W5B. Introduction Structure, Titling, Tenses in Introduction
1. Summary
1.1 The Introduction of a Systematic Literature Review
The Introduction of a systematic literature review is the section that establishes why your review needs to exist. It does not summarize what the review found—that belongs to the Results and Discussion. Instead, it provides the context and justification for conducting the review in the first place.
According to the PRISMA standard (the leading framework for systematic reviews), an effective Introduction must contain two obligatory elements:
- Rationale: A description of why this review is needed, situated within the context of existing knowledge. This includes a brief survey of what has already been studied and a description of what is missing—the research gap.
- Objectives: An explicit statement of the research question(s) or goal(s) that the review addresses.
1.1.1 Writing the Rationale
The rationale answers the implicit reader question: “Why should I read this review? Why was it necessary to conduct it?”
To build the rationale:
- Frame the broader topic: Begin with a brief description of the field or problem area. Why is this topic important? Who cares about it?
- Survey the existing landscape: Briefly describe what systematic literature reviews already exist on the topic. Cite 1–2 of the most relevant existing SLRs from your initial search.
- Identify the gap: Explain precisely how your review differs from, extends, or improves upon existing reviews. This gap description should connect directly to the gap statement you formulated in your research process.
The rationale should be concise—typically 2–4 sentences or a short paragraph. Its goal is to give the reader just enough context to understand why the review is justified.
1.1.2 Stating the Objective
After the rationale, state your research question or goal explicitly. This is typically a single sentence or two:
- “This review aims to systematically examine…”
- “The objective of this study is to identify…”
- “This paper addresses the following research question: What are…?”
The objective sentence should be precise enough that a reader can determine, after reading the rest of the paper, whether the review achieved what it set out to do.
1.2 Tenses in the Introduction
Tense choice in the Introduction signals whether you are talking about established knowledge, your specific study, or actions performed during the research process.
| Content type | Recommended tense | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Established facts and general knowledge | Present Simple | “Autonomous vehicles represent a significant shift in transportation.” |
| Descriptions of existing research | Present Perfect or Past Simple | “Several reviews have examined / examined the ethical implications of…” |
| Identifying the gap (a condition that currently exists) | Present Simple | “However, no comprehensive review addresses the period after 2020.” |
| Stating the objective of this study | Present Simple | “This review aims to fill this gap by…” |
A common mistake is to use the Future Simple tense (“This review will examine…”) throughout the Introduction. While Future Simple is acceptable in proposals, in a completed paper the Present Simple is standard for stating objectives.
1.3 Titling a Systematic Literature Review
The title of your paper is the first—and often the only—thing a reader will see. In academic databases, papers are found through their titles and keywords. A title that fails to communicate the topic accurately will cause your paper to be overlooked, even by readers who would benefit from it.
1.3.1 Characteristics of an Effective Title
A good title for a systematic literature review should be:
- Accurate: The title must precisely reflect the scope and content of the review.
- Informative: It should include enough detail that a reader immediately understands the topic and type of paper.
- Concise: Avoid unnecessary words. Every word in the title should carry meaning.
- Keyword-rich: Use the exact terms researchers in your field use when searching databases, since this determines discoverability.
- Specific: Avoid vague or generic titles. “A Review of Artificial Intelligence” tells a reader almost nothing.
1.3.2 Common Title Structures for SLRs
Several conventional title structures work well for systematic literature reviews:
- “A Systematic Literature Review of [Topic]: [Aspect or scope]”
- Example: “A Systematic Literature Review of Autonomous Vehicle Ethics: Behavioral Attitudes and Decision-Making Frameworks”
- “[Topic]: A Systematic Review”
- Example: “Augmented Reality in Patient Education: A Systematic Review”
- “[Topic] in [Context/Domain]: [Additional specification]”
- Example: “Trustworthy AI in Architecture and Construction: A Systematic Review of Applications and Research Gaps”
The phrase “systematic review” or “systematic literature review” should appear in the title explicitly. This signals to databases and readers that the paper follows a rigorous, documented methodology—which increases its credibility and citability.