Search logic
Translate the topic into concepts, synonyms, databases, time limits, inclusion rules, and a documented search trail.
Literature and evidence synthesis
Literature review support from search strategy to synthesis.
Build a traceable route from a focused question to verified sources, documented screening decisions, a usable evidence matrix, and claims that match the literature.
Why it matters
The research gap should emerge from evidence, not assertion.
We help structure narrative, thematic, scoping, and systematic review work around a transparent question and a reproducible search logic appropriate to the assignment or thesis.
Support can include database terms, inclusion criteria, screening records, synthesis matrices, thematic organisation, critical comparison, and linkage to the study's framework and methods.
What support covers
Focused help for the decisions that affect quality.
Every engagement is scoped to the material supplied and the work actually required.
Critical synthesis
Compare findings, designs, samples, measures, settings, quality, and unresolved contradictions across studies.
Gap development
Separate genuine empirical, theoretical, methodological, contextual, and practical gaps from generic claims.
Practical review workflow
Keep every decision traceable from query to claim.
The exact method depends on the review type and discipline. These four records prevent an informal reading list from being presented as a reproducible evidence review.
Search
Find a defensible set of records, not simply a large number of results.
- Break the question into two or three searchable concepts and list synonyms, spelling variants and relevant subject headings.
- Choose databases for the discipline and record the platform, full search string, fields, filters, date searched and result count.
- Pilot the search against known relevant studies, then document any justified changes before the final search.
Screen
Apply the same eligibility logic to every record.
- Write inclusion and exclusion criteria before screening; connect each criterion to the review question and scope.
- Preserve the original export, remove duplicates in a working copy, then screen titles and abstracts before full texts.
- Record a specific full-text exclusion reason and resolve uncertain cases consistently; keep a count for each stage.
Synthesize
Compare studies by evidence and method rather than describing them one at a time.
- Extract consistent fields: purpose, design, sample or corpus, setting, measures, analysis, findings, limitations and relevance.
- Group evidence by concept, debate, method or finding; retain contradictory and null findings rather than forcing agreement.
- Separate what the studies report from your interpretation, and keep every synthesis claim traceable to its supporting records.
Verify
Confirm that each reference exists and supports the sentence attached to it.
- Open the original article or authoritative record; match title, authors, year, venue, volume, pages or article number and DOI.
- Check for corrections, retractions, duplicate reports, preprint-to-version-of-record changes and inaccessible evidence.
- Re-read the relevant page, table or result before citing a claim; record a locator or note so it can be checked again.
Hypothetical search example
Turn one review question into searchable concept blocks.
This fictional example demonstrates the logic only. It is not a complete search strategy, and the vocabulary, subject headings, field codes, phrase marks and truncation syntax must be adapted for each database.
Illustrative review question
What barriers to timely supervisor feedback are reported by postgraduate researchers?
Population
postgraduate researcher* OR doctoral student* OR master's student*
Phenomenon
supervisor feedback OR supervisory feedback OR feedback delay*
Context
higher education OR universit*
Illustrative Boolean structure
(postgraduate researcher* OR doctoral student* OR master's student*) AND (supervisor feedback OR supervisory feedback OR feedback delay*) AND (higher education OR universit*)Combine synonyms within a concept with OR, then connect different concepts with AND. Before finalising the search, test whether it retrieves known relevant studies and document any changes. Database coverage and eligibility decisions still require subject knowledge.
Possible scoped outputs
Records you can inspect, update and defend.
The quotation should identify which records will be prepared and who makes the final eligibility, appraisal and interpretation decisions.
PRISMA is a reporting guideline for systematic reviews; it does not by itself define the review question, conduct the search, appraise study quality or make a review systematic.
- A search log containing each source, platform, exact query, filters, date and result count
- A screening record with duplicate handling, title/abstract decisions and full-text exclusion reasons
- An evidence matrix with comparable study details, findings, limitations and claim locators
- A verified reference list linked to the original publication or authoritative bibliographic record
Working process
From an agreed review question to checked citations.
Searches, screening decisions, extraction fields and source checks stay visible so the written synthesis can be traced back to the evidence.
- 01
Confirm the review question, review type, required reporting standard, disciplines, date range and eligible evidence.
- 02
Develop and pilot the search concepts, database-specific strings, search log and screening criteria.
- 03
Screen the exported records transparently and build a structured extraction matrix from verified full texts.
- 04
Synthesize patterns, disagreements, methods, contexts and evidence limits before stating a research gap.
- 05
Cross-check every included reference and the source support for each material claim; reconcile the text, matrix and reference list.
What to prepare
Send enough context for an accurate scope.
- Approved topic, review question and intended review type
- University, funder or journal instructions and any required reporting guideline
- Database access requirements, date or language limits and eligibility decisions already made
- Existing search exports, reference library, full texts and earlier review draft
Responsible support
- You remain the author and decision-maker for your research.
- We guarantee the agreed scope, defined deliverables, quality checks, and scope-based revisions; institutional and publication decisions remain independent.
- We do not fabricate participants, data, citations, approvals, or research findings.
- The agreed scope, source files, deadline, and revision terms are confirmed before work begins.
Questions
Before you begin.
For project-specific questions, share the programme, topic, current stage, deadline, and exact support needed.
Can you help with a systematic review?
Yes, with question and protocol logic, reproducible search documentation, screening records, extraction, synthesis and reporting. PRISMA guides transparent reporting; it does not replace a review protocol, discipline-appropriate method or critical-appraisal decision.
Will every citation be verified?
Sources used in the final work should be checked against the original publication. We do not treat generated or second-hand citation details as verified evidence.
Can AI-generated references be used?
A generated reference is only a discovery lead until the original item is found and its metadata, publication status and relevance are verified. A reference that cannot be located in an authoritative record should not be presented as evidence.
Is a narrative review the same as a systematic review?
No. A narrative review can use a reasoned and transparent search without claiming exhaustive systematic methods. A systematic review follows a predefined, reproducible method for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesising eligible evidence. The required approach should be agreed before searching.
Guide and course pathway
Prepare independently, then request only the support you need.
Use the practical guide to identify unresolved decisions and the focused course to build a repeatable skill before requesting project-specific work.
Practical guideThesis Proposal Checklist Before Supervisor Review
Check proposal alignment, then follow a hypothetical example from broad topic to question, objective, method and defensible claim.
Read Thesis proposal checklist Self-study courseCritical Literature Review & Synthesis CourseSearch, evaluate and synthesise scholarly evidence into a critical literature review that supports the study problem, framework and contribution.
Preview Literature Review CourseRelated guidance