Overview
Who it is for: researchers and postgraduate students in Film and Television Studies writing a literature review chapter or a standalone review.
What you get:
- Ready Boolean search strings for Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, Google Scholar and Arabic databases.
- A literature review matrix that keeps what each study reports apart from your own interpretation, with CSV export.
- A selection-flow diagram, a critical appraisal of each study, themes and an evidence map.
- Research gaps linked to studies in your matrix, a review draft and a final report.
Have ready before you start: your topic and review question, the studies you have found (with their bibliographic details), and your search result counts if you recorded them. The tool does not search databases and does not create sources: every study in the matrix is one you enter.
Moving around: Next step and Previous step, or the numbered circles at the top. Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required. Your answers save automatically.
To try it quickly: click “Load practice studies” in Step 3 or 4 to add four published studies on drama audiences, then try the remaining steps on them.
Example used in this guide: a narrative review of research on Arab women’s reception of Turkish television drama in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf (2010–2026).
Accessing the tool
Open the tool from the Teaching Experience page (Digital Learning Resources) or directly at: Literature Review in Film and Television Studies. Every Builder step also has a “Guidance for this step” link that opens this guide at the same step in a new tab.
↑ Back to contentsLearning outcomes
After completing the tool’s steps you will be able to:
- Define the review’s scope and type and build a documented bilingual search strategy.
- Screen studies and organise them in a matrix that separates what each study reports from your interpretation.
- Critically appraise studies and synthesise them into themes that show agreement and disagreement.
- Identify evidence-based research gaps and write a critical, not merely descriptive, review.
Literature Review Builder: the ten steps
Step 1 — Scope
| Field | What to enter | Correct example |
|---|---|---|
| Research topic * | The review topic in a phrase | Arab audiences of Turkish television drama |
| Research problem * | What is not yet understood and why it matters (at least 10 words) | Research on Arab audiences of Turkish drama is scattered across disciplines and rarely compares methods or findings. |
| Main review question * | “What does the literature show about…?” | What does existing research show about how Arab women interpret Turkish television drama? |
| Literature review objectives * | One per line | To map the theories used / to compare methods / to identify gaps |
| Theoretical perspective | Relevant theories | cultural proximity; uses and gratifications |
| Geographical and cultural context | Country or region | Saudi Arabia and the Gulf |
| Populations or audiovisual materials | Whom or what the studies examine | female viewers; Turkish serials (dizi) |
| Publication period | Years covered | 2010–2026 |
| Preferred research approaches | Qualitative, mixed, quantitative, textual criticism, review or theoretical | Qualitative, mixed methods |
| Type of literature review * | Narrative, critical, integrative, scoping or systematic. Each card shows what it requires | Narrative review |
Step 2 — Search strategy
Enter at least two concepts, each with synonyms in English and Arabic separated by commas. Synonyms of one concept are joined with OR, and concepts with AND. Multi-word terms are put in quotation marks automatically; add * for truncation (e.g. viewer*).
| Field | Correct example |
|---|---|
| Concept 1 — English | Turkish drama, dizi, Turkish series |
| Concept 1 — Arabic | الدراما التركية، المسلسلات التركية |
| Concept 2 — English | audience, viewer, reception |
| Concept 2 — Arabic | الجمهور، المشاهدون، التلقي |
| Databases to search * | Scopus, Google Scholar, Arabic databases |
| From year / To year | 2010 / 2026 |
| Languages and publication types | English and Arabic; peer-reviewed articles and theses |
| Terms to exclude with NOT (optional) | "video game" |
| Search log notes (optional) | Searched 13 Nov 2026; Scopus: 86 results |
The ready strings appear at the bottom of the step, each with a Copy button. Paste them into the database and record the date and number of results.
↑ Back to contentsStep 3 — Screening
| Field | What to enter | Correct example |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion criteria * | Topic, population, period, language, study type | Peer-reviewed studies in Arabic or English (2010–2026) on Arab audiences of Turkish drama |
| Exclusion criteria * | What will be left out and why | Studies analysing texts without audiences; opinion pieces |
| Records identified / duplicates removed / excluded at title-abstract | Counts from your search log | 214 / 37 / 120 |
Then add each study you read in full (“Add a study”) and give it a decision: Included, Undecided or Excluded. For excluded studies choose a reason (e.g. “Outside the publication period” or “Wrong population or material”). The selection-flow diagram updates automatically. PRISMA is only required for systematic and scoping reviews.
↑ Back to contentsStep 4 — Evidence matrix
“Add a study” or “Edit” opens a form with three groups:
| Group | Fields | Correct example |
|---|---|---|
| Bibliographic details | Author(s) , year , title *, journal, DOI | Alardawi, M.; Brereton, P. — 2024 — Squid Game: Pleasure and consumption… — Mediatization Studies — https://doi.org/10.17951/ms.2024.8.69-89 |
| Reported by the study | Objectives, questions, theoretical framework, methodology, design, sample, context, collection, analysis, findings, limitations | Methodology: mixed; sample: survey (N=50) and focus groups (23 participants aged 18–30) |
| Your interpretation | Relevance to the current study, your critical observations | Offers a methodological model for combining a survey with focus groups, but the survey sample is small |
Separate authors with a semicolon (;) so citations and references are built correctly, and separate theoretical frameworks with commas so they appear separately on the evidence map. The step needs at least one included study to continue.
↑ Back to contentsStep 5 — Critical appraisal
- Choose the study in “Study to appraise”.
- Choose the kind of study: empirical (qualitative, quantitative or mixed) or interpretive film or television criticism. The ten criteria change with the kind.
- Rate each criterion: Yes / Partly / No / Not applicable. Empirical criteria: clarity of objectives, theoretical coherence, methodological appropriateness, design justification, sampling, data collection, analytical rigour, ethics, transparency and limitations, relevance to the review question.
- Write the overall appraisal notes. Example: “A justified mixed design, but the survey does not allow generalisation; its results are used as exploratory.”
A table under the step shows each study’s result. Rate at least five criteria for at least half of your included studies.
↑ Back to contentsStep 6 — Synthesis
Add a theme (or click a suggested theme), then:
| Field | What to enter | Correct example |
|---|---|---|
| Theme name * | A short name | Negotiating the values portrayed |
| Point this theme makes | What the studies say together | Viewers negotiate rather than adopt the values portrayed |
| Studies in this theme | Tick two or more included studies | Alardawi (2026), Berg et al. (2025) |
| Where studies agree | Shared findings | Several studies report selective identification with characters |
| Where studies disagree, and possible reasons | Contradictions and their explanation | Findings differ by age, possibly because of different methods (survey versus focus groups) |
The Research Synthesis Matrix is built automatically under the themes.
↑ Back to contentsStep 7 — Research gaps
| Field | What to enter | Correct example |
|---|---|---|
| Type of gap | Empirical, theoretical, methodological, contextual or geographical, population-related, contradictory findings, under-explored material | Population-related gap |
| Gap statement * | What is missing, contradictory or unresolved | Studies focus on women and rarely examine male viewers. |
| Supporting studies from your matrix | Tick the studies that show the gap | Alardawi (2026), Alardawi (2025) |
Each gap is labelled automatically: Potential gap (not linked to studies), Needs further verification (one study or one database), Supported by reviewed evidence (two or more studies and two or more databases). Remember: finding no studies in your search does not by itself prove a gap.
↑ Back to contentsStep 8 — Structure
Choose the organising principle (thematic, theoretical, methodological, chronological, comparative), click “Fill themes and gaps from my entries”, then complete the eight outline parts (introduction, themes, debates, methods, critical appraisal, limitations, gaps, conclusion). Example: a thematic structure.
↑ Back to contentsStep 9 — Writing
- Write the limitations of this review (optional), e.g. “Only English and Arabic; three databases searched.”
- The tool drafts a review from your entries: an introduction, a paragraph per theme, the gaps and a conclusion. Edit it directly and complete any square brackets [ ].
- The critical-writing check counts descriptive versus comparative or evaluative sentences, paragraphs that cite only one study, and vague wording.
Step 10 — Evaluate and report
- Review the consistency checks (Fix / Check / Consistent).
- Rate the review from 1 to 5 on ten criteria, including relevance, search transparency, critical engagement, depth of synthesis and evidence for gaps. Start with “Apply suggested scores”.
- The final report includes the matrix and a reference list built from your entries; copy, print, or download Word or text.
Reading the feedback
- Gap labels: “Potential gap”, “Needs further verification” and “Supported by reviewed evidence”, according to the number of linked studies and databases.
- Critical-writing check: counts descriptive versus comparative or evaluative sentences, paragraphs citing a single study, and vague wording.
- Consistency checks: “Fix”, then “Check”, then “Consistent”.
- Selection-flow diagram: combines the numbers you entered with the screening decisions in your matrix.
Other sections and supporting tools
| Section (site menu) | What it does | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Search Strategy Builder (Tool A) | Review types, a database table and your search strings | Copy a string and paste it into the database |
| Literature Review Matrix (Tool B) | A table of all studies with filter, sort and export | Search the matrix, filter by decision, switch between key and all columns, export CSV for Excel |
| Research Evidence Map (Tool C) | Links each included study to its theories, themes and methodology | Hover over a study to highlight its links |
| Critical Appraisal (Tool D) | CASP, JBI and MMAT explained, the criteria lists and your appraisals | Click “Appraise” beside any study to go to Step 5 |
| Evidence Synthesis (Tool F) | The synthesis matrix and a study comparison table | Choose the comparison dimensions (theory, methodology, findings…) |
| Research Gap Explorer (Tool E) | Gap types, what the labels mean, a summary of your gaps | Read it before Step 7 |
| Literature Review Writing | Description to synthesis, linking phrases, citation patterns, a checker for any paragraph, and the glossary (Tool H) | Paste a paragraph from your review into the critical-writing check |
| Academic Examples (Tool G) | Hypothetical teaching examples and a published review | Filter by area |
| Academic References | The tool’s sources in APA 7 | For citation |
Saving, exporting and privacy
- Automatic saving in this browser only; nothing is sent to a server.
- Switching language keeps your project (your text is not translated).
- Another device: “Export my project (JSON)”, then “Import project”. For the matrix alone: “Export CSV” or “Export JSON” in the matrix section.
- Deleting: “Delete my saved data” needs a second click to confirm, and so does deleting a study from the matrix.
Common literature review mistakes
| Mistake | Example | Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Describing one study after another | “Smith (2020) studied Turkish drama audiences in Jordan…” | A paragraph that brings several studies together, compares and evaluates them |
| Mixing what a study reports with your interpretation | Writing your opinion in the “Findings” field | Findings as reported; your view in “Researcher’s critical observations” |
| A gap without evidence | “I found no studies, so there is a gap” | Link the gap to studies and a documented search in more than one database |
| Searching in one language | English terms only for an Arab topic | Add Arabic terms and Arabic databases |
| Choosing “systematic review” without its requirements | One database and no protocol | Choose a type whose requirements you can meet |
| Relying on AI without checking | Invented references or inaccurate findings | Check every source in the original |
Note: the strings, checks, draft and scores come from transparent programmed rules, not artificial intelligence. The tool does not search databases or verify references, and it does not replace academic supervision.
↑ Back to contentsFrequently asked questions and troubleshooting
- Why can’t I move to the next step?
- Some required fields (marked with an asterisk) are empty or too short. A message appears at the top of the step and each missing field is highlighted with a note below it; complete them and click Next again.
- Where are my answers saved?
- In this browser’s local storage on this device only; nothing is sent to a server. On another device or browser your answers appear only after you import a JSON file you exported earlier.
- Does the tool search databases for me?
- No. It only builds the search strings; copy them into each database, then enter the studies you find in the matrix.
- Why doesn’t a study appear on the evidence map?
- Only “Included” studies appear. Change the screening decision to Included and fill in the theoretical framework and research methodology fields.
- Do I have to follow PRISMA?
- Only for systematic and scoping reviews. A narrative or critical review does not need a PRISMA diagram.
- How do I open the matrix in Excel?
- Click “Export CSV” in the matrix section, then open the file in Excel.
- How do I save the report as a PDF?
- In the final step click the print button (“Print” or “Print / save as PDF”), then choose “Save as PDF” in your browser’s print dialog. Only the report is printed, not the rest of the site.
- Are my answers translated when I switch to the Arabic version?
- No. Your answers move to the other version exactly as you wrote them; only the interface and guidance change language.
- My answers have disappeared. What happened?
- Usually the browser data was cleared, private (incognito) browsing was used, or the tool was opened in a different browser. They can only be restored from an exported JSON file, so export a backup regularly.
- Does the tool use artificial intelligence?
- No. All feedback, formulations and suggested scores come from transparent programmed rules (word lists and templates), so the tool may miss a problem or flag something that is fine; your judgement and your supervisor’s come first.
Ready to start? Open the tool and follow the steps alongside this guide.
Open the tool