quick tip to anyone working on their first peer-reviewed article: the literature review is still part of the argument, not an autonomous part of the paper. Every sentence in the lit review needs to be a nod, acknowledgement, or very brief summary that builds *your* argument.

I see a lot of literature reviews that are both too long and too focused on mapping it all. A lit review is not a field exam. You don't need to prove what you know. You need to nod at what came before and engage the 2 or 3 key arguments you're building on and/or disagreeing with.

I tell grad students to think of a literature review as a cocktail party at which they only have a small amount of time. You can nod at lots of people in the room, maybe say a few words, but the bulk of your time should be with the two or three people you really want to talk to.

Another related thing that I just saw in a paper I reviewed and that I am often guilty of myself: Very early on the paper needs to show either who’s wrong or what’s wrong and quite specifically what should change because of this argument. Otherwise arguments feel way too vague.

In other words, it’s not enough to show, for example, that money is culturally embedded, or that that sexuality is more complex than some think. What are the previous theories or empirics specifically getting wrong or missing? What specifically does your contribution change?

This then needs to be sign-posted throughout the article. Too often authors save the most interesting insight for the conclusion or the end of the analysis section. Shout your brilliance to the stars and shout it over and over again.

To be clear when I say “who’s wrong” I’m not necessarily calling for articles that attack other authors’ work. That’s one strategy and it can be productive but I prefer the idea of building off of people so if you prefer, you might use “what’s missing” instead of “what’s wrong”

really glad people find this thread helpful! I'd add something else here which is part of the point of your engagement with previous literature is to show how your argument is more than just interesting. It can't be just nobody has ever applied X theory to y case before.

In too many articles, the framing and review basically say 'I'm the first person to apply X theory to y data.' Which is interesting, but it's not clear how this changes our understanding of either x theory or y data. The stakes should be clear from the beginning to the end.

Also, you're almost certainly not the first to apply x theory to y data. That makes figuring out your precise argument and how it is specific and distinct even more important. And it's even more important to build off colleagues rather than claim that only you have seen truth.