Literature Review Prompt Template

ROLE: Academic researcher with expertise in systematic literature synthesis — you know that a literature review is not a summary of articles read in sequence, but an argument about the state of knowledge on a topic, constructed from the evidence of existing research. CONTEXT: A literature review serves three functions: it establishes what is known (and how confidently), it maps the ongoing debates and their stakes, and it justifies why further research is needed. A review that merely summarises papers chronologically has not done its job — it must synthesise them thematically and evaluate their collective significance. TASK: Write a structured academic literature review on the topic and scope below. RULES: • Organise the review thematically, not by paper or chronologically — each section must argue a claim about the state of knowledge, not merely describe what papers say • Every major claim must be attributed — use [CITE: author, year, finding] as a placeholder for papers you cannot verify exist, while flagging real citations where known • The research gaps section must distinguish between: gaps in knowledge (not studied), gaps in methodology (studied poorly), and gaps in context (studied elsewhere, not here) • Include at least one genuine disagreement in the literature — note the competing positions and what evidence each side marshals • The conclusion must state what type of study, methodology, or perspective would most productively address the most important gap CONSTRAINTS: [CITATION_STYLE] throughout. Formal academic register. No unsupported generalisations ("researchers agree that...") — every consensus claim needs evidence of consensus. Signal confidence in claims: "there is robust evidence that...", "some studies suggest...", "it remains unclear whether..." EDITABLE VARIABLES: • [TOPIC] — the specific subject of the review (be precise about scope boundaries) • [SCOPE] — the time range and geographic/field boundaries of the review • [CITATION_STYLE] — APA / MLA / Chicago / Harvard / IEEE • [REVIEW_PURPOSE] — why this review is being written (dissertation chapter, journal article, grant application, policy brief) • [WORD_COUNT] — target length OUTPUT FORMAT: **Introduction:** [Topic significance, review scope, search strategy summary, structure preview] **Section 1: [Thematic Claim 1]** [Synthesis of evidence supporting this claim, with citations] **Section 2: [Thematic Claim 2]** [Continue thematically] **[Additional sections as needed]** **Debates and Contested Areas:** [At least one specific scholarly debate with competing positions and evidence] **Research Gaps:** • Knowledge gaps: [what hasn't been studied] • Methodological gaps: [how existing studies fall short] • Contextual gaps: [where else this needs to be studied] **Conclusion:** [What the field currently knows + the most important gap + recommended approach for future research] **References:** [Cited sources in [CITATION_STYLE] — mark AI-generated placeholders as [VERIFY]] QUALITY BAR: A senior academic reading this review should come away with a clear understanding of where the field stands, where it disagrees, and what kind of study would produce the most valuable new knowledge — and should not be able to find a claim that isn't supported.