Start with constructs
Use the accepted concepts in the Blueprint as the chapter backbone.
Literature review
Literature Review Planner for Thesis Students
Organise your literature review around accepted constructs, known sources, theory sections, evidence gaps, hypotheses, and the research question your thesis must answer.
Why it helps
The literature review should serve the research question
A literature review can easily become a pile of summaries. Scitong keeps it connected to the Thesis Blueprint: constructs, hypotheses, source titles, evidence gaps, and the question the thesis must answer.
This helps students decide what belongs in the chapter, what needs more evidence, and how theory should lead into methodology instead of drifting away from the project.
- Plan sections around accepted constructs and theory needs
- Keep sources connected to claims and evidence gaps
- Show where hypotheses need support before writing
- Carry literature decisions into methodology and discussion
Literature review workflow
Map evidence
Attach known sources to claims and identify missing support.
Plan relationships
Connect constructs, theory, and hypotheses where the thesis design requires it.
Draft and review
Write sections from accepted fields, then edit and accept the chapter deliberately.
Evidence first
Plan the review around claims, not summaries
A literature review is stronger when every paragraph has a job. Instead of collecting source summaries, start with the claim a section needs to support, then connect sources, constructs, and gaps to that claim.
Weak plan
Source A says influencer credibility matters. Source B talks about purchase intention. Source C studies social media advertising.
Problem
The section is organised by source order, so the reader has to guess the argument. It does not explain which construct each source supports or what gap remains.
Better plan
Perceived influencer credibility is treated as a trust signal that may shape purchase intention, but existing studies often measure credibility without testing whether disclosure format changes that relationship.
Why it works
The improved plan gives the section a claim, names the construct, explains how the sources fit together, and creates a route into the methodology.
Example evidence matrix
| Construct or theme | Claim to support | Evidence needed | Gap or caution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Influencer credibility | Credibility can be understood through perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. | Foundational source for source credibility, plus recent influencer-marketing studies. | Do not assume every credibility dimension matters equally in the chosen context. |
| Purchase intention | Purchase intention is a behavioural intention outcome rather than actual purchase behaviour. | Sources defining intention and explaining its limits as a proxy outcome. | Avoid claiming actual sales effects unless the data measures actual purchases. |
| Disclosure format | Disclosure can shape how sponsored content is interpreted by viewers. | Advertising recognition, persuasion knowledge, and platform disclosure literature. | Programme rules may require a clearer ethical justification for manipulating disclosure. |
| Relationship between constructs | Credibility may influence purchase intention, but the expected pathway must be explained. | Studies linking credibility, trust, attitude, and intention in comparable settings. | If the pathway is uncertain, write it as a hypothesis or open theoretical expectation, not as settled fact. |
A practical literature review structure
1. Start with the research problem
Briefly explain why the topic matters and what uncertainty remains. This prevents the review from becoming a general background chapter.
2. Define the main constructs
Give each key construct its own section. Define it, show how it has been studied, and explain which definition your thesis will use.
3. Connect constructs into an argument
After defining concepts, explain the expected relationship between them. This is where theory, hypotheses, or propositions usually appear.
4. Identify the gap
Name what previous work has not settled in your context, population, method, or setting. The gap should lead naturally into the methodology.
5. Check source balance
A balanced review uses enough recent sources without ignoring foundational definitions. It also avoids building a section on one unsupported article.
6. End with the thesis logic
Close the review by showing how the definitions, gap, and expected relationships justify the study you are about to conduct.
7. Leave out disconnected summaries
If a source does not help define a construct, support a claim, explain a gap, or justify a method choice, it probably does not belong in the main review.
8. Keep a gap log
Track claims that still need stronger evidence. A visible gap log prevents uncertain ideas from quietly turning into confident thesis statements.
Common questions
Does it search databases for sources?
The current workflow focuses on organising thesis evidence and known sources, not replacing academic database search.
Can it handle hypotheses?
Yes. If your design uses hypotheses, Scitong can keep them linked to constructs and expected relationships.
What if I have no sources yet?
Missing evidence is shown as a gap, so you know what to collect before treating a claim as supported.