Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln


Date of this Version

Winter 12-20-2019


  1. Berson, M. J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in the social studies: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 486-499.
  2. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage. 2012; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  3. Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature review. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 1(1), 104-126.
  4. Covello, V. T. (1983). The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological forecasting and social change, 23(4), 285-297.
  5. Diem, R. A. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 28(4), 493-501.
  6. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
  7. Garg, K. C., & Padhi, P. (2001). A study of collaboration in laser science and technology. Scientometrics, 51(2), 415-427.
  8. Ghulam Sarwar Shah, S., & Robinson, I. (2006). User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: structured literature review. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 19(6), 500-515.
  9. Hart, C. (1998), Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, Sage Publications, London.
  10. Ho, M. J. (2004). Sociocultural aspects of tuberculosis: a literature review and a case study of immigrant tuberculosis. Social science & medicine, 59(4), 753-762.
  11. Hockey, J. (1991). The social science PhD: a literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 16(3), 319-332.
  12. Jeyshankar, R., & Vellaichamy, A. (2016). Scientometric analysis of autism research output during 2007-2011. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 53(1), 55-63.
  13. Johnson, B. R., De Li, S., Larson, D. B., & McCullough, M. (2000). A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature: A research note. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16(1), 32-52.
  14. King, W. R., & He, J. (2005). Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 32.
  15. Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). “It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386.
  16. Mulrow, C. D. (1987). The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of internal medicine, 106(3), 485-488.
  17. Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Wong, R. (2010). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 27(2), 114-122.
  18. Pare, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199.
  19. Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 1-13.
  20. Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature review in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544-555.
  21. Sobel, M. E. (2000). Causal inference in the social sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(450), 647-651.
  22. Steane, P. (2004), "Fundamentals of a literature review", in Burton, S. and Steane, P. (Eds), Surviving your Thesis, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 124-137.
  23. Thavamani, K. (2015). A study of authorship patterns and collaborative research in collaborative librarianship, 2009-2014. Collaborative Librarianship, 7(2), 6.
  24. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207-22.
  25. Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., & Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work‐in‐process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 19(2), 110-122.
  26. Vellaichamy, A., & Jeyshankar, R. (2015). Bibliometric analysis of the Journal Webology from 2004-2013. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 4(1), 7-13.
  27. Vrabec, N. J. (1997). Literature review of social support and caregiver burden, 1980 to 1995. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 29(4), 383-388.
  28. Whitworth, S. A., & Berson, M. J. (2002). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 2(4), 471-508.


In the present study summarizes some crucial information on how to write inferences from literature review. The ability to make inferences helps readers develop an understanding of the author's perspective by grasping the subtle underlying meanings in a text. Without inference, readers usually end up translating a text word by word, missing out on the associations an author is trying to make. In the present study summarized that year-wise growth of literature, size of publications, Pattern of authorship, nativity of authors and categorization of review.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.