第一部分 什么是综述？

综述，其中综是综合，述，更多的不是叙述，而是评述和述评。只评述还不够，还要就观点、材料和方法进行综述。“综”是要求对文献资料进行综合分析、归纳整 理，使材料更精练明确、更有逻辑层次；“述”就是要求对综合整理后的文献进行比较专门的、全面的、深入的、系统的论述。总之，文献综述是作者对某一方面问题的历史背景、前人工作、争论焦点、研究现状和发展前景等内容进行评论的科学性论文。

文献综述是对某一方面的专题搜集大量情报资料后经综合分析而写成的一种学术论文， 它是科学文献的一种。

文献综述是反映当前某一领域中某分支学科或重要专题的最新进展、学术见解和建议。它往往能反映出有关问题的新动态、新趋势、新水平、新原理和新技术等等。

学写综述，至少有以下好处：

①通过搜集文献资料过程，可进一步熟悉科学文献的查找方法和资料的积累方法；在查找的过程中同时也扩大了知识面；

②查找文献资料、写文献综述是科研选题及进行科研的第一步，因此学习文献综述的撰写也是为今后科研活动打基础的过程；

③通过综述的写作过程，能提高归纳、分析、综合能力，有利于独立工作能力和科研能力的提高；

④文献综述选题范围广，题目可大可小，可难可易。

第二部分 综述的类型

文献综述有两种，一种是“大综述”，就一个领域的文献的总结。另一种是“小综述”。这个综述的目的主要不是为了向其他人介绍前沿，而是为了推出自己的论述和模型，是以述带论，就是说明现有的研究状况如何，缺在哪里，我准备做的贡献是什么。所以，这种综述并不强求非常全面细致，而应该侧重介绍与自己的研究直 接相关的文献。

第三部分 综述的写作过程和方法

怎样写文献综述？形式可大可小，看8-10篇与科研课题相关的文献，进行高度的总和、概述、分析，从概念到理论，不要出现摘要堆积；在内容上，与科研课题结合起来。写文献综述一般经过以下几个阶段：即选题，搜集阅读文献资料、拟定提纲（包括归纳、整理、分析）和成文。

一、选题和搜集阅读文献

撰写文献综述通常出于某种需要，如为某学术会议的专题、从事某项科研、为某方面积累文献资料等等，所以，文献综述的选题，作者一般是明确的，不象科研课题选题那么困难。文献综述选题范围广，题目可大可小，大到一个领域、一个学科，小到一种算法、一个方法、一个理论，可根据自己的需要而定。 选定题目后，则要围绕题目进行搜集与文题有关的文献。关于搜集文献的有关方法，可以如看专著、年鉴法、浏览法、滚雪球法、检索法等等。搜集文献要求越全越好，因而最常用的方法是用检索法。搜集好与文题有关的参考文献后，就要对这些参考文献进行阅读、归纳、整理，如何从这些文献中选出具有代表性、科学性和可靠性大的单篇研究文献十分重要，从某种意义上讲，所阅读和选择的文献的质量高低，直接影响文献综述的水平。因此在阅读文献时，要写好“读书

笔记”、“读书 心得”和做好“文献摘录卡片”。用自己的语言写下阅读时得到的启示、体会和想法，将文献的精髓摘录下来，不仅为撰写综述时提供有用的资料，而且对于训练自己的表达能力，阅读水平都有好处，特别是将文献整理成文献摘录卡片，对撰写综述极为有利。

二、格式与写法

文献综述的格式与一般研究性论文的格式有所不同。这是因为研究性的论文注重研究的方法和结果，特别是阳性结果，而文献综述要求向读者介绍与主题有关的详细 资料、动态、进展、展望以及对以上方面的评述。因此文献综述的格式相对多样，但总的来说，一般都包含以下四部分：即前言、主题、总结和参考文献。撰写文献 综述时可按这四部分拟写提纲，再根据提纲进行撰写。

前言部分，主要是说明写作的目的，介绍有关的概念及定义以及综述的范围，扼要说明有关主题的现状或争论焦点，使读者对全文要叙述的问题有一个初步的轮廓。

主题部分，是综述的主体，其写法多样，没有固定的格式。可按年代顺序综述，也可按不同的问题进行综述，还可按不同的观点进行比较综述，不管用那一种格式综述，都要将所搜集到的文献资料归纳、整理及分析比较，阐明有关主题的历史背景、现状和发展方向，以及对这些问题的评述，主题部分应特别注意代表性强、具有 科学性和创造性的文献引用和评述。

总结部分，与研究性论文的小结有些类似，将全文主题进行扼要总结，对所综述的主题，有研究经验的作者，最好能提出自己的见解。

参考文献，虽然放在文末，但却是文献综述的重要组成部分。因为它不仅表示对被引用文献作者的尊重及引用文献的依据，而且为读者深入探讨有关问题提供了文献查找线索。因此，应认真对待。参考文献的编排应条目清楚，查找方便，内容准确无误。

三、注意事项

由于文献综述的特点，致使它的写作既不同于“读书笔记”“读书报告”，也不同于一般的科研论文。因此，在撰写文献综述时应注意以下几个问题： ⒈、搜集文献应尽量全。掌握全面、大量的文献资料是写好综述的前提，否则，随便搜集一点资料就动手撰写是不可能写出好的综述的，甚至写出的文章根本不成为综述。

⒉、注意引用文献的代表性、可靠性和科学性。在搜集到的文献中可能出现观点雷同，有的文献在可靠性及科学性方面存在着差异，因此在引用文献时应注意选用代表性、可靠性和科学性较好的文献。

⒊、引用文献要忠实文献内容。由于文献综述有作者自己的评论分析，因此在撰写时应分清作者的观点和文献的内容，不能篡改文献的内容。

⒋、参考文献不能省略。有的科研论文可以将参考文献省略，但文献综述绝对不能省略，而且应是文中引用过的，能反映主题全貌的并且是作者直接阅读过的文献资料。

第四部分 综述的基本写作要求

文献综述特征

1.一般字数控制在4000-6000字左右；

2.以评述为主，不可罗列文献；

3.基本格式通常包括题目、作者、摘要、关键词、前言、正文、结语和参考

文献等几个部分；

4.中文参考15-20篇，英文参考20篇左右，文献要新，50％-80％最好为3年内的文献。

5.如果文献综述是为开题报告作准备，整篇文章建议为漏斗状结构，即“有什么研究进 展，问题是什么，怎么找方向”。

第五部分 综述的写作技巧

1 题目

1.1 如果文章为结果论文

标题格式 a） Effect of （因素） on（观测项目）in（研究对象）Progress

b） （观测对象）in （研究对象） Progress

c）无固定格式

1.2 如果文章为方法论文

标题格式 d） Methods for ? Progress

2 摘要常用句型

归纳了?研究中的关键问题

指出了?及其?研究的主要进展

讨论了?的类型、影响因素、过程机理和描述方法

在此基础上，对?规律的研究前景进行了展望

3 关键词 指能代表整篇综述意义的3～5个词语。

4 前言

4.1 内容：

问题的历史、现状和发展动态，有关概念和定义，

选择这一专题的目的和动机、应用价值和实践意义。

4.2 常用句式

?是?的重要研究内容

过去研究主要集中在?

（深度上）?

（广度上）?

（有争论的问题）?

鉴于?的工作将对今后?研究意义以及?的现实应用意义 作者就?的关键问题进行了系统的分析和综述

5 正文

5.1 综述材料来源广泛，因此段落结构格式非常重要，举例如下表； 第一句 第二句 第三句 第四句 第五句 第六句

主题句 陈述理论1 研究支持1 陈述理论2 研究支持2 ，等。 主题句 研究支持1 研究支持2 研究支持3，等。例外情况 研究意义 主题句 研究支持1 说明理论1，等。主题句

5.2 纵横结合式写法

写历史背景采用纵式写法，围绕某一专题，按时间先后顺序或专题本身发展层次对历史演变、目前状况、趋向预测作纵向描述；

写目前状况采用横式写法，对某一专题在国际和国内的各个方面，如各派观点、各家之 言、各种方法、各自成就等加以描述和比较。

通过横向对比，既可以分辨出各种观点、见解、方法、成果的优劣利弊，又可以看出国际水平、国内水平和本单位水平，从而找到了差距。

5.3 相关研究不必全部列举，每一个主题举2-5个有代表意义的研究。

5.4 常用句式

了解?的成因及其影响因素对认识?有重要的意义

?的特征可用?来描述，其中常用的有?

由于?受?等多种因素的影响，所以研究者通过?来描述各因素对?的影响

影响?的因素很多，下面就?进行论述

?不仅取决于?，而且受到?的制约

?与?有关

?是?的重要影响因素之一

?对?的影响主要表现在?

研究表明?

产生?的原因有?

6 结语 一般为展望结构，如果是开题报告前的文献综述，需要把想做什么阐述清楚。

文献综述是文献综合评述的简称，指在全面搜集、阅读大量的有关研究文献的基础上，经过归纳整理、分析鉴别，对所研究的问题(学科、专题)在一定时期内已经取得的研究成果、存在问题以及新的发展趋势等进行系统、全面的叙述和评论。“综”即收集“百家”之言，综合分析整理；“述”即结合作者的观点和实践经验对文献的观点、结论进行叙述和评论。其目的并不是将可能找到的文章列出，而是要在辨别相关资料的基础上，根据自己的论文来综合与评估这些资料。一个成功的文献综述，能够以其系统的分析评价和有根据的趋势预测，为新课题的确立提供强有力的支持和论证。

[b]一、文献综述的作用与目的[/b]

文献综述要针对某个研究主题，就目前学术界的成果加以探究。文献综述旨在整合此研究主题的特定领域中已经被思考过与研究过的信息，并将此议题上的权威学者所作的努力进行系统地展现、归纳和评述。在决定论文研究题目之前，通常必须关注的几个问题是：研究所属的领域或者其他领域，对这个问题已经知道多少；已完成的研究有哪些；以往的建议与对策是否成功；有没有建议新的研究方向和议题。简而言之，文献综述是一切合理研究的基础。

大多数研究生并不考虑这些问题，就直接进行文献探讨，将在短时间内找到的现有文献做简略引述或归类，也不作批判。甚至与论文研究的可行性、必要性也无关。

其实回顾的目的就是想看看什么是探索性研究，所以必须主动积极地扩大研究文献的来源。也只有这样，才可能增加研究的假设与变量，以改进研究的设计。

文献综述至少可达到的基本目的有：让读者熟悉现有研究主题领域中有关研究的进展与困境；提供后续研究者的思考：未来研究是否可以找出更有意义与更显著的结果；对各种理论的立场说明，可以提出不同的概念架构；作为新假设提出与研究理念的基础，对某现象和行为进行可能的解释；识别概念间的前提假设，理解并学习他人如何界定与衡量关键概念；改进与批判现有研究的不足，推出另类研究，发掘新的研究方法与途径，验证其他相关研究。

总之，研究文献不仅可帮助确认研究主题，也可找出对研究的问题的不同见解。发表过的研究报告和学术论文就是重要的问题来源，对论文的回顾会提供宝贵的资料以及研究可行性的范例。

2. 回避和放弃研究冲突另辟蹊径

对有较多学术争议研究主题，或发现现有的研究结论互相矛盾时，有些研究生的论文就回避矛盾，进行一个自认为是创新的研究。其实将这些冲突全部放弃，就意味着放弃一大堆有价值的资料，并且这个所谓的创新，因为不跟任何现有的研究相关与比较，没有引用价值，会被后人所放弃。遇到不协调或者互相矛盾的研究发现，尽管要花费更多的时间来处理，但是不要避重就轻，甚至主动放弃。其实这些不协调或者冲突是很有价值的，应多加利用。将现有文献的冲突与矛盾加以整合是必要的，新研究比旧研究具有更好、更强的解释力，原因之一是新的研究会将过去的所得做一番整合与改善。

3. 选择性地探讨文献

有些研究生不是系统化地回顾现有的研究文献，找适合研究的问题或可预测的假设，却宣称某种研究缺乏文献，从而自认他们的研究是探索性研究。如果有选择性地探讨现有文献，则文献综述就变成了研究生主观愿望的反映，成了一种机会性的回顾。

因此一定要进行系统的、全面的文献综述，以严谨的科学设计来寻找、评估以及整合科学研究的证据，确保文献综述完整不偏。要端正学风，勇于探索和不回避冲突。分析冲突的原因、方法与结论，可以为未来的研究及论文奠定成功的基础，使论文的研究结果对后续研究有应用价值和理论意义。

[b]三、综述的基本方法与步骤[/b]

文献综述不仅仅是对一系列无联系内容的概括，而且是对以前的相关研究的思路的综合。文献综述的基本步骤为：

1. 文献综述的第一步：概括归纳

收集文献的方法主要有两种：一是通过各种检索工具，如文献索引、文摘杂志检索，也可利用光盘或网络进行检索；二是从综述性文章、专著、教科书等的参考文献中，摘录出有关的文献目录。

选择文献时，应由近及远，因为最新研究常常包括以前研究的参考资料，并且可以使人更快地了解知识和认识的现状。首先要阅读文献资料的摘要和总结，以确定它与要做的研究有没有关系，决定是否需要将它包括在文献综述中。其次要根据有关的科学理论和研究的需要，对已经搜集到的文献资料做进一步的筛选，详细、系统地记下所评论的各个文献中研究的问题、目标、方法、结果和结论，及其存在的问题、观点的不足与尚未提出的问题。将相关的、类似的内容，分别归类；对结论不一致的文献，要对比分析，按一定的评价原则，做出是非的判断。同时，对每一项资料的来源要注明完整的出处，不要忽略记录参考文献的次要信息，如出版时间、页码和出版单位所在城市等。

对要评论的文献先进行概括(不是重复)，然后进行分析、比较和对照，目的不是为了对以前的研究进行详细解释，而是确保读者能够领会与本研究相关的以前研究的主要方面。个别地和集中地对以前研究的优点、不足和贡献进行分析和评论，这在文献综述中是非常重要的。

2. 文献综述的第二步：摘要

不同的学科对引用摘要的要求与期望不同。虽然文献综述并不仅仅是摘要，但研究结果的概念化与有组织的整合是必要的。其做法包括：将资料组织起来，并连到论文或研究的问题上；整合回顾的结果，摘出已知与未知的部分；理清文献中的正反争论；提出进一步要研究的问题。

3. 文献综述的第三步：批判

文献综述是否有价值，不仅要看其中的新信息与知识的多少，还要看自己对文献作者及编辑者的观点与看法如何。

阅读文献时，要避免外界的影响甚至干扰，客观地叙述和比较国内外各相关学术流派的观点、方法、特点和取得的成效，评价其优点与不足。要根据研究的需求来做批判，注意不要给人以吹毛求疵之感。

一个具有批判性的评论，必须要有精确性、自我解释性和告知性。批判的程度，主要在测试研究生评鉴技巧：是否能分析出文章的中心概念与所提出的论据，做出摘要，并提出简要评估。

文献综述的第三步是在形式上批判其是否符合一些基本写作的标准，即判定其是否为一篇好文章还要看文献中引用的文章与评论的标准。有的台湾学者将其归纳为：代表性、显著性、相关性、适时性和简捷性。

4. 文献综述的第四步：建议

通常一个文献综述是以比较性评论的方式为主，分析两个以上不同的思想学派、议题或者不同人所持的不同立场。文献综述的最后步骤是在回顾和分析的基础上，提出新的研究方向和研究建议。根据发展历史和国内外的现状，以及其他专业、领域可能给予本专业、领域的影响，根据在纵横对比中发现的主流和规律，指出几种发展的可能性，以及对其可能产生的重大影响和可能出现的问题等趋势进行预测，从而提出新的研究方案等，并说明成果的可能性等。

还要指出的是，阅读和分析已有的其他专业研究人员的文献综述，可以高效率地获得有益的观点和建议。但是，这类集中介绍研究成果的综述性文章只能作为新的研究的基础或参考点，不能被用来替代自己的独立研究。总之，要做好硕士、博士论文的选题与研究，必须重视资料概览，认真写好文献综述

1.、什么是文献综述

文献综述简称综述，与动物实验等科研论文不同。科研论文是作者亲自对某一具体课题进行研究后所做的总结。

综述是对某一时期内某一学科，某一专业或技术的研究成果、发展水平以及科技动态等信息资料进行搜集、整理、选择、提炼，并做出综合性介绍和阐述的实用文体。科技综述的最显著特点是述而不评，重点在“综”。只是浓缩性地介绍己经获得的科技成果的信息，在文章中不加上编写者的见解和评论，作者的倾向性只能潜在地反映在对他人的观点、材料的取舍和引用上。

如果文章中加上编写者的观点就变成了述评。述评的特点是“评”，即在己有成果的基础上，作进一步的研究和探讨，为读者献计献策。

因此综述的重点在“述”，只“述”不评，即只对观点、数据、事实等作纯客观的分析和介绍，不作评价、评议。科技述评的重点在“评”，又“述”又“评”。

指作者潜在的倾向性。论文作者不应对原始文献进行直述评说、这一点有别于述评。但这不等于作者不能有自己的观点。作者的立场、观点、学术水平主要体现在对原始材料的选择和组织上，即用别人的资料和观点来表明白己的想法。也就是说，要将自己的见解寓意其中，贯穿于内，含而不空。

2、文献综述的特点及作用

2.1 文献综述的特点

2.2 文献综述的作用

2.2.1 在科研中的作用有着重要作用

在科研伊始谈段。综述为科研人员提供研究课题的历史、现状、当前争论的焦点及发展趋势的情报资料，能够帮助科研人员了解本领域的全面情况，从而选定有意义、有价值的研究课题。

2.2.2 综述能帮助我们有效地进行知识更新。综述能让我们用较少的时间和精力对某种专题的内容、意义、历史，现状及发展趋势等有个较完整、系统、明确的认识。

2.2.3 在检索中的作用：综述文后所附的参考书目可为读者提供已确定课题的许多参考文赋，成为一种独特的情报检索系统。利用参考书目采用回溯检索和循环检索的方法，可获得成千上万篇文献资料，并可满足在检索工具缺乏情况下的族性检索。

2.2.4 写作综述不仅是积累科研资料的重要方法，也是了解有关专题的历史现状和发展趋势，培养锻炼组织材料，正确表达思想的有效途径。

3、综述的类型

分类方法一：根据写作目的和收集到的资料情况不同而不同、通常可分以下四种：

① 简介式综述：就是按内容特点分别综合介绍原文献所论述的事实、数据、论点等，一般不加评述、这种类型综述适用于某些学术、技术问题的概要介绍，尤其适用于某些问题刚发现还尚无定论时，较宜使用这一种形式。

② 动态性综述：就是对某一领域或某一专题的发展动态，按照其自身的发展阶段，由远及近地介绍其主要进展，一直介绍到目前的发展程度、这种类型最适宜介绍学术、技术的进展。

③ 成就性综述：就是将有关文献汇集分类，把某一方面或某一项目有关的各种内容从原始文献中摘出，不管时序先后，分门别类地进行叙述、这种类型适用于介绍新方法、新技术、新论点和新成就。

④ 争鸣性综述：就是对某一领域或某一专题学术观点上存在的分歧，进行分类归纳和综合，按不同见解分别叙述。叙述中可表述作者倾向性的意见、这类综述，写作时要注意对所引用的原始论文的论据一定要抓住要害。

分类方法二：

（1） 专题综述、

（2） 文献综述。这类综述的目的是对一定时期内围绕某一专题的论文加以汇集和解释。

（3） 回顾性综述。主要是历史的分析某一课题的发展概况，文章的写法可按年代顺序进行组织。

（4）现状综述。是较常见的科技综述类型、其主要目的是对某一发展领域的新知识、新情况迅速进行收集、整理而写成的综述。

4、文献综述的结构

文献综述基本由前言(引言)、正文、结论和参考文献四大部分组成。

4.1 前言(引言)：简要介绍所综述的课题，研究目的及意义。说明有关概念，规定综述范围，介绍本课题的基本内容：包括研究的历史、现状、前景和争论焦点等，使读者对全文有一个概括的了解。

4.2 正文：是综述的主体部分，对某专业、学科在某阶段的发展历史和当前实际工作水平、成就和展望，以及有关各种情况都应作详细叙述，还要把同行对该方面的不同看法也写进去，进行分析研究。

3.3 结论：结论是综述的结束语。一般包括研究的结论，本课题研究的意义，存在的分歧，有待解决的问题和发展趋势等。

3.4 参考文献：注明作者所引用的资料，为人们核对或作进一步研究用，这些按引用顺序列

出。通过参考文献，还可以看出综述的深度和广度。

4、文献综述的写作步骤

写作文献综述一般有这么几个步骤：选题、收集和阅读文献、拟写提纲、成文和修改。

4.1 选题：这是文献综述写作的关键环节，选题要突出一个“新”——就是选题新、资料新。综述只有选题新、资料新才具有参考价值，才能引起读者的阅读兴趣。一般综述的选题都是近年来发展较快，进展较大而切合实际将要的课题。资料新是指引用的文献以近3—5年学术性期刊的论文为主，陈旧性的资料随时间的进展可能被新发表的资料所包含或超越、失去了被归纳综合的意义。

一般综述的定题有三种情况：（l）为科研作准备，所选题目是与自己科研有关的内容，即与自己的科研方向一致、因此，这种情况常先有一个初步的题目，然后广泛查文献再确定、（ 2）反映学科的新动态，结合自己较熟悉的专业，选择某一专题，收集最新研究文献进行综述，为人们提供新的知识、（3）在日积月累阅读文献中，感到有些问题需要整理提高，这样在已掌握较多文献的前提下，从中选定题目。

4.2收集和阅读文献：主题确定后，就要有针对性地广泛收集文献资料，在阅读后，根据需要和内容，决定材料和取舍。如果平时在学习和工作中，养成收集和积累资料的习惯，在写作时就会节省大量查阅资料的时间。

收集文献的方法，主要有两种：（l）通过各种检索工具，如文献索引、文摘杂志检索、选择文献时，应由近及远，主要应用近3－5年内的文献，这样才能体现出文献综述的新观点、新水平。（2）从综述性文章、专著、教课书等的参考文献中，摘录出有关的文献目录、因此，阅读综述性文章，不仅可以了解国内、外的进展情况，同时还可从文中获得有关的参考文献。

4.3拟写提纲：农业文献综述涉及的内容多而广，所以在写作前应拟写一个写作提纲，以便将主题与材料加以安排和组织，这是写作前的一项重要工作。这样可以使作者的逻辑思维更加趋于完善，既有利于成文，又便于修改，使文章层次清晰，前后照应。

4.4成文和修改：拟好提纲后，明确构思，材料齐全，就可以进一步组织材料、写成文章，同其它文章一样，对写好的文章草稿要进行多次修改，以期达到完美。

准备工作完成后，一般应在短期内写出初稿，以免时间拖得太长，造成前后脱节、条理紊乱或文字不畅笔等。一旦动笔，最好一气呵成，不必在写作过程中过分推敲用词，全文写毕后应逐段认真斟酌、推敲、每次修改后最好放置二、三天后再修改一遍，直至满意为止、必要时也可请指导教师或同行好友阅读提意见，力求完善。

5、文献综述写作过程中应注意的问题

6.1忌作重复综述。综述应从一、二次文献中归纳综合而成，不能在别人的综述基础上再作相同范围内相同课题的综述。

6.2 选题范围过于宽泛

综述虽然是综合论述某课题的文稿，但论述范围不能过于宽泛，否则篇幅过长，论述主题不集中。其次选题要切合实际，简洁明了，能够概括全篇主题，且能引人注意。有的作者单纯追求选题的大而全，范围过于宽广，反而会出现选题过宽而内容过窄，文题不符的问题。

6.3 生搬硬套，对知识进行再创造能力和概括性差

综述虽然是综合叙述．但它绝对不是一次性文献的叠加和堆积，必须对知识进行再创造。综述是综合与叙述相结合的产物，“综”是基础，是对前人发表的文献收集整理、综合的过程；“述”则是通过对材料的引用与观点的取舍，客观分析一次文献、数据和观点的过程。“综”和“述”两者缺一不可，只“综”不“述”，是一种单纯的资料堆砌；只“述”不 “综”，形同“无源之水”，缺乏科学性。

6.4添枝加叶、各取所需

综述的基本原则是忠于原文、让事实说话。因而综述的内容一定要具有真实性和科学性，科学是综述写作的生命。综述中所引用的数据、结果、结论一定要符合科学的真实面貌，不能主观判断，更不能凭空想象或推测、加工。

如果仅通过阅读或摘录在别人综述的基础上作第二手综述，则可能出现片面性、甚至以讹传讹。还有的作者对所收集的资料原文中没有的内容、数据、经过自己的“推理“、“加工”，写入文中，这是绝对不允许的。

6.5详略把握不够，重点难以突出

综述由于信息量大，综合性强，所以在撰写时，对一次性文献必然涉及的范围广、材料多，而且结构庞大，所以如果不注意详略得当，那么，重点就难以突出，综述就难以起到浓缩资料的作用。

6.6引文资料跨度太长

有的作者认为综述资料时间越长越好，因而，收集文献资料追求篇数多、时间长，其实，文献资料既不是越多越好，也不是时间跨度越长越好，具体的限度虽然难以规定，但原则上是参考文献的引用数目，期刊一般限定在20条以内，最多不能超过30条，时间上资料以3—5年为宜。

6.7间接和转引文献资料多

综述的文献资料必须是一次性文献资料，而且是作者亲自阅读过的。有的作者为了省事，甚至投机取巧，写作时直接把一次性文献资料中的参考文献一一列举出来．这不仅违反了综述参考文献引用的基本原则，而且对读者是极不负责的。

6.8参考文献书写不规范

Finding, formulating and exploring your topic.

Different topic creations

Many students have in mind something that they want to work on; others want to work with a particular scholar or research centre. In the first case, students search for a compatible supervisor. In the second, for a topic. Regardless of these preliminary circumstances, the topic is very likely only roughly formulated at this stage. This is usually enough to have your enrolment accepted.

Reading the literature

Once you have a general idea, you could start by talking to your supervisor and other scholars. But, most importantly, you have to think why you would like to work on it, or why anyone would want to do so. Ask yourself, "Why is it important? What is interesting about this? Suppose I solve it, or find it, or pull it all together, what use is it? What is its significance?" Then, with some questions such as these in mind, go and read more about it to see what is there and find out what aspects of it have been exhausted, what neglected, what the main ideas, issues and controversies are in the area. It is regarded as your supervisor's role to direct you to the most fruitful starting point in reading and surveying the literature.

Cycle of literature review

All of this is not a once only activity, but is a cycle you go through again and again. So you read, think, and discuss it with your supervisor and then, as a result, come closer to the formulation of the topic. And then with each cycle of reading, thinking and discussing your topic becomes more specific and focussed. This is not the final formulation and the last time you will focus your topic. But you could probably let go of this round of general exploration and embark on the next stage. Your supervisor by this time should have enough of an idea of your topic to judge whether or not what you propose to do is feasible within the time available and has the potential to meet the required standards for a PhD. To see the full potential of your topic or, to the contrary, see that it is not going to deliver what you wanted, you do need to begin doing your research. This, of course, is why pilot studies are often undertaken.

Making sense of the literature

We do truly wish we could tell you about a reliable or simple way to make sense of the literature. We can say, however, that you need to attend to things at two levels:

&S226; One is establishing a system that will allow you to organise the hard copies of the articles etc., and develop a data base for references, so you have easy access under relevant categories and don't chase the same references repeatedly.

&S226; The other is the more demanding task of understanding and using the literature for your purposes.

Without attending to the first task, you could easily become inefficient and frustrated. However, although it is necessary to have some way of keeping track, don't spend all your energies on perfecting your system. It may be a good idea to attend a course for researchers on handling information. Check whether your university's library or computer centre offers such a course.

The other task ahead of you - of understanding, reviewing and using the literature for your purposes - goes to the heart of your thesis. We consider this in three stages.

Making sense of the literature - first pass

When you first come to an area of research, you are filling in the background in a general way, getting a feel for the whole area, an idea of its scope, starting to appreciate the controversies, to see the high points, and to become more familiar with the major players. You need a starting point. This may come out of previous work you've done. If you're new to the area, your supervisor could suggest fruitful starting points. Or you could pursue some recent review articles to begin.

Too much to handle

At this stage there seems to be masses of literature relevant to your research. Or you may worry that there seems to be hardly anything. As you read, think about and discuss articles and isolate the issues you're more interested in. In this way, you focus your topic more and more. The more you can close in on what your research question actually is, the more you will be able to have a basis for selecting the relevant areas of the literature. This is the only way to bring it down to a manageable size.

Very little there

If initially you can't seem to find much at all on your research area - and you are sure that you've exploited all avenues for searching that the library can present you with - then there are a few possibilities:

&S226; You could be right at the cutting edge of something new and it's not surprising there's little around.

&S226; You could be limiting yourself to too narrow an area and not appreciating that relevant material could be just around the corner in a closely related field.

&S226; Unfortunately there's another possibility and this is that there's nothing in the literature because it is not a worthwhile area of research. In this case, you need to look closely with your supervisor at what it is you plan to do.

Quality of the Literature

This begins your first step in making sense of the literature. You are not necessarily closely evaluating it now; you are mostly learning through it. But, sometimes at this stage students do ask us how they can judge the quality of the literature they're reading, as they're not experts.

You learn to judge, evaluate, and look critically at the literature by judging, evaluating and looking critically at it. That is, you learn to do so by practising. There is no quick recipe for doing this but there are some questions you could find useful and, with practice, you will develop many others:

&S226; Is the problem clearly spelled out?

&S226; Are the results presented new?

&S226; Was the research influential in that others picked up the threads and pursued them?

&S226; How large a sample was used?

&S226; How convincing is the argument made?

&S226; How were the results analysed?

&S226; What perspective are they coming from?

&S226; Are the generalisations justified by the evidence on which they are made?

&S226; What is the significance of this research?

&S226; What are the assumptions behind the research?

&S226; Is the methodology well justified as the most appropriate to study the problem?

&S226; Is the theoretical basis transparent?

In critically evaluating, you are looking for the strengths of certain studies and the significance and contributions made by researchers. You are also looking for limitations, flaws and weaknesses of particular studies, or of whole lines of enquiry.

Indeed, if you take this critical approach to looking at previous research in your field, your final literature review will not be a compilation of summaries but an evaluation. It will then reflect your capacity for critical analysis.

Making sense of the literature - second pass

You continue the process of making sense of the literature by gaining more expertise which allows you to become more confident, and by being much more focused on your specific research.

You're still reading and perhaps needing to re-read some of the literature. You're thinking about it as you are doing your experiments, conducting your studies, analysing texts or other data. You are able to talk about it easily and discuss it. In other words, it's becoming part of you.

At a deeper level than before,

&S226; you are now not only looking at findings but are looking at how others have arrived at their findings;

&S226; you're looking at what assumptions are leading to the way something is investigated;

&S226; you're looking for genuine differences in theories as opposed to semantic differences;

&S226; you also are gaining an understanding of why the field developed in the way it did;

&S226; you have a sense for where it might be going.

First of all you probably thought something like, "I just have to get a handle on this". But now you see that this 'handle' which you discovered for yourself turns out to be the key to what is important. You are very likely getting to this level of understanding by taking things to pieces and putting them back together.

For example, you may need to set up alongside one another four or five different definitions of the same concept, versions of the same theory, or different theories proposed to account for the same phenomenon. You may need to unpack them thoroughly, even at the very basic level of what is the implied understanding of key words (for example 'concept', 'model', 'principles' etc.), before you can confidently compare them, which you need to do before synthesis is possible.

Or, for example, you may be trying to sort through specific discoveries which have been variously and concurrently described by different researchers in different countries. You need to ask questions such as whether they are the same discoveries being given different names or, if they are not the same, whether they are related. In other words, you may need to embark on very detailed analyses of parts of the literature while maintaining the general picture.

Making sense of the literature - final pass

You make sense of the literature finally when you are looking back to place your own research within the field. At the final pass, you really see how your research has grown out of previous work. So now you may be able to identify points or issues that lead directly to your research. You may see points whose significance didn't strike you at first but which now you can highlight. Or you may realise that some aspect of your research has incidentally provided evidence to lend weight to one view of a controversy. Having finished your own research, you are now much better equipped to evaluate previous research in your field.

From this point when you have finished your own research and you look back and fill in the picture, it is not only that you understand the literature and can handle it better, but you could also see how it motivates your own research. When you conceptualise the literature in this way, it becomes an integral part of your research.

Writing the literature review

What we are talking about here is the writing of the review. We assume that you have made sense of the literature, and that you know the role of the literature and its place in your thesis. Below are links to other sections covering these aspects.

You will doubtless write your literature review several times. Since each version will serve a different purpose, you should not think you are writing the same thing over and over and getting nowhere. Where you may strike trouble is if you just try to take whole sections out of an earlier version and paste them into the final version which, by now, has to be differently conceived.

In practical terms, it is necessary to have an overall picture of how the thread runs through your analysis of the literature before you can get down to actually writing a particular section. The strategy which writers use as a way to begin the literature review is to proceed from the general, wider view of the research you are reviewing to the specific problem. This is not a formula but is a common pattern and may be worth trying.

Let's look at an example taken from the first pages of a literature review. This shows us the progression from general to specific and the beginning of that thread which then continues through the text leading to the aims.

Despite the undisputed success of quantum mechanics, many important fundamental problems and questions remain unanswered (see for example X, 1973): the measuring process cannot be satisfactorily described in QM formalism; there are great mathematical stumbling blocks to attempt to make QM consistent with the assumptions of special relativity; ……….., just to name a few.

[This is basically an introductory section, which starts with a statement of the problem in very broad terms, alerting us to the fact that not everything is rosy, and proceeds to sketch in specific aspects.]

Without doubt, one of the most widely discussed of these… is …[this closes in on what the focus of the problem is] Like most fundamental issues in physics, this question leads to challenges at several levels of thought. At the philosophical level this issue poses questions about …. At the physical level we are forced to examine …. At the mathematical level many questions are raised about the completeness and logical consistency ….

[The text moves on to specify issues at various levels. Although the focus is sharper, the coverage at the same time opens out.]

An important instance in which all of these challenges converge occurs with the concept of 'angle' in the description of quantum systems…

[Thus the text has set up the situation where all aspects of the problem--theoretical, practical, etc.--are brought together.]

Whatever the pattern which fits your work best, you need to keep in mind that what you are doing is writing about what was done before. But, you are not simply reporting on previous research. You have to write about it in terms of how well it was done and what it achieved. This has to be organised and presented in such a way that it inevitably leads to what you want to do and shows it is worth doing. You are setting up the stage for your work.

For example, a series of paragraphs of the kind:

"Green (1975) discovered ….";

"In 1978, Black conducted experiments and discovered that ….";

"Later Brown (1980) illustrated this in ……";

demonstrates neither your understanding of the literature nor your ability to evaluate other people's work.

Maybe at an earlier stage, or in your first version of your literature review, you needed a summary of who did what. But in your final version, you have to show that you've thought about it, can synthesise the work and can succinctly pass judgement on the relative merits of research conducted in your field. So, to take the above example, it would be better to say something like:

"There seems to be general agreement on x, (for example, White 1987, Brown 1980, Black 1978, Green 1975) but Green (1975) sees x as a

consequence of y, while Black(1978) puts x and y as …. While Green's work has some limitations in that it …., its main value lies in …."

Approaching it in this way forces you to make judgements and, furthermore, to distinguish your thoughts from assessments made by others. It is this whole process of revealing limitations or recognising the possibility of taking research further which allows you to formulate and justify your aims.

Keep your research focused

It is always important to keep your research focused, but this is especially so at two points. First when you have settled into the topic and the time for wider exploration has to end. And then again at a later stage when you may have gathered lots of data and are starting to wonder how you are going to deal with it all.

Focus after literature review

First, it is a common temptation to prolong the exploration phase by finding more and more interesting things and straying away from what was once regarded as the possible focus. Either you or your supervisor could be guilty of this. In some cases, it might be you who is putting off having to make a commitment to one line of enquiry because exploration and realising possibilities is enjoyable and you're always learning more. In other cases, it could be your supervisor who, at every meeting, becomes enthusiastic about other possibilities and keeps on suggesting alternatives. You might not be sure if this is just sharing excitement with you or if you are supposed to follow them all up.

Either way you need to stop the proliferation of lines of enquiry, sift through what you have, settle on one area, and keep that focus before you. It could even be a good idea to write it up on a poster in front of your desk. Unless you have this really specified in the first place, with the major question and its sub-questions, and you know exactly what you have to find out to answer these, you will never be focused and everything you find will seem to be 'sort of' relevant.

You have to close off some lines of enquiry and you can do so only once you decide they are not relevant to your question. We continually meet students who, when we ask, "So what is the question you're researching?", will answer, "My topic is such and such and I'm going to look at x, y and z". Sometimes further probing from us will reveal that they do indeed have a focus, but many times this is not so. Thinking in terms of your topic is too broad. You need to think, rather, of what it is you are investigating about the topic.

&S226; Questions force you to find answers; topics invite you to talk about things.

Focus after data collection

Then, at a later stage, you could find yourself surrounded by lots of data which you know are somewhat relevant to your project, but finding the ways of showing this relevance and using the data to answer your question could be a difficult task. Now you have to re-find your focus to bring it all together.

Again, it is your research question and sub-questions which will help you to do this because your whole thesis is basically the answer to these questions, that is, the solution to the problem you presented at the beginning. This may strike you as a very simplistic way to view it. However, approaching it in this way does help to bring the parts together as a whole and get the whole to work. We even recommend that, to relate the parts to each other and keep yourself focussed , you could tell yourself the story of the thesis.

Making a deliberate attempt to keep focused will help you to shape your research and keep you motivated.

Apparently I have to write a research proposal. What do I need to do?

The main purpose of a research proposal is to show that the problem you propose to investigate is significant enough to warrant the investigation, the method you plan to use is suitable and feasible, and the results are likely to prove fruitful and will make an original contribution. In short, what you are answering is 'will it work?'

The level of sophistication or amount of detail included in your proposal will depend on the stage you are at with your PhD and the requirements of your department and University.

&S226; In initial stages, the document you need to write will probably be three to five pages long. It will give a general idea of what you are proposing to do but it isn't a binding contract. Often it serves as a starting point for discussions with your supervisor to firm up the topic,

methodology and mechanics of your research.

&S226; Some of you will be required to write a proposal at the time of confirming your candidature (usually at the end of the first year). In some instances, this is a document of four to five pages and may be viewed as a mere formality. In other cases a much more substantial document of 30 - 40 pages is expected. Therefore it is essential for you to check the requirements with your department.

Regardless of the above distinctions you should never see writing a proposal as a worthless chore. Indeed, if it isn't formally required, it is a very good idea to write one anyway. You can use it to your advantage. It always forces you to think about your topic, to see the scope of your research, and to review the suitability of your methodology. Having something in writing also gives an opportunity to your supervisor to judge the feasibility of the project (whether it is possible to finish in time, costs, the equipment needed and other practicalities, time needed for supervision), to assess its likelihood of success, and its ability to meet the academic standard required of a PhD thesis.

While there are no hard and fast rules governing the structure of a proposal, a typical one would include: aims and objectives, significance, review of previous research in the area showing the need for conducting the proposed research, proposed methods, expected outcomes and their importance. In experimentally based research it often includes detailed requirements for equipment, materials, field trips, technical assistance and an estimation of the costs. It could also include an approximate time by which each stage is to be completed.

write a abstract

. Indeed, the final version of the abstract will need to be written after you have finished reading your thesis for the last time.

However, if you think about what it has to contain, you realise that the abstract is really a mini thesis. Both have to answer the following specific questions:

1. What was done?

2. Why was it done?

3. How was it done?

4. What was found?

5. What is the significance of the findings?

Therefore, an abstract written at different stages of your work will help you to carry a short version of your thesis in your head. This will focus your thinking on what it is you are really doing , help you to see the relevance of what you are currently working on within the bigger picture, and help to keep the links which will eventually unify your thesis.

Process

The actual process of writing an abstract will force you to justify and clearly state your aims, to show how your methodology fits the aims, to highlight the major findings and to determine the significance of what you have done. The beauty of it is that you can talk about this in very short paragraphs and see if the whole works. But when you do all of these things in separate chapters you can easily lose the thread or not make it explicit enough.

If you have trouble writing an abstract at these different stages, then this could show that the parts with which you are having a problem are not well conceptualised yet.

We often hear that writing an abstract can't be done until the results are known and analysed. But the point we are stressing is that it is a working tool that will help to get you there.

Before you know what you've found, you have to have some expectation of what you are going to find as this expectation is part of what is leading you to investigate the problem. In writing your abstract at different stages, any part you haven't done you could word as a prediction. For example, at one stage you could write, "The analysis is expected to show that …". Then, at the next stage, you would be able to write "The analysis showed that …." or "Contrary to expectation, the analysis showed that …..".

The final, finished abstract has to be as good as you can make it. It is the first thing your reader will turn to and therefore controls what the first impression of your work will be. The abstract has

&S226; to be short-no more than about 700 words;

&S226; to say what was done and why, how it was done, the major things that were found, and what is the significance of the findings (remembering that the thesis could have contributed to methodology and theory as well).

In short, the abstract has to be able to stand alone and be understood separately from the thesis itself.

Is there a particular thesis structure I have to follow?

There are certain conventions specific to certain disciplines. However, these structures are not imposed on a piece of work. There are logical reasons why there is a conventional way of structuring the thesis, which is after all the account of what you've achieved through your research. Research is of course not conducted in the step-by-step way this structure suggests, but it gives the reader the most accessible way of seeing why this research was done, how it was done and, most importantly, what has been achieved. If you put side by side all the questions you had to answer to finish your research and what is often proposed as a typical structure of a thesis, then you see the logic of the arrangement. That does not mean, however, that you have to name your chapters in this way. In some disciplines, it very often is like this; in others, this structure is implied. For example, in many science theses, the following basically is the structure; in many humanities theses, the final structure looks very different, although all of these questions are answered one way or another.

Why am I doing it? Introduction

Significance

What is known?

What is unknown? Review of research

Identifying gaps

What do I hope to discover? Aims

How am I going to discover it? Methodology

What have I found? Results

What does it mean? Discussion

So what? What are the possible applications or recommendations?

What contribution does it make to knowledge? What next? Conclusions

Occasionally a thesis is written which does not in any way comply with this structure. Generally the reasons you want to have a recognised, transparent structure are that, to some extent, it is expected and the conventional structure allows readers ready access to the information. If, however, you want to publish a book based on the thesis, it is likely the structure would need to be altered for the different genre and audience. 如何撰写综述性论文

第一部分 什么是综述？

综述，其中综是综合，述，更多的不是叙述，而是评述和述评。只评述还不够，还要就观点、材料和方法进行综述。“综”是要求对文献资料进行综合分析、归纳整理，使材料更精练明确、更有逻辑层次；“述”就是要求对综合整理后的文献进行比较专门的、全面的、深入的、系统的论述。总之，文献综述是作者对某一方面问题的历史背景、前人工作、争论焦点、研究现状和发展前景等内容进行评论的科学性论文。

文献综述是对某一方面的专题搜集大量情报资料后经综合分析而写成的一种学术论文， 它是科学文献的一种。

文献综述是反映当前某一领域中某分支学科或重要专题的最新进展、学术见解和建议。它往往能反映出有关问题的新动态、新趋势、新水平、新原理和新技术等等。

学写综述，至少有以下好处：

①通过搜集文献资料过程，可进一步熟悉科学文献的查找方法和资料的积累方法；在查找的过程中同时也扩大了知识面；

②查找文献资料、写文献综述是科研选题及进行科研的第一步，因此学习文献综述的撰写也是为今后科研活动打基础的过程；

③通过综述的写作过程，能提高归纳、分析、综合能力，有利于独立工作能力和科研能力的提高；

④文献综述选题范围广，题目可大可小，可难可易。

第二部分 综述的类型

文献综述有两种，一种是“大综述”，就一个领域的文献的总结。另一种是“小综述”。这个综述的目的主要不是为了向其他人介绍前沿，而是为了推出自己的论述和模型，是以述带论，就是说明现有的研究状况如何，缺在哪里，我准备做的贡献是什么。所以，这种综述并不强求非常全面细致，而应该侧重介绍与自己的研究直接相关的文献。

第三部分 综述的写作过程和方法

怎样写文献综述？形式可大可小，看8-10篇与科研课题相关的文献，进行高度的总和、概述、分析，从概念到理论，不要出现摘要堆积；在内容上，与科研课题结合起来。写文献综述一般经过以下几个阶段：即选题，搜集阅读文献资料、拟定提纲（包括归纳、整理、分析）和成文。

一、选题和搜集阅读文献

撰写文献综述通常出于某种需要，如为某学术会议的专题、从事某项科研、为某方面积累文献资料等等，所以，文献综述的选题，作者一般是明确的，不象科研课题选题那么困难。文献综述选题范围广，题目可大可小，大到一个领域、一个学科，小到一种算法、一个方法、一个理论，可根据自己的需要而定。

选定题目后，则要围绕题目进行搜集与文题有关的文献。关于搜集文献的有关方法，可以如看专著、年鉴法、浏览法、滚雪球法、检索法等等。搜集文献要求越全越好，因而最常用的方法是用检索法。搜集好与文题有关的参考文献后，就要对这些参考文献进行阅读、归纳、整理，如何从这些文献中选出具有代表性、科学性和可靠性大的单篇研究文献十分重要，从某种意义上讲，所阅读和选择的文献的质量高低，直接影响文献综述的水平。因此在阅读文献时，要写好“读书笔记”、“读书心得”和做好“文献摘录卡片”。用自己的语言写下阅读时得到的启示、体会和想法，将文献的精髓摘录下来，不仅为撰写综述时提供有用的资料，而且对于训练自己的表达能力，阅读水平都有好处，特别是将文献整理成文献摘录卡片，对撰写综述极为有利。

二、格式与写法

文献综述的格式与一般研究性论文的格式有所不同。这是因为研究性的论文注重研究的方法和结果，特别是阳性结果，而文献综述要求向读者介绍与主题有关的详细资料、动态、进展、展望以及对以上方面的评述。因此文献综述的格式相对多样，但总的来说，一般都包含以下四部分：即前言、主题、总结和参考文献。撰写文献综述时可按这四部分拟写提纲，再根据提纲进行撰写。

前言部分，主要是说明写作的目的，介绍有关的概念及定义以及综述的范围，扼要说明有关主题的现状或争论焦点，使读者对全文要叙述的问题有一个初步的轮廓。

主题部分，是综述的主体，其写法多样，没有固定的格式。可按年代顺序综述，也可按不同的问题进行综述，还可按不同的观点进行比较综述，不管用那一种格式综述，都要将所搜集到的文献资料归纳、整理及分析比较，阐明有关主题的历史背景、现状和发展方向，以及对这些问题的评述，主题部分应特别注意代表性强、具有科学性和创造性的文献引用和评述。

总结部分，与研究性论文的小结有些类似，将全文主题进行扼要总结，对所综述的主题，有研究经验的作者，最好能提出自己的见解。

参考文献虽然放在文末，但却是文献综述的重要组成部分。因为它不仅表示对被引用文献作者的尊重及引用文献的依据，而且为读者深入探讨有关问题提供了文献查找线索。因此，应认真对待。参考文献的编排应条目清楚，查找方便，内容准确无误。

三、注意事项

由于文献综述的特点，致使它的写作既不同于“读书笔记”“读书报告”，也不同于一般的科研论文。因此，在撰写文献综述时应注意以下几个问题：

⒈、搜集文献应尽量全。掌握全面、大量的文献资料是写好综述的前提，否则，随便搜集一点资料就动手撰写是不可能写出好的综述的，甚至写出的文章根本不成为综述。

⒉、注意引用文献的代表性、可靠性和科学性。在搜集到的文献中可能出现观点雷同，有的文献在可靠性及科学性方面存在着差异，因此在引用文献时应注意选用代表性、可靠性和科学性较好的文献。

⒊、引用文献要忠实文献内容。由于文献综述有作者自己的评论分析，因此在撰写时应分清作者的观点和文献的内容，不能篡改文献的内容。

⒋、参考文献不能省略。有的科研论文可以将参考文献省略，但文献综述绝对不能省略，而且应是文中引用过的，能反映主题全貌的并且是作者直接阅读过的文献资料。

第四部分 综述的基本写作要求

文献综述特征

1.一般字数控制在4000-6000字左右；

2.以评述为主，不可罗列文献；

3.基本格式通常包括题目、作者、摘要、关键词、前言、正文、结语和参考文献等几个部分；

4.中文参考15-20篇，英文参考20篇左右，文献要新，50％-80％最好为3年内的文献。

5.如果文献综述是为开题报告作准备，整篇文章建议为漏斗状结构，即“有什么研究进展，问题是什么，怎么找方向”。

第五部分 综述的写作技巧

1 题目

1.1 如果文章为结果论文

标题格式 a） Effect of （因素） on（观测项目）in（研究对象）Progress

b） （观测对象）in （研究对象） Progress

c） 无固定格式

1.2 如果文章为方法论文

标题格式 d） Methods for … Progress

2 摘要常用句型

归纳了…研究中的关键问题

指出了…及其…研究的主要进展

讨论了…的类型、影响因素、过程机理和描述方法

在此基础上，对…规律的研究前景进行了展望

3 关键词 指能代表整篇综述意义的3～5个词语。

4 前言 4.1 内容：

问题的历史、现状和发展动态，有关概念和定义，

选择这一专题的目的和动机、应用价值和实践意义。

4.2 常用句式

…是…的重要研究内容

过去研究主要集中在…

（深度上）…

（广度上）…

（有争论的问题）…

鉴于…的工作将对今后…研究意义以及…的现实应用意义

作者就…的关键问题进行了系统的分析和综述

5 正文

5.1 综述材料来源广泛，因此段落结构格式非常重要，举例如下表；

第一句 第二句 第三句 第四句 第五句 第六句

主题句 陈述理论1 研究支持1 陈述理论2 研究支持2 ，等。

主题句 研究支持1 研究支持2 研究支持3，等。例外情况

研究意义 主题句 研究支持1 说明理论1，等。主题句

5.2 纵横结合式写法

写历史背景采用纵式写法，围绕某一专题，按时间先后顺序或专题本身发展层次，对其历史演变、目前状况、趋向预测作纵向描述；写目前状况采用横式写法，对某一专题在国际和国内的各个方面，如各派观点、各家之言、各种方法、各自成就等加以描述和比较。通过横向对比，既可以分辨出各种观点、见解、方法、成果的优劣利弊，又可以看出国际水平、国内水平和本单位水平，从而找到了差距。

5.3 相关研究不必全部列举，每一个主题举2-5个有代表意义的研究。

5.4 常用句式

了解…的成因及其影响因素对认识…有重要的意义

…的特征可用…来描述，其中常用的有…

由于…受…等多种因素的影响，所以研究者通过…来描述各因素对…的影响

影响…的因素很多，下面就…进行论述

…不仅取决于…，而且受到…的制约

…与…有关

…是…的重要影响因素之一

…对…的影响主要表现在…

研究表明…

产生…的原因有…

6 结语

一般为展望结构，如果是开题报告前的文献综述，需要把想做什么阐述清楚