.
  • Self-plagiarism occurs when a student submits his or her own previous work, or mixes parts of previous works. 
  • Accidental plagiarism occurs when a person neglects to cite their sources or unintentionally paraphrases a source by using similar words, groups of words without attribution.

Avoiding plagiarism

Plagiarism can be committed unintentionally. Make sure you always provide proper source references so that others can see which ideas are those of other authors.

Providing proper source references also enables other people to check these sources.

Additional Resources

Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab)

The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University in the US has been online since 1995 and is one of the most comprehensive sources available regarding style and citation. Indeed, it often has more information than the actual style guides due to the large number of examples available.

Citation Generators

If you have the information about an article or book, you can use one of the tools below to put it in the right format.

Thanks to the following sources for providing partial inspiration/content for this page: University Library Groningen.

Managing Citations

Citation Examples: APA

Overview

APA-style citations are outlined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: the Official Guide to APA Style, but the basic format is as follows:

Surname of Author(s), Initial of first name of Author(s).(Year of Publication). Title (Edition No.). Publisher. URL
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

APA (7th edition, updated guidance September 2025)

APA recommends citing specific AI-generated outputs similarly to software references, using the developer as author. Because AI conversations are generally not retrievable by readers, APA also recommends including the prompt in the body of your paper or in an appendix when it is relevant.

For cases where the tool does not generate a stable URL, APA suggests including prompts and output in an appendix, or seeking guidance from your instructor or editor.

Guidelines for APA Style Referencing in Undergraduate Assignments:

  1. In-Text Citations and Reference List:

    • In-text citations are necessary for direct mentions of AI-generated content.
    • In the reference list, attribute authorship to the organisation behind the AI model.

  2. Integration into Research Description:

    • Explain the use of AI tools in your research in the introduction or methods section.
    • Provide details about the prompts used to interact with the AI.

  3. Handling Text Passages:

    • For brief AI-generated excerpts, incorporate them directly into your paper.
    • For longer responses, include relevant portions in the main text or direct readers to an appendix or online supplement for the complete content.

Following these guidelines ensures proper acknowledgment and referencing of AI-generated content in your academic writing.

Format

Author. (Date). Name of tool (Version of tool) [Large language model]. URL

In-text citation

(OpenAI, 2025)

Reference

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (GPT-4o version) [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com

Consult the APA Style blog for the most current examples, including guidance on citing AI integrated into software such as Microsoft Copilot.

Books

Book/eBook (single author)

Author. (Year). Title (Edition). Publisher. DOI or URL.

In-text citation

(Kuhlmann, 2021)

Reference

Kuhlmann, S. (2021). Public administration in germany. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8.
eBooks and DOIs

If a book has a DOI (Digital Object Identifier), add this to the end of the reference. If the article does not have a DOI but does have an accessible URL, include this at the end of the reference instead. You can check to see if the book you are referencing has a DOI at Crossref.

Book/eBook (two authors)

For sources with two authors, include both surnames in your in-text citation and full reference, maintaining the source's name order:

In-text citation

(Smith & Johnson, 2015, p.8)

Reference

Smith, A., & Johnson, B. (2015). Strategies for effective business management. Business Press.

Book/eBook (three to twenty authors)

For sources with three to twenty authors, cite the first author followed by 'et al' in the in-text citation. List all authors in the full reference, separating them with commas and using an ampersand before the last one:

In-text citation

(Jones et al., 2019)

Reference

Jones, M., Davis, R., Clark, P., & Brown, S. (2019). Enhancing Leadership Skills in Business Education. Journal of Business Education, 12(3), 245-260.

Book/eBook (more than twenty authors)

For sources with more than twenty authors, include only the first author followed by 'et al' in the in-text citation. List the first 19 authors in the full reference, separated by commas, followed by an ellipsis (...) and the final author:

In-text citation

(Williams et al., 2020)

Reference

Williams, C., Adams, E., Turner, G., Harris, M., Miller, J., Moore, K., ...Taylor, R. (2020). Innovations in Business Research. Business Journal, 8, 112-125.
Book chapters

Chapter in an edited book

In-text citation

(Smith, 2020)

Reference

Smith, J. (2020). Innovations in Market Analysis. In K. Johnson & R. Anderson (Eds.), Business Trends: Navigating the Future (3rd ed., pp. 112-135). Horizon Publications.
Conferences

Conference Presentation

In-text citation

(Bird, 2019)

Reference

Bird, N. (2019, May 15-17). Strategies for Business Innovation: Exploring the Dynamics of Corporate Dispositions [Conference presentation]. BizInnovate 2019, Virtual Conference.
Data

If you are citing published data, for example if it appears in a book or journal article, cite the publication rather than the data itself. 

In-text citation

(ABC Business Summit, 2009)

Reference

ABC Business Summit. (2009). 2007 Business Insights Survey [Data file and code book]. ABC Publishing. http://abcbusinesssummit.org/datasets/
Journal articles

In-text citation

(Smith, 2022)

Reference

Smith, J. (2022). Innovations in Business Strategies. International Business Symposium, 5(2), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1234/ibs2022.innovations
Online video

Format

Creator. (Date). Title. [Video]. Site name. URL.

In-text citation

(MadeUp Business Conference, 2020)

Reference

MadeUp Business Conference. (2020). The MadeUp Business Conference experience. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLxV5L6IaFA
Webpage

Format

Corporate or individual author. (Date). Title. URL.

In-text citation

(Fictional Business Conference, 2021)

Reference

Fictional Business Conference. (2021, August 6). Updates on Business Innovations. https://www.fictionalbusinessconference.com/updates-business-innovations

Thanks to the following sources for providing partial inspiration/content for this page: University College London.

Managing Citations

Citation Examples: Chicago

Chicago style refers to the Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Edition (CMOS 17).

Note: The 18th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS 18) was published in September 2024 and introduces some changes, particularly to the handling of electronic sources and AI-generated content. The examples on this page follow CMOS 17, which remains widely used. Please confirm with your instructor which edition is required for your programme.

Citing sources in Chicago Author-Date style consists of two parts:

  1. An in-text citation (a brief parenthetical reference within the body of your text)
  2. A bibliography entry (the full source details, listed alphabetically at the end of your paper)

Every in-text citation must correspond to a full entry in your bibliography, and every bibliography entry should be cited at least once in your text. Together, the two parts allow the reader to trace any claim back to its original source.

DOIs preferred over URLs: When citing electronic sources, always use a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) if one is available, as DOIs are permanent and stable. Only use a URL if no DOI exists. A DOI is formatted as a full link: https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxxx.

In-text Citations (Author-Date Format)

Basic Format

(Author Year, Page Number)

Detailed Examples and Cases

One Author

Include the author's last name and year, followed by a comma and the page number you are citing.

(Thelen 2004, 271)

"There is a consistently high correlation between the voting patterns of parents and the eventual voting patterns of their children, as demonstrated by Miller and Hastings" (Thelen 2004, 271).

Two Authors

Connect both authors' last names with "and," followed by the year, followed by a comma and the page number you are citing.

(Gourevitch and Shinn 2005, 59)

The Seattle Advertiser made some startling claims about interventions by corporate interests in the 2004 mayoral election (Gourevitch and Shinn 2005, 59).

Three Authors

List each author's last name separated with a comma, with "and" before the third author, followed by the year, followed by a comma and the page number you are citing.

(Boyd, Teale, and Takuma 1997, 13)

Early interventions in literacy development have been shown to produce lasting effects on reading ability across socioeconomic groups (Boyd, Teale, and Takuma 1997, 13).

Four or More Authors

List the first author's last name, then include "et al." for "and others."

(de La Bédoyère et al. 2006, 101)

The theory that the Renaissance marked a radical break with previous history is now discounted by many, notably by Sadie Hawkins in her book The Myth of the Renaissance (de La Bédoyère et al. 2006, 101).

No Author or Date

List the title of the work in quotation marks and use "n.d." for "no date."

("Making the most of Generative AI," n.d.)

Prompt engineering techniques can substantially improve the quality of AI-generated output ("Making the most of Generative AI," n.d.).

Two or More Authors with the Same Last Name

When the reference list has works by authors with the same last name, include their first initial in the in-text citation.

(K. Thelen 2004)

Institutional development in Germany followed a path-dependent trajectory shaped by vocational training systems (K. Thelen 2004).

Multiple Works by the Same Author in the Same Year

If an author has published multiple works in the same year, alphabetise the titles in the reference list and then add a, b, c, etc. to the year.

(Sheringham 2010a)

(Sheringham 2010b)

Sheringham's first study focused on archival practices in urban spaces (Sheringham 2010a), while his later work expanded the analysis to include suburban landscapes (Sheringham 2010b).

Author's Name Appears in the Sentence

If the author's name appears in the sentence, do not include the name again in the parentheses.

Thelen (2004, 271) argues that institutional evolution is deeply rooted in historical contexts.

Multiple Citations

To cite more than one reference in a single in-text citation, separate the references by semicolons. If the works are by the same author, use just the year and separate with a comma. See CMOS 15.30 for details.

(Thelen 2004; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005)

(Thelen 2004, 2006; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005)

Several scholars have argued that corporate governance structures are shaped by national institutional frameworks (Thelen 2004; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005).

Figures (Artwork/Images)

Images should appear shortly after you mention them in your paper, should be numbered (Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.), and should appear in the List of Figures of your research.

Chicago style also states that "a brief statement of the source of an illustration, known as a credit line, is usually appropriate" (CMOS 3.29: Sources and permissions). Chicago style does not prescribe the exact format of this statement. The style does not require that images included in a paper be listed in the bibliography.

If you wish to include an image in your paper, BI requires at least the following information:

Additional data that add context, such as a caption, are encouraged.

Example

 

Photograph of the Bauhaus building in Dessau, viewed from the south-east, showing the workshop wing and the glass curtain wall facade
Figure 1. The Bauhaus building in Dessau, Gunnar Klack, Bauhaus Dessau, Gropiusallee Ecke Bauhausstraße, Dessau-Roßlau, Werkstättenflügel Foto aus Richtung Südosten, 2020, Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020-09-18-Bauhaus-Dessau-Werkstattfluegel-Ecke-2.jpg. CC BY-SA 4.0.

 

In the example above, the elements correspond to:

Figure 1. Caption, Author/Creator, Title, Date, Publisher/website, URL. License.

Bibliography / References / Works-Cited

The bibliography appears at the end of your paper and provides the full publication details for every source cited in the text. Entries are listed alphabetically by the first author's last name (or by title, ignoring articles such as "A," "The," or "An," when no author is available). The bibliography allows your reader to locate and verify each source you have used.

Formatting note: Bibliography entries use a hanging indent: the first line of each entry is flush left, and all subsequent lines are indented (typically by 1.27 cm / 0.5 in). In Microsoft Word, you can apply this via Paragraph > Special > Hanging. In Google Docs, use Format > Align & indent > Indentation options > Special indent > Hanging.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Chicago (18th edition): Author-Date

Chicago style lists the AI tool's developer as the author. The date is the date you generated the content, not a publication date.

In-text citation

(OpenAI 2024)

Reference list entry (with a shareable URL)

OpenAI. 2024. Response to "Describe three approaches to sustainable façade design for a tropical climate." ChatGPT-4o, November 14, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/share/[link].

Reference list entry (prompt included in the text of your paper)

OpenAI. 2024. Text generated by ChatGPT-4o, November 14, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/share/[link].

If no shareable URL is available

Some AI tools, including institutionally licensed versions of Copilot and Gemini, do not generate shareable links. In that case, describe the exchange clearly in your text and note that the conversation is not publicly retrievable. A bibliography entry is optional but should include as much identifying information as possible:

Microsoft. 2024. Response to "Summarize current building regulations for passive house design in Northern Europe." Microsoft Copilot, October 3, 2024. Conversation not publicly retrievable.

Notes

Books / eBooks

Book (single author)

Author's Last name, First name. Year of publication. Title: Subtitle. Edition. Place of publication: Publisher.

Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book (two or three authors)

First author Last name, First name, and second author First name Last name. Year of publication. Title: Subtitle. Edition. Place of publication: Publisher.

Gourevitch, Peter, and James Shinn. 2005. Political Power and Corporate Control: The New Global Politics of Corporate Governance. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Book (four or more authors)

First Author Last name, First name, remaining authors' First name Last name. Year of publication. Title: Subtitle. Edition. Place of Publication: Publisher.

De la Bédoyère, Camilla, Ihor Holubizky, Julia Kelly, Michael Kerrigan, James Mackay, William Matar, Tom Middlemos, Michael Robinson, and Iain Zaczek. 2006. A Brief History of Art. London: Flame Tree Publishing.

eBooks

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. Title: Subtitle. Edition. Place of Publication: Publisher. DOI, URL, or database name.

Beaumont, Lesley A. 2012. Childhood in Ancient Athens: Iconography and Social History. London: Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucd/detail.action?docID=1114632.

Note: If a book is available in print and online, you must cite the version you consulted. Access dates are only included if no publication date information is available. If no place of publication is available for an eBook, write "n.p." ("no place") in its position.

Note: If you access your book on an eReader or other type of platform, insert that instead of the URL (e.g., Kindle, Google Play Books, Apple Books).

Note: Where page numbers are not available or change depending on the device used, CMOS 17 advises including chapter numbers or section headings instead. If a scanned version of the original book is available online, this version is preferable for citation.

Book Chapters

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. "Title of Chapter." In Book Title, edited by First name Last name, Pages. Place of publication: Publisher.

Sheringham, Michael. 2010. "Archiving." In Restless Cities, edited by Matthew Beaumont and Gregory Dart, 10–24. London: Verso.

Journal Articles

Journal article (single author)

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." Journal Title Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages.

Barber, Marcus. 2024. "Global Warming and the Political Ecology of Health: Emerging Crises and Systemic Solutions." The Australian Journal of Anthropology 21, no. 3 (Winter): 390–391.

Journal article (two or three authors)

First Author Last name, First name, remaining authors First name Last name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." Journal Title Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages.

Morgan, Sylvia, Danny Carswell, and Lynda Lamore. 2010. "The Rise of Political Correctness in Post-War Britain." Twentieth Century Britain 25, no. 3 (March): 412–416.

Journal article (four or more authors)

First Author Last name, First name, remaining authors First name Last name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." Journal Title Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages.

Virtue, Simon, Holly Wright, Dale Diamond, and Sheila Murphy. 1943. "Was Mark Twain a Nihilist?" American Literary Essays 3, no. 88 (Winter): 13–27.

eJournal article

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year of publication. "Title of Article." Journal Title Volume, Issue no. (month or season): Pages. DOI or URL.

Mulvin, Lynda, and Steven E. Sidebotham. 2004. "Roman Game Boards from Abu Sha'ar (Red Sea Coast, Egypt)." Antiquity 78, no. 301 (September): 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00113250.

Note: CMOS 17 advises including an access date only when no publication date is provided.

Note: Month of publication only needs to be included where given in the source.

Note: For four or more authors, list all authors in the bibliography. In a footnote, list only the first author followed by "et al." For more than ten authors, list the first seven in the bibliography followed by "et al."

Theses and Dissertations

Author Last name, First name. Year. "Title of Thesis." Type of thesis, Institution. DOI or URL.

Okonkwo, Adaeze. 2024. "Brand Storytelling and Consumer Engagement in the German Start-Up Ecosystem." Master's thesis, Berlin International University of Applied Sciences. https://repository.berlin-international.de/items/example.

Note: The type of thesis should be specified exactly (e.g., "Bachelor's thesis," "Master's thesis," "PhD diss."). If the thesis is available in the BI Institutional Repository or another online repository, include the DOI or URL.

Reports and White Papers

Author(s) or Organisation. Year. Title of Report. Report number (if applicable). Place of publication: Publisher. DOI or URL.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2023. OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/342b8564-en.

McKinsey & Company. 2024. The State of AI in Early 2024: Gen AI Adoption Spikes and Starts to Generate Value. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai.

Note: When an organisation is both the author and the publisher, it is acceptable to list the organisation as the author and omit it from the publisher position, or to list it in both positions. Be consistent throughout your bibliography.

Conference Papers and Proceedings

Unpublished conference paper

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year. "Title of Paper." Paper presented at Conference Name, Location, Date. DOI or URL.

Chen, Wei, and Laura Müller. 2023. "Sustainable Materials in Modular Housing: A Comparative Analysis." Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Copenhagen, September 14–16, 2023.

Paper published in a proceedings volume

Author(s) Last name, First name. Year. "Title of Paper." In Title of Proceedings, edited by First name Last name, Pages. Place of publication: Publisher. DOI or URL.

Nakamura, Yuki. 2022. "User Experience Design for Ageing Populations." In Proceedings of the 2022 Design Research Society Conference, edited by Ri Pierce and Paul Rodgers, 312–325. London: Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.example.

Artworks / Images

Note: CMOS 17 states that paintings, sculptures, and photographs can normally be cited in the text with full source details. A bibliography entry is not a requirement (CMOS 14.235: Citing paintings, photographs, and sculpture).

Creator/Artist(s) Last name, First name. Title. Date of creation/completion. Medium, Dimensions (dimensions conversion). Location of work. DOI, URL, or database name.

Gloag, Isobel. The Woman with the Puppets. 1915. Oil on canvas, 64.5 × 82.5 cm (25.39 × 32.48 in). Hugh Lane Gallery, Dublin, Ireland. http://emuseum.pointblank.ie/online_catalogue/work-detail.php?objectid=619.

Webpages

Author Last name, First name. "Title of Web Page." Website name or publishing organisation. Publication date or last modified date, year. Access date if no other date available. DOI or URL.

Hayden, Meadhbh. "My Tips for Swimming in the Irish Sea." SpunOut.ie. February 23, 2021. https://spunout.ie/voices/advice/my-tips-swimming-irish-sea.

Note: If no author is available, the publishing organisation can be used instead. If neither is available, list the title first. Use the first significant word (ignoring articles such as "A," "The," or "An") to determine alphabetical placement in the bibliography.

Note: Only provide an access date if the date published or last modified is unavailable.

Note: The publishing organisation does not need to be included if it is the same body as the website name, title, or author.

Thanks to the following sources for providing partial inspiration and content for this page: Concordia University Chicago, Klinck Memorial Library and UCD Library, University College Dublin.

Managing Citations

Citation Management Software

Overview

A reference manager supports researchers in three core steps: searching, storing, and writing. It helps you find relevant literature, store papers and their bibliographic metadata in a personal database, and insert citations and bibliographies in a chosen style when writing.

Fenner, M., Scheliga, K., & Bartling, S. (2014). Reference management. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening Science (pp. 125–137). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_8

Citation managers reduce transcription errors, automate reformatting when you switch citation styles, and provide structured deduplication across multiple database exports for systematic reviews.

Choosing a Tool

The table below compares the three tools most commonly used in academic contexts. The library recommends Zotero for all students: it is free, open-source, and has no storage paywall for the core workflow.

Feature Zotero Mendeley EndNote
Cost Free (open-source) Free (basic); owned by Elsevier Paid
Storage (free tier) 300 MB sync; unlimited local 2 GB n/a (local only)
Browser connector Yes — all major browsers Yes Limited
Word processor Word, LibreOffice, Google Docs Word, LibreOffice Word
Group libraries Yes — free, unlimited members Yes — limited to 25 members No
Deduplication Built-in duplicate detection Basic Basic
Open-source Yes No No
PDF annotation Yes (built-in reader, Zotero 7+) Yes Yes
Cite styles available 10,000+ (CSL) 4,000+ (CSL) 7,000+

Zotero

Zotero

Installation

Zotero has two required components and one optional one:

  1. Zotero desktop application: Available for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android.
  2. Browser Connector: a browser extension for Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Safari. Once installed, a toolbar button appears in your browser. Clicking it captures the metadata (and often the PDF) of whatever page you are viewing — a journal article, a book record, a webpage — directly into your Zotero library.
  3. Word processor plugin: automatically installed with the desktop app for Microsoft Word and LibreOffice. A Google Docs connector is also available. The plugin inserts in-text citations and generates a bibliography in any style, and reformats both instantly if you switch styles.

Keep the Zotero desktop application open while you are writing. The word processor plugin communicates with the desktop app to retrieve your references; it cannot function if the app is closed.

Core Features

Collecting Sources
Organizing Your Library
Reading and Annotating

Zotero includes a built-in PDF and EPUB reader with full annotation support: highlights, comments, and text notes are stored in Zotero and can be exported. Annotations appear in the item pane alongside metadata and are searchable across your library.

Citing Sources

The word processor plugin inserts citations and manages bibliographies dynamically. Key operations:

Supported styles include APA 7, Chicago 17 (Author-Date and Notes-Bibliography), MLA, Harvard, and over 10,000 others from the CSL style repository.

Group Libraries

Group libraries allow multiple users to share a Zotero collection in real time. They are free and have no member limit. Use cases:

To create a group: go to zotero.org, sign in, and create a group under Groups. Invite members by email or Zotero username. Group libraries appear in the left panel of the desktop app.

Zotero for Systematic Literature Reviews

For SLRs, Zotero's most important functions are import, deduplication, and collection structure. The workflow below follows the steps described in Conducting Your Search.

Step 1: Create a collection structure before searching

Create the following collections in Zotero before you begin:

My SLR/
├── 01_Database Searches/
│ ├── EBSCO [date]
│ ├── JSTOR [date]
│ └── Google Scholar [date]
├── 02_After Deduplication/
├── 03_Title-Abstract Screening/
│ ├── Included
│ └── Excluded
├── 04_Full-Text Screening/
│ ├── Included
│ └── Excluded
└── 05_Final Included Studies/

This structure mirrors your PRISMA flow diagram and makes it easy to report numbers at each stage.

Step 2: Import search results

Export results from each database as an RIS or BibTeX file, then import into the corresponding sub-collection via File → Import. Do this separately for each database so counts per database are preserved.

Step 3: Deduplicate
  1. Select all items across your database sub-collections and copy them into the 02_After Deduplication collection.
  2. Click Duplicate Items in the left panel. Zotero groups likely duplicates for review.
  3. Review each pair: click Merge Items to keep the record with the most complete metadata.
  4. Record the number of duplicates removed for your PRISMA diagram.

Zotero's automatic duplicate detection works on title similarity and DOI matching. Always review suggested duplicates manually before merging — conference pre-prints and final journal versions of the same paper will be flagged as duplicates but may need to be kept separately depending on your protocol.

Step 4: Use tags for screening decisions

During title/abstract screening, add tags such as include, exclude, or uncertain to each item. The Tags panel (bottom-left) lets you filter your library instantly by any tag, making it easy to move items between collections after screening.

Further Learning

Resource Description
Zotero Quick Start Guide Official introduction from the Zotero team
Word Processor Plugins Official instructions for Word, LibreOffice, and Google Docs
Zotero for Systematic Reviews UCL Library guide on deduplication for SLRs
ZoteroBib Quick browser-based citation generator (no account needed; does not require the desktop app)

Systematic Literature Reviews

Systematic Literature Reviews

Overview

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a structured, reproducible method for identifying and synthesizing existing research to answer a focused research question. This page will guide you through the concept and process step by step.

What Is a Systematic Literature Review?

An SLR is a scholarly synthesis of evidence on a clearly defined topic, using explicit, pre-specified methods to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarise relevant studies. Unlike ad hoc reading of literature, every decision is documented so the review can be replicated.

SLR vs. Traditional Literature Review

Feature Traditional Literature Review Systematic Literature Review
Research question Broad or flexible Narrow and pre-specified
Search strategy Informal, author-led Documented, reproducible
Study selection Subjective Governed by explicit criteria
Quality appraisal Often absent Mandatory
Reporting Variable Follows standards (e.g., PRISMA) ​
Replicability Low High

When Should You Use an SLR?

The SLR Process: Step by Step

Step 1: Define Your Research Question / Select Framework

Read more

A well-defined research question is the foundation of a systematic literature review. Every subsequent decision (which databases to search, what terms to use, which studies to include) flows directly from it. A question that is too broad produces an unmanageable volume of results; one that is too narrow may yield almost nothing. Structured question frameworks give you a reliable method for making your question precise and searchable before you open a single database.

Review Define Your Research Question & Select Framework for more information on this topic.

Step 2: Write a Protocol

Read more

A protocol is a written plan that specifies, in advance, exactly how you intend to conduct your systematic literature review. It is not complete until all 11/12 sub-sections below have been worked through and recorded. Writing the protocol is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is the mechanism that makes your review transparent, reproducible, and defensible to examiners, supervisors, and future readers.

Review Writing a Protocol for more information on why it matters and what it contains.

Step 3: Conduct Your Search

Read more

This step translates the search strategy you documented in your protocol into actual database queries, records the results systematically, and prepares a clean, deduplicated set of references for screening. Precision and documentation at this stage are critical: every decision you make must be recorded so that your search can be reported transparently in your final thesis.

Review Conducting Your Search for more information on this topic.

Before you search, use our Search Quality Self-Assessment Checklist (adapted from vom Brocke et al., 2015) to verify your search strategy meets the standards expected in a systematic review.

Step 4: Screen Results

Read more

 Screening is the process of applying your pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to the deduplicated set of references produced earlier, in order to identify the studies that will form the basis of your review. It proceeds in two sequential phases: first by title and abstract, then by full text. Each phase reduces the total set further; only studies that pass both phases are included in your final review.

Review Screening the Results for more information on this topic.

Step 5: Appraise Study Quality

Read more

Quality appraisal is the systematic assessment of the methodological rigor of each study included after screening. It answers the question: how much confidence can we place in the findings of this study? Appraisal does not judge whether a study is interesting or relevant (screening already established relevance); it judges whether the study was conducted in a way that makes its findings trustworthy.

Review Appraise Study Quality for more information on this topic.

Step 6: Extract Data

Read more

Data extraction is the process of systematically pulling the information you need from each included study and recording it in a standardised form. It bridges the gap between your screened, appraised set of studies and the synthesis you will conduct later. Consistent, thorough extraction is what makes synthesis possible: if you extract different information from different papers, you cannot meaningfully compare or combine them.

Review Extract Data for more information on this topic.

Step 7: Synthesize and Report

Read more

Synthesis is where the work of the review becomes an argument. Having identified, screened, appraised, and extracted data from your included studies, you now interpret what they collectively say in response to your research question. Reporting then translates that interpretation into a structured written account that meets the standards of academic transparency required for a thesis.

Review Synthesize and Report for more information on this topic.

Before Submission: Evaluating Your Own SLR Process

A Note on Process Models

Different disciplines and authors present SLR processes with slightly different stage names and orders. The seven-step structure presented here synthesises best practices from management research (Tranfield et al., 2003), software engineering (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007), and information systems (vom Brocke et al., 2015; Bandara et al., 2015). The core sequence (question → protocol → search → screen → appraise → extract → synthesise) is common across all models; differences are primarily in emphasis rather than substance.

SLR Process by (Kitchenham and Charters 2007).png
"SLR Process of Kitchenham and Charters 2007" by Hasan Koç is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, based on Kitchenham & Charters, 2007.

SLR Process by (Bandara et al 2015).png
"SLR Process of Bandara et al 2015" by Hasan Koç is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, based on Bandara et al., 2015.

Systematic Literature Reviews

Define Your Research Question & Select Framework

Overview

A well-defined research question is the foundation of a systematic literature review. Every subsequent decision (which databases to search, what terms to use, which studies to include) flows directly from it. A question that is too broad produces an unmanageable volume of results; one that is too narrow may yield almost nothing. Structured question frameworks give you a reliable method for making your question precise and searchable before you open a single database.

Why Are You Conducting This Review?

Before formulating your question, be clear about the purpose of your review. A systematic literature review is not a default method; it is the right choice for specific research goals. Common justifications in business and management research include:

Your research question should follow directly from one of these purposes. If you cannot identify which of these your review serves, discuss the scope with your supervisor before proceeding.

Why Structure Your Question?

Formulating your question using a framework forces you to identify the exact components of your topic and translate them into search terms. This step is worth doing carefully in writing, not just in your head, because:

Choosing a Framework

Different frameworks suit different types of research questions. The table below helps you select the right one.

Framework Best suited to Research types
PICO Questions about the effect of something Quantitative, experimental
SPIDER Questions about experiences, perceptions, or behaviors Qualitative, mixed-methods
PCC Questions about what exists in a topic area (scoping) Exploratory, mapping reviews

As a business or management student, you will most often use SPIDER or PCC, since many management questions ask "how" or "what" rather than "does X cause Y."

The PICO Framework

Stands for: Population · Intervention · Comparison · Outcome

Originally developed for clinical research, PICO is useful when your question tests whether a specific practice, policy, or programme produces a measurable result. It is less common in pure management research but relevant if your thesis touches on organisational interventions, training effectiveness, or behavioral economics.

Element Question to ask yourself Example
Population Who or what is the focus? SMEs in the EU retail sector
Intervention What practice or factor is being examined? Agile project management adoption
Comparison What is it being compared to? Traditional waterfall project management
Outcome What result are you measuring? Employee productivity and project delivery speed

Resulting question: In EU retail SMEs (P), does adopting agile project management (I) compared to traditional methods (C) improve employee productivity and delivery speed (O)?

The SPIDER Framework

Stands for: Sample · Phenomenon of Interest · Design · Evaluation · Research type

SPIDER was developed specifically for qualitative and mixed-methods research, where the concept of an "intervention" does not apply. It is well-suited to management questions about how people experience organisational phenomena such as leadership styles, workplace culture, or sustainability reporting.

Element Question to ask yourself Example
Sample Who is the population being studied? Mid-level managers in multinational corporations
Phenomenon of Interest What experience, behavior, or issue is the focus? Remote work and perceived organisational belonging
Influencing factors What contextual factors are relevant? Post-pandemic hybrid work policies
Design What study designs will you include? Interviews, surveys, case studies
Evaluation What outcome or concept is being assessed? Employee engagement, retention intention
Research type Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed? Qualitative or mixed-methods

Resulting question: How do mid-level managers in multinationals (S) experience organisational belonging in remote/hybrid work environments (P), as shaped by post-pandemic policies (I), across qualitative and mixed-methods studies (D/R)?

The PCC Framework

Stands for: Population · Concept · Context

PCC is used for scoping reviews, a type of SLR designed to map the existing literature on a topic rather than answer a narrow effectiveness question. It is appropriate when your research question is exploratory: you want to know what has been written about a subject, identify key themes, or find gaps before proposing a more targeted study.

Element Question to ask yourself Example
Population Who or what is the subject of study? Family-owned businesses
Concept What is the core idea or issue? Succession planning practices
Context In what setting, geography, or timeframe? European markets, 2010–2025

Resulting question: What does the literature report about succession planning practices (C) in family-owned businesses (P) in European markets between 2010 and 2025 (C)?

Practical Tips

From Question to Search: A Preview

The components of your framework map directly onto the concepts in your Boolean search string. Each element becomes a concept block, and synonyms for each element become OR-connected terms within that block. The blocks are then connected with AND.

Using the PICO example above:

Framework element Concept block
Population: EU retail SMEs "SME*" OR "small firm*" OR "small business*" AND (Europe* OR "European Union")
Intervention: agile project management "agile" OR "scrum" OR "kanban" OR "agile project management"
Outcome: productivity, delivery speed "employee productivity" OR "project delivery" OR "delivery speed"

This mapping is covered in full in Conducting Your Search. The point here is that a well-structured question makes the search string nearly self-evident; a vague question makes it nearly impossible.

Systematic Literature Reviews

Self-Assessment Checklist for Your SLR Search

This checklist, adapted from vom Brocke et al. (2015), helps you evaluate whether your search meets the standards of rigor expected in a systematic review. Use it at three stages: before you search, while searching, and after completing your search.

Before the Literature Search

During the Literature Search

After the Literature Search

Reference: vom Brocke, J. et al. (2015). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03709

Systematic Literature Reviews

Writing a Protocol

Overview

A protocol is a written plan that specifies, in advance, exactly how you intend to conduct your systematic literature review. It is not complete until all 11/12 sub-sections below have been worked through and recorded. Writing the protocol is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is the mechanism that makes your review transparent, reproducible, and defensible to examiners, supervisors, and future readers.

The protocol has two functions. First, it forces you to make every methodological decision before you are influenced by seeing results. Second, it creates a timestamped record of those decisions so that any deviation from the plan is visible and requires justification.

Do not begin searching until your protocol is complete and your supervisor has reviewed it.

What a Protocol Contains

The table below lists all required sections. Each is explained in detail in the sub-sections that follow.

Section What it records
Title Working title of the review
Background Brief rationale: why this topic, why an SLR, why now
Research question Your structured question from the previous step, using PICO, SPIDER, or PCC
Eligibility criteria Explicit inclusion and exclusion rules
Search strategy Databases, search strings, supplementary methods
Screening process Phases, tools, screeners, conflict resolution
Quality appraisal Tool selected and how scores will affect inclusion
Data extraction Fields to be collected and who will extract
Synthesis method Narrative, thematic, or meta-analytic approach
Timeline Planned dates for each stage
Registration PROSPERO or OSF registration number, or a statement of why registration was not pursued
Protocol Amendments Any changes made to the protocol after searching begins: the date of each change, the section affected, the original wording, and the reason for the change. This section is blank at submission and completed during the review process. All amendments must be disclosed in the thesis methods chapter.

For a thesis-level SLR, the protocol will typically run two to four pages. A downloadable template covering all sections is available here.

Why a Protocol Matters

The core risk in any literature review is unconscious bias: the tendency to favor studies that confirm what you already expect to find. A pre-registered protocol addresses this directly by committing you to your methods before you have seen the results. Specifically, a protocol:

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria are the explicit rules that determine which studies are included in or excluded from your review. They are derived directly from your research question: each element of your PICO, SPIDER, or PCC framework suggests at least one criterion.

Criteria are divided into two types:

Common Criterion Categories

Category Example inclusion criterion Example exclusion criterion
Publication date Published between January 2015 and December 2025 Published before 2015
Language Written in English or German Written in any other language
Document type Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers Editorials, opinion pieces, book reviews, dissertations
Study design Empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods) Purely conceptual or theoretical papers
Geographic scope Studies conducted in EU member states Studies conducted outside Europe
Population/context Studies focused on SMEs Studies focused exclusively on large corporations
Relevance Studies directly addressing the phenomenon of interest Studies mentioning the topic only incidentally

Why Criteria Must Be Pre-Specified

Criteria written after you have seen the results of your search are retrospective and therefore biased. If you find yourself wanting to exclude a specific study because it complicates your synthesis, that is a signal to engage with it more carefully, not to rewrite a criterion. Any change to criteria after searching begins is a protocol amendment and must be documented.

Testing Your Criteria

Before finalizing your criteria, test them against five to ten records from a preliminary search: a mix of obviously relevant, obviously irrelevant, and borderline papers. If you cannot apply the criteria consistently to this small sample, they need further specification before you proceed to full screening.

Search Strategy

Your search strategy records exactly how you will find the literature. It has three components.

Databases: List every database you will search. For business and management research, the standard set is Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO) and JSTOR. Google Scholar may be used supplementarily for grey literature. The rationale for including each database should be noted briefly (coverage of the discipline, access to specific journal types, etc.).

Search strings: Document the complete Boolean search string you will use in each database. Strings are built from the concepts in your research question framework, with synonyms connected by OR and concepts connected by AND. If strings vary between databases due to different controlled vocabularies, record each variation. Full guidance on constructing strings is provided in Conducting Your Search.

Supplementary methods: Document any additional search methods beyond database searching. The most important of these is snowballing, a technique in which you trace citations forward and backward from a confirmed set of relevant papers. Backward snowballing examines the reference lists of included studies to find earlier relevant work; forward snowballing uses citation databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science) to find later papers that have cited an included study. Snowballing is particularly valuable in management research, where relevant work may be published in practitioner journals or conference proceedings not fully indexed in major databases.

Phase 1. Extraction of relevant literature.png
"Phase 1 of the Bandara et al. SLR process: extraction of relevant literature" by Hasan Koç is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, based on Bandara et al., 2015.

Screening Process

The screening process section of your protocol records how you will apply your eligibility criteria to the records returned by your search. It should specify:

Full guidance on conducting screening is provided in Screening the Results.

Quality Appraisal Approach

The quality appraisal section of your protocol specifies how you will assess the methodological rigor of included studies. Record:

This decision must be made before appraising any study. Deciding post-hoc to exclude low-quality studies after seeing their findings is a form of bias. Full guidance on quality appraisal is provided in Appraise Study Quality.

You will also be asked, at the end of your review, to evaluate the rigor of your own process using the self-assessment rubric on Evaluating Your Own SLR Process.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Method

Data extraction: Specify the fields you will extract from each included study and the format of your extraction form (typically a spreadsheet). At minimum, record: author, year, country, methodology, sample, key findings, theoretical framework, limitations, and quality appraisal rating. A blank copy of your extraction form should be included as a thesis appendix. Full guidance is provided in Extract Data.

Synthesis method: State whether you will use narrative synthesis, thematic synthesis, or meta-analysis, and briefly justify the choice in relation to your research question and expected study types. Even a one-sentence commitment ("findings will be synthesised narratively using thematic grouping") is sufficient at protocol stage. Full guidance on synthesis approaches is provided in Synthesise and Report.

Timeline

Provide estimated completion dates for each stage. A systematic review takes significantly longer than most students anticipate; building in buffer time is essential.

Stage Planned completion date
Protocol finalised and supervisor-approved  
Database searches completed  
Title/abstract screening completed  
Full-text screening completed  
Quality appraisal completed  
Data extraction completed  
Synthesis and write-up completed  

Protocol Registration (Optional)

Registering your protocol with an external repository creates a timestamped, publicly accessible record of your planned methods. This is optional for most student theses but is increasingly expected in academic publishing and demonstrates a high standard of rigor.

PROSPERO

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), hosted by the University of York, accepts reviews from health, social science, education, welfare, and business contexts. Registration is free and requires an ORCID iD. Note that PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews; use OSF for those.

OSF (Open Science Framework)

The OSF, maintained by the Center for Open Science, accepts protocol registrations for any discipline with no topic restrictions. It is the more flexible option for management, design, or interdisciplinary business research, and accepts scoping reviews.

When Registration Is Not Required

Registration is not a formal requirement for most taught or research master's theses. If you do not register, state this explicitly in your methods chapter and give a brief reason (for example, the review is a thesis component rather than a standalone publication). Do not simply omit the topic.

Amendments to the Protocol

Any change made to the protocol after searching begins must be recorded as a formal amendment. For each amendment, document:

Amendments are not a sign of failure; they are a sign of transparency. What is not acceptable is changing methods silently to accommodate inconvenient results. Include the amendments log as an appendix in your thesis.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Systematic Literature Reviews

Conducting Your Search

Overview

This step translates the search strategy you documented in your protocol into actual database queries, records the results systematically, and prepares a clean, deduplicated set of references for screening. Precision and documentation at this stage are critical: every decision you make must be recorded so that your search can be reported transparently in your final thesis.

Before You Begin

Confirm the following are in place before opening any database:

When your search is complete, use the Search Quality Self-Assessment Checklist to verify the search meets the standards of a rigorous systematic review. The checklist covers what to confirm before, during, and after searching.

Set Up Your Search Logbook

A search logbook is a running record of every search action you take. It is distinct from your protocol: the protocol records what you planned to do; the logbook records what you actually did. Both are required for a transparent, reportable review.

Your logbook should record, for every search:

Field Example
Database Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO)
Date of search 2026-02-23
Search string used ("sustainability reporting" OR "CSR disclosure") AND ("SME*" OR "small firm*") AND (Europe*)
Filters applied Peer-reviewed; 2015–2025; English
Number of results 347
Notes Reran with "non-financial reporting" added; 412 results

A simple spreadsheet works well for this purpose. The logbook feeds directly into the PRISMA flow diagram you will produce during write-up, so keep it current throughout.

Search Each Database

Execute your search strings in the order listed in your protocol. The recommended databases for business and management research at this institution are listed below, with notes on their particular strengths.

Database Strengths Access
Business Source Ultimate (EBSCO) Largest business-specific database; covers management, finance, marketing, HRM, economics; includes trade publications alongside peer-reviewed journals Via Research Database Index
JSTOR Strong for older foundational literature (pre-2010); humanities and social sciences including business history Via Research Database Index
Google Scholar Useful for supplementary grey literature and thesis searches; not suitable as a primary database due to lack of advanced filtering and inconsistent coverage Free; use supplementary only

Search each database independently. Do not rely on a single database regardless of how many results it returns; coverage varies significantly between databases, and a study that appears in JSTOR may not be indexed in Business Source Ultimate, and vice versa.

Constructing Effective Search Strings

If your strings from the protocol stage need refinement when you arrive at a database interface, follow these principles.

Boolean Operators

Three operators control how search terms are combined:

Phrase Searching

Enclose multi-word concepts in quotation marks to search for the exact phrase rather than the individual words. Example: "knowledge management" rather than knowledge management.

Truncation and Wildcards

Most databases support truncation with an asterisk (*) to capture variant word endings:

Check each database's documentation, as wildcard characters vary: EBSCO uses * and ?; Web of Science uses *, ?, and $.

Controlled Vocabulary

Many databases use a subject thesaurus to index articles with standardised terms regardless of the words an author used. Using these terms improves recall significantly:

Combining controlled vocabulary terms with free-text keywords in the same search string gives the best coverage. Example: (DE "employee engagement") OR ("employee engagement" OR "work engagement" OR "job involvement")

For more information on constructing search queries, review Advanced Search Techniques and Making the most of Generative AI.

An Example

Research question: How do sustainability reporting practices in European SMEs influence investor decision-making?

Concept Synonyms and variants
Sustainability reporting "sustainability reporting", "CSR disclosure", "non-financial reporting", "ESG reporting", "integrated reporting"
European SMEs "SME*", "small firm*", "small business*", Europe*, "European Union"
Investor decision-making "investor behavior", "investment decision*", "capital allocation", "shareholder*"

Combined string:

("sustainability reporting" OR "CSR disclosure" OR "non-financial reporting" OR "ESG reporting")
AND
("SME*" OR "small firm*" OR "small business*")
AND
(Europe* OR "European Union")
AND
("investor behavior" OR "investment decision*" OR "capital allocation")

Testing and Iterating Your Search

Before committing to a final string, run test searches to calibrate your results.

A useful calibration technique is to take three to five papers you already know are relevant to your topic and verify that your search string retrieves them. If a known-relevant paper is not found, revise the string before proceeding.

Example: Iterating a Search

Initial search: "government branding" AND communication
Database: Web of Science
Results: 1,856 hits (too many to screen)

Refinement 1: Added language and document type filters (English, journal articles only)
Results: 1,626 hits

Refinement 2: Added date range filter (2000–2021)
Results: 1,553 hits (manageable for screening)

Documented in logbook: Three iterations recorded with reasons for each refinement.

This iterative approach is normal and expected; document each iteration in your search logbook rather than only recording the final string.

Export and Deduplicate References

Once you are satisfied with your search strings and have run them across all databases, export all results and combine them into a single reference set.

Exporting from Databases

Export records in RIS format (also called .ris or "citation export"), which is compatible with Zotero and all major screening tools. Export the full record including abstract, author, year, journal, and DOI. Do not export title-only records.

Importing into Zotero

  1. In Zotero, create a new collection named for your review (e.g., "SLR — Sustainability Reporting SMEs")
  2. Import each database export file: File → Import → select your .ris file
  3. Repeat for each database export
  4. All records will now appear together in the collection

Deduplication

The same article will often appear in multiple databases. Duplicates must be removed before screening begins, as screening the same paper twice distorts your counts and PRISMA numbers.

Record the total number of records before and after deduplication in your search logbook. Both figures are required for the PRISMA flow diagram.

Snowballing

Database searching alone may miss relevant studies published in venues not fully indexed or using terminology that differs from your search string. Snowballing addresses this by tracing citations forward and backward from a confirmed set of relevant papers.

SLR Process by (Wohlin 2014).png
 "Snowball-centred SLR process" by Hasan Koç is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, based on Wohlin (2014).

Backward Snowballing

Review the reference lists of your included studies to identify earlier work that was not retrieved by your database search. This is particularly valuable for foundational studies that established key concepts in your topic area.

Forward Snowballing

Use citation databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus if available) to identify later papers that have cited an included study. This captures recent work that builds on established findings.

Illustration

SnowballPaper.png
"Iterative backward and forward snowballing across six iterations" by Hasan Koç is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, based on Wohlin (2014).

 

When to Apply Snowballing

Snowballing is not a replacement for systematic database searching; it is a supplement applied after your initial screening phase when you have a confirmed set of relevant studies. Record all snowballing activity in your search logbook: the source paper, the direction (forward or backward), and the number of additional records identified.

For an indepth discussion of snowballing, see:

Checking Grey Literature

Depending on your topic, relevant evidence may exist outside peer-reviewed journals. Grey literature includes reports from industry bodies, government agencies, NGOs, think tanks, and working papers. For business research, relevant sources include:

Grey literature is generally searched manually rather than by Boolean string. Record any sources checked and the date of search in your logbook, even if they yield no results.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Systematic Literature Reviews

Screening the Results

Overview

Screening is the process of applying your pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to the deduplicated set of references produced earlier, in order to identify the studies that will form the basis of your review. It proceeds in two sequential phases: first by title and abstract, then by full text. Each phase reduces the total set further; only studies that pass both phases are included in your final review.

Screening is the step most vulnerable to unconscious bias. The discipline of applying your criteria consistently, rather than on a case-by-case intuitive basis, is what separates a systematic review from an informal one.

Prepare for Screening

Before beginning, confirm the following:

Calibration

Before screening the full dataset, test your criteria against a small sample of twenty to thirty records drawn randomly from your reference set. Apply the criteria independently, then compare decisions. This exercise helps surface edge cases and sharpen your application of the criteria.

Phase 1: Title and Abstract Screening

In the first phase, you review the title and abstract of every record in your deduplicated set and make a binary decision: include (proceed to full-text screening) or exclude (remove from the set, with reason recorded).

Decision Rules

Recording Exclusions

For every excluded record, note the primary reason for exclusion using the categories from your inclusion/exclusion criteria. Example reasons:

These reasons feed directly into the PRISMA flow diagram. You do not need to record a reason for every individual exclusion; recording the category count is sufficient (e.g., "247 excluded: wrong topic; 43 excluded: outside date range").

Phase 2: Full-Text Screening

Records that pass Phase 1 are retrieved in full and assessed against the complete set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text screening is more demanding than title/abstract screening because you are working with the entire paper and must make a definitive inclusion decision.

Retrieving Full Texts

Assessing Full Texts

Read at minimum the abstract, introduction, methods section, and conclusion of each paper. You do not need to read every paper cover to cover at this stage; the goal is to confirm eligibility, not to extract data. Focus on:

Record a clear reason for every full-text exclusion. At this phase, vague reasons such as "not relevant" are insufficient; specify which criterion was not met.

Screening Tools

Rayyan (Recommended for most students)

Rayyan (rayyan.ai) is a free, web-based screening tool designed specifically for systematic reviews. Key features:

To get started: create a free account at rayyan.ai, create a new review, and upload your .ris export files. Rayyan deduplicates on import.

Spreadsheet (Fallback Option)

An Excel or LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet with one row per reference, columns for title, abstract, Phase 1 decision, Phase 2 decision, and exclusion reason is a fully acceptable approach for smaller datasets (under 500 records). It requires more manual discipline but has no access barriers.

Produce the PRISMA Flow Diagram

At the conclusion of screening, compile the following counts from your logbook and screening tool:

  1. Total records identified across all databases
  2. Total records after deduplication
  3. Records excluded at title/abstract screening (with reason categories)
  4. Full texts sought
  5. Full texts not retrievable
  6. Full texts excluded (with reason categories)
  7. Studies included in the final review

These numbers populate the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, a standardised visual representation of the screening process. A pre-formatted Word version of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is available here. Complete it as you go; do not attempt to reconstruct the numbers from memory at write-up stage.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Systematic Literature Reviews

Appraise Study Quality

Overview

Quality appraisal is the systematic assessment of the methodological rigor of each study included after screening. It answers the question: how much confidence can we place in the findings of this study? Appraisal does not judge whether a study is interesting or relevant (screening already established relevance); it judges whether the study was conducted in a way that makes its findings trustworthy.

Quality appraisal is mandatory in a rigorous SLR. Omitting it means you treat a poorly designed survey and a well-designed longitudinal study as equally credible evidence, which undermines the validity of your synthesis.

What Quality Appraisal Assesses

Appraisal criteria vary by study type, but the core questions are consistent across tools:

No study is perfect. The goal of appraisal is not to exclude everything with weaknesses but to provide an honest account of the evidence base and to weight your synthesis accordingly.

Decide Before You Appraise

Two decisions must be made in your protocol and applied consistently here:

Will quality scores affect inclusion?

You have two options:

Either approach is defensible; what is not defensible is deciding after seeing the scores.

Who will appraise?

As with screening, appraisal by two independent reviewers with a conflict resolution process is the gold standard. For a thesis-level review, solo appraisal is acceptable but should be stated as a limitation in your methods chapter.

Selecting an Appraisal Tool

Choose your tool based on the study types in your included set. All three tools listed below are freely available with no registration required.

CASP Checklists

Access: casp-uk.net (direct PDF download, no registration)

The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists are the most accessible entry point for students new to quality appraisal. Each checklist is short (ten to twelve questions with yes/no/can't tell responses) and includes guidance notes. Separate checklists exist for:

For most business and management SLRs, the qualitative checklist will be the primary tool. If your included studies are methodologically mixed, you will need to apply different checklists to different study types and note which checklist was used for each study in your data extraction form.

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

Access: mcgill.ca (free PDF download from McGill University)

The MMAT is the strongest choice when your included studies span multiple methodological types, since a single tool handles qualitative, quantitative descriptive, quantitative randomised, quantitative non-randomised, and mixed-methods studies consistently. Each category has five criteria, allowing cross-study comparison of quality scores within a heterogeneous dataset.

The MMAT does not produce a numerical score; instead, each criterion is rated yes, no, or can't tell. This is intentional: the authors explicitly caution against summing scores into a single quality number, as this can create false precision.

JBI Critical Appraisal Tools

Access: jbi.global (free PDF download, no registration)

The Joanna Briggs Institute tools are comparable in accessibility to CASP and provide thirteen separate checklists covering a wider range of study types, including prevalence studies, case reports, case series, and qualitative evidence synthesis. They are slightly more detailed than CASP and include more extensive guidance notes.

Conducting the Appraisal

Work through each included study using your chosen tool. For each study, complete the checklist and record:

A suggested format for recording appraisal results is a spreadsheet with one row per study and one column per checklist criterion, plus an overall rating column. This makes it easy to sort by quality rating and to identify patterns (for example, if most studies share a common weakness such as lack of reflexivity, this becomes a theme in your discussion).

A Practical Tip

Read the methods section of each paper carefully before completing the checklist. Authors do not always report methods in detail in the abstract or even the results section; insufficient reporting is itself a quality concern, but it is worth distinguishing between a study that did not address a criterion and one that did but failed to report it.

Reporting Quality Appraisal in Your Thesis

Quality appraisal results must be reported transparently in your methods chapter and referenced in your discussion. Standard practice is to:

  1. Name the tool(s) used and cite the source
  2. Present results in a summary table, with one row per included study and columns for each criterion or an overall rating
  3. Describe the overall quality of the evidence base in narrative: were most studies of moderate quality? Were there systematic weaknesses across studies (e.g., small sample sizes, single-country contexts)?
  4. Reference quality in your discussion: when interpreting conflicting findings, note whether higher-quality studies favor one conclusion over another

Avoid the common error of completing a quality appraisal table and then never mentioning it again. The appraisal should inform how confidently you present your conclusions.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Systematic Literature Reviews

Extract Data

Overview

Data extraction is the process of systematically pulling the information you need from each included study and recording it in a standardised form. It bridges the gap between your screened, appraised set of studies and the synthesis you will conduct later. Consistent, thorough extraction is what makes synthesis possible: if you extract different information from different papers, you cannot meaningfully compare or combine them.

Extraction is not the same as reading for interest. You are not summarizing papers freely; you are completing a pre-designed form that captures the same fields from every study in the same way.

Design Your Extraction Form

Your extraction form should have been designed as part of your protocol. Review it now against your actual included studies and refine if necessary. Any changes at this stage count as a protocol amendment and should be documented.

Core Fields

Every extraction form for a business or management SLR should include the following fields as a minimum:

Field What to record
Study ID A unique reference number you assign (e.g., S01, S02) for use in tables and in-text citation during synthesis
Author(s) Last name and initials of all authors
Year Year of publication
Title Full title of the article
Journal/Source Journal name, conference, or report series
Country/Region Country where the study was conducted or the data originate
Study design/method Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods; specify further (e.g., semi-structured interviews, survey, case study)
Sample Size, type, and characteristics of the sample or dataset
Data collection period When data were collected (may differ from publication year)
Key findings A concise, accurate summary of findings relevant to your research question; use the authors' own language where possible
Theoretical framework Any theory the study draws on (relevant for deductive synthesis)
Limitations noted by authors As reported in the paper
Quality appraisal rating Transfer the overall rating from earlier appraisal
Notes Any observations relevant to synthesis (e.g., contradicts S04; uses unusual operationalisation)

Additional Fields by Research Type

Depending on your topic, you may also need:

Format of the Extraction Form

A spreadsheet (Excel or LibreOffice Calc) with one row per study and one column per field is the standard format and works well for most thesis-level reviews.

Advantages:

A blank version of the extraction form should be included as an appendix in your final thesis.

Conducting the Extraction

Work through each included study in order of your Study ID. For each paper:

  1. Read the full text carefully, focusing on the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections
  2. Complete every field in the extraction form; leave no field blank (use "not reported" where the paper does not provide the information rather than leaving the cell empty)
  3. Record findings in your own words, except for key definitions or theoretical statements where the authors' precise language matters; note any direct quotations with page numbers
  4. Note any information that is ambiguous, inconsistent between sections of the paper, or that raises a question for synthesis

Handling Ambiguity

You will encounter papers where the methodology is not clearly described, findings are presented inconsistently, or the research question shifts between the introduction and the discussion. Record what is actually in the paper, note the ambiguity explicitly, and do not interpret charitably to fill gaps. Gaps in reporting are themselves evidence of methodological weakness and belong in your quality appraisal record.

Pilot Extraction

Before extracting all included studies, conduct a pilot on three to five papers. It tests whether your form captures the information you actually need for synthesis

After the pilot, review the form: are any fields consistently empty or impossible to complete? Are any fields producing inconsistent entries between reviewers? Revise the form before proceeding, and document any changes as a protocol amendment.

Maintaining an Audit Trail

Keep a running note of any decisions you make during extraction that go beyond straightforward form completion. Examples:

These notes protect you if your decisions are questioned during examination, and they support transparency if your review is ever published.

Preparing for Synthesis

Before moving to next step, review your completed extraction form as a whole:

A brief written memo at this stage, even half a page of notes, is a valuable precursor to synthesis. It helps you enter the next step with a sense of the landscape of the evidence rather than facing a blank page.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Systematic Literature Reviews

Synthesize and Report

Overview

Synthesis is where the work of the review becomes an argument. Having identified, screened, appraised, and extracted data from your included studies, you now interpret what they collectively say in response to your research question. Reporting then translates that interpretation into a structured written account that meets the standards of academic transparency required for a thesis.

These two activities, synthesis and reporting, are treated together here because they are iterative: the structure of your synthesis shapes the structure of your report, and drafting the report often reveals gaps in the synthesis that require you to return to your notes.

Choose Your Synthesis Approach

Your synthesis method was specified in your protocol. The two principal options for business and management SLRs are narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. A third option, thematic synthesis, is increasingly common and sits between the two.

Narrative Synthesis

Narrative synthesis organises findings from included studies into themes or categories and describes patterns, relationships, contradictions, and gaps in discursive prose. It is appropriate when:

This is the most common synthesis approach in business and management research and is suitable for the majority of thesis-level SLRs.

Thematic Synthesis

Thematic synthesis, developed by Thomas and Harden (2008), applies a more structured coding procedure to the findings of included studies before organising them into themes. It is particularly well-suited to reviews of qualitative studies and connects directly to the deductive, inductive, and combined coding approaches described in the Bandara et al. (2015) framework. The process involves three stages:

  1. Line-by-line coding of the findings and conclusions sections of each included study
  2. Developing descriptive themes by grouping related codes
  3. Generating analytical themes that go beyond description to interpret what the evidence means in relation to your research question

Meta-Analysis

Meta-analysis pools numerical results from multiple quantitative studies using statistical methods to produce an overall effect size estimate. It is only appropriate when:

Meta-analysis is rarely appropriate at thesis level in business and management research; if your supervisor has suggested it, seek guidance early on statistical software (R, Stata, or JASP) and reporting requirements.

Conducting Narrative or Thematic Synthesis

The following steps apply to both narrative and thematic synthesis.

Step 1: Familiarize Yourself with the Evidence Base

Before coding, read all your extraction notes as a whole. Review the memo you wrote at the end of Extract Data. Note the overall shape of the evidence: how many studies, what methods, what contexts, what time period.

Step 2: Develop a Coding Framework

Decide whether you will code deductively, inductively, or using a combined approach.

Deductive, Inductive, and Combined Coding

Phase 2. Organization and preparation for analysis.png
"Phase 2 of the Bandara et al. SLR process: organisation and preparation for analysis, including coding approach selection" by Hasan Koç is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, based on Bandara et al., 2015.

The Bandara et al. (2015) framework, widely used in information systems and management SLRs, defines three approaches to coding:

Deductive coding: You bring a pre-existing theoretical framework or model to the data and apply its categories to the findings of included studies. This approach is appropriate when your research question asks how a specific theory has been applied across contexts, or when you are testing whether empirical evidence supports a theoretical proposition.

Inductive coding: Codes emerge from the data without a predetermined structure. You read findings across studies and assign descriptive labels that capture what is being said, allowing themes to develop organically. This approach is appropriate for exploratory research questions where the conceptual landscape is not yet well defined.

Combined approach: Begin with a small set of deductive codes derived from your research question or theoretical framework, then allow additional codes to emerge inductively as you encounter concepts not anticipated by the initial framework. This is the most flexible approach and is common in thesis-level SLRs where the scope is narrower than a full mapping review but broader than a theory-testing study.

For most business thesis SLRs, a combined approach is practical and defensible. Document your starting framework explicitly in your protocol and note any inductively derived codes as you develop them.

Step 3: Code the Findings

Work through your extraction form, reading the key findings field for each study and assigning one or more codes. Use a simple coding log: a spreadsheet or table with Study ID, finding, and code assigned. Keep codes concise (two to five words) and descriptive at this stage.

Step 4: Develop Themes

Group related codes into broader themes. A theme should:

Aim for three to six themes for a typical thesis-level review. Fewer than three suggests over-aggregation; more than six suggests insufficient grouping.

Step 5: Interpret and Analyse

For each theme, write an analytical account that:

This is the intellectual contribution of your review. Do not simply list what each study found; explain what the body of evidence means.

Reporting Your Review

Your written report should follow the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines, which specify what information must be included and where. The standard structure for an SLR thesis chapter or standalone review paper maps onto the following sections.

Introduction

Methods

The methods section must be detailed enough for the review to be replicated. Include:

Results

Present results in three parts:

  1. PRISMA flow diagram: a visual account of records identified, screened, excluded at each phase, and finally included. The pre-formatted PRISMA 2020 Word template is available here.
  2. Characteristics of included studies: a summary table (one row per study) covering author, year, country, method, sample, and quality rating. This table belongs in the results section, not the appendix.
  3. Synthesis findings: your thematic or narrative synthesis, organised by theme, with in-text citations to included studies using your Study ID codes (e.g., S01, S07, S12).

Discussion

Conclusion

A brief section (one to two paragraphs) stating the main answer to your research question and its implications for research or practice. Do not introduce new evidence here.

The PRISMA Flow Diagram

The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is a mandatory element of any SLR report. It visually documents the flow of records through the review process and allows readers to evaluate the thoroughness of your search and the basis for your inclusions.

The four stages represented in the diagram are:

  1. Identification: total records retrieved from each database, plus any records from supplementary sources (grey literature, snowballing, hand-searching)
  2. Screening: records after deduplication; records excluded at title/abstract screening with reason counts
  3. Eligibility: full texts assessed; full texts excluded with reason counts; full texts not retrievable
  4. Included: final number of studies included in the review

A pre-formatted Word version of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is available here. Complete the numbers from your search logbook and screening tool records; do not estimate.

Presenting Included Studies

In-Text Citation Convention

During synthesis, refer to included studies by their Study ID (e.g., S01) rather than by author and year, to distinguish them visually from other literature cited in the discussion. Provide a complete reference list of included studies as a separate appendix, clearly labelled "Included Studies," so that examiners can locate them independently of your general reference list.

The Characteristics Table

The summary table of included study characteristics is one of the most-read elements of an SLR report. Present it clearly and completely. At minimum, include: Study ID, author(s), year, country, methodology, sample, and your quality rating. If space allows, add a brief "key finding" column (one sentence per study).

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Systematic Literature Reviews

Evaluating Your Own SLR Process

This section is distinct from Appraise Study Quality, which assesses the rigor of the primary studies you have included. This section asks a different question: how rigorously did you conduct the review itself?

Overview

Quality appraisal tools such as CASP, MMAT, and JBI look outward: they help you evaluate the studies in your dataset. The checklist and scoring rubric on this page look inward: they help you evaluate your own review process against recognized best practices.

The items below are adapted from Petersen, Vakkalanka, and Kuzniarz (2015), who derived them from a systematic mapping study of how SLRs and systematic mapping studies are conducted in practice. Use this rubric in two ways:

This rubric was developed in the context of software engineering research. The core dimensions; motivating the review, search strategy, search evaluation, extraction/classification, and validity; apply equally to business and management SLRs. Items that refer to software-engineering-specific classification schemes may be skipped if they are not relevant to your discipline.

Part 1: Activities Checklist

The table below lists the 26 actions identified by Petersen et al. (2015) as relevant to a rigorous systematic review or mapping study. Work through each row and mark whether the action was taken (✓), partially taken (~), or not taken (✗). This produces a ratio score: count your ✓ marks and divide by 26 (or by the number of applicable items).

Phase Action Taken?
Motivate the review Motivate the need and relevance of the review  
  Define objectives and research questions  
  Consult with the target audience (e.g., supervisor, domain expert) to refine questions  
Search strategy Conduct a database search  
  Apply snowball sampling (backward and/or forward)  
  Conduct a manual search of key journals or conference proceedings  
Develop the search Use a structured framework (PICO, SPIDER, or PCC) to derive keywords  
  Consult a librarian or domain expert during search design  
  Iteratively refine the search string to improve coverage  
  Derive additional keywords from known relevant papers  
  Use thesauri, encyclopedias, or controlled vocabularies (e.g., MeSH, EBSCO subject headings)  
Evaluate the search Test the search against a set of known-relevant papers  
  Have an expert evaluate the search results  
  Check the web pages or profiles of key authors in the field  
  Conduct a test–retest to check consistency  
Inclusion and exclusion Define objective, pre-specified criteria for inclusion and exclusion  
  Involve a second reviewer; resolve disagreements systematically  
  Define and apply explicit decision rules for borderline cases  
Data extraction Define objective criteria for the extraction process  
  Blind or obscure information that could bias extraction  
  Involve a second reviewer; resolve disagreements in extraction  
  Conduct test–retest of extraction on a subset  
Classification Classify studies by research type (e.g., empirical, conceptual, review)  
  Classify studies by research method (e.g., case study, survey, experiment)  
  Classify studies by venue type (e.g., journal, conference, practitioner publication)  
Validity Discuss validity threats and limitations of the review process  

Part 2: Scoring Rubrics

After completing the checklist, use the rubrics below to assign a score to each of the five key dimensions. Record these scores in your methods chapter alongside a brief narrative.

Rubric 1: Motivating the Review

Score Label Description
0 Not described The review is not motivated and no objectives are stated
1 Partial Motivations and research questions are provided
2 Full Motivations and questions are provided and have been developed in dialogue with the target audience (supervisor, practitioners, or domain experts)

Rubric 2: Search Strategy

Score Label Description
0 Not described Only one type of search was conducted
1 Minimal Two search strategies were used
2 Full All three strategies were used: database search, snowball sampling, and manual search

Rubric 3: Evaluating the Search

Score Label Description
0 Not described No actions were taken to improve the reliability of the search or inclusion/exclusion process
1 Minimal At least one action was taken to improve either the reliability of the search or the inclusion/exclusion process
2 Partial At least one action was taken to improve both the search and the inclusion/exclusion process
3 Full All identified actions were taken

Rubric 4: Extraction and Classification

Score Label Description
0 Not described No actions were taken to improve extraction reliability or enable comparability between studies
1 Minimal At least one action was taken to increase extraction reliability
2 Partial At least one action to increase extraction reliability and studies were classified by research type and method
3 Full All identified actions were taken

Rubric 5: Study Validity

Score Label Description
0 Not described No threats or limitations are described
1 Full Threats and limitations of the review process are described

Interpreting Your Scores

No minimum threshold is formally established in the literature for general SLRs; the rubric is a diagnostic tool, not a pass/fail gate. Use the results as follows:

For more detail on designing and evaluating your search strategy, see the Search Quality Self-Assessment Checklist (adapted from vom Brocke et al., 2015), which provides granular guidance on the search phase specifically.