Keep source-selection decisions visible in an ordinary literature review
Record why sources are retained, set aside or unresolved in an ordinary literature review, with an original fictional decision ledger.
About 4 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Record why a source belongs in your review, why it falls outside the task, or what you still need to check. A short decision note helps you return to the same question when your reading expands. It should make your choices inspectable rather than disguise an incomplete search as comprehensive.
This guide concerns organising source decisions for an ordinary course or project literature review. It does not supply a systematic-review protocol, validated screening method, clinical appraisal tool or universal inclusion criteria. Follow the method and reporting requirements that actually apply to your work.
Start with the review’s question and boundaries
State what the review is trying to explain and any boundaries established by the brief or agreed project scope. Distinguish a requirement from a preference you introduced while searching. A useful boundary concerns the task; it should not be designed merely to remove an inconvenient argument.
The University of Leeds’ researching-your-topic guidance connects initial source evaluation with relevance and distinguishes quick appraisal from close reading. Use that distinction when deciding what a preliminary record establishes. A promising title is a reason to inspect a document, not proof that it supports your argument.
If the question changes, note the change and reconsider affected decisions. Do not rewrite the old scope as though it had always been the new one. A source set selected for an earlier question may no longer serve the revised task.
Separate relevance, access and agreement
A source can be relevant while disagreeing with your tentative position. A source can be accessible yet outside the scope. An unavailable document has an access problem; that does not automatically establish that its argument is unsuitable.
Use decision labels that preserve these differences. “Read further,” “use for background,” “outside this question” and “full text not yet checked” describe different states. Record the reason beside the label so that you can evaluate it later.
Work through an original fictional decision record
The review, documents and observations below are invented teaching material. They do not describe real publications, findings or a completed literature search.
Imagine a fictional coursework review asking how authors define repair and reuse in discussions of community workshops. The task concerns definitions, not an evaluation of workshop outcomes.
| Fictional item | Basis currently available | Bounded decision |
|---|---|---|
| A conceptual discussion defining both terms | Relevant passages have been read | Keep for analysis of definitions, with locations recorded |
| An article reporting only event attendance | The full text concerns attendance and does not address the selected question | Set aside for this definitions-focused review, recording that reason |
| A record whose title mentions repair | Only the abstract has been checked | Keep as unresolved pending the relevant full-text check |
| A discussion that challenges the initial definition | Relevant passages have been read | Retain the disagreement for evaluation rather than exclude it for being inconvenient |
The table describes the fictional task’s boundaries, not a judgement that attendance research is unimportant. If the review question later expands to participation, the earlier exclusion may need reconsidering. The unresolved item must not be counted as fully evaluated.
Keep enough detail to revisit the decision
Retain a stable identifier or record link, the decision, its reason and the location or information on which it rests. Note when an unresolved check is completed and whether it changes the decision. Avoid a large administrative system whose labels you cannot maintain.
Use the search-log guide to record how you found the material. That retrieval record answers a different question from why the source was retained. Use the source-note guide for the claims and passages you will actually use.
Before writing the final review, inspect exclusions based only on agreement, unresolved items presented as checked, and sources retained solely because they were easy to obtain. Describe the actual selection process at the strength your record supports. A tidy ledger does not establish exhaustive coverage or remove the limitations of your search.
