Write a Literature Review with AI — Systematic and Comprehensive

I am conducting a literature review on [your topic, e.g., 'the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for workplace burnout']. I need to build a systematic search strategy that is comprehensive and replicable. **My research question:** [e.g., 'Are mindfulness-based interventions effective at reducing burnout in healthcare workers, and what moderates their effectiveness?'] **What I already know is in the literature:** [List 3-5 papers or research groups you already know about] **Databases I have access to:** [e.g., PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar] **Scope constraints:** - Date range: [e.g., '2010 to present' / 'no date limit'] - Language: [e.g., 'English only' / 'English and Spanish'] - Study types to include: [e.g., 'RCTs and systematic reviews only' / 'any empirical study' / 'all including theoretical papers'] - Population focus: [e.g., 'healthcare workers only' / 'any occupational setting'] Please help me: 1. **Generate a comprehensive keyword list** — For my topic, what are all the relevant search terms I should use? Include synonyms, related constructs, and the specific terminology used in different sub-fields. For example, 'burnout' might also be searched as 'occupational exhaustion,' 'job burnout,' 'emotional exhaustion,' 'compassion fatigue' depending on the field. 2. **Build Boolean search strings** — Combine these terms into search strings I can run in academic databases. Provide one version for PubMed/MEDLINE format and one for general databases like Semantic Scholar. 3. **Identify adjacent fields I should search** — What related disciplines might have relevant papers that would not show up in a search focused only on my primary field? (e.g., a workplace burnout review should probably also search organizational psychology, occupational medicine, and positive psychology). 4. **Suggest inclusion and exclusion criteria** — What criteria should I use to decide which papers to include or exclude? Be specific (not just 'relevant studies' — that is circular). 5. **Estimate how many results to expect** — Based on the scope and my search terms, is this a small, medium, or large literature? Should I be more or less restrictive?

I have run my literature search and have [number] results to screen. I need to build an efficient screening protocol and then analyze the papers I select. **My research question:** [Your research question] **My inclusion criteria:** [From step 1 or your own criteria] **My exclusion criteria:** [From step 1 or your own criteria] **My current screening problem:** [Describe what you are struggling with — e.g., 'I have 450 titles/abstracts to screen and am not sure which to prioritize' / 'I have 80 full texts and need to decide which are truly central vs. peripheral'] For the screening protocol, please give me: 1. **A title/abstract screening checklist** — A list of 5-7 yes/no questions I can apply to each title/abstract in under 30 seconds to decide include/exclude/uncertain. Make these questions operationally specific, not vague. 2. **Full-text screening criteria** — For papers that pass abstract screening, what specific elements should I check in the full text to make the include/exclude decision? 3. **A data extraction template** — For each paper I include, what information should I extract? Create a table structure with columns for: citation info, study design, sample, measures used, key findings, limitations, relevance to my specific research question. 4. **How to handle edge cases** — Papers that are partially relevant, papers with contradictory findings from the same lab, highly cited papers that do not quite fit my criteria, preprints versus published papers. 5. **A synthesis matrix structure** — Once I have extracted data from all papers, how should I organize the matrix so I can see patterns across studies? What rows and columns make sense for my specific topic?

I have read [number] papers and extracted data from them. I need to synthesize them into a coherent literature review. I am going to give you my notes and you will help me find the structure. **My research question:** [Your research question] **My data extraction notes (paste your synthesis matrix or notes):** [Paste your extracted notes here — organized by paper, with key findings, methodology, and themes you noticed. The more specific, the better. Aim for at least 10-15 papers worth of notes.] **My initial impression of the themes:** [Your rough sense of what the main themes or debates are — even if fuzzy] Please help me: 1. **Identify the major themes** — Looking across all the papers, what are the 3-5 major themes or questions that organize this literature? These should be intellectual categories, not just topic labels. 2. **Map the debates** — For each theme, what is the primary disagreement? Who are the main 'camps' and what is the key empirical or theoretical point of contention? 3. **Identify the consensus findings** — What do virtually all studies agree on? What is the settled ground that I can state without extensive qualification? 4. **Identify the genuine gaps** — Based on what these papers collectively cover, what questions remain unanswered? Be specific: 'No studies have examined X population' or 'The mediating mechanism between A and B has been theorized but not tested' is a genuine gap. 'More research is needed' is not. 5. **Suggest a section structure for my literature review** — Given these themes, debates, and gaps, propose a structure for my literature review with section headings and a 2-3 sentence description of what each section argues (not just describes). 6. **Flag contradictions I need to address** — Are there studies in my notes that directly contradict each other? I need to address these contradictions explicitly, not smooth over them.

I am ready to draft my literature review. I have my section structure and my synthesis notes. I need help turning this into a strong academic narrative. **My research question:** [Your research question] **My literature review section structure:** [Your section headings and what each section argues] **What my literature review needs to establish by the end:** [The gap or problem that your study/research addresses — this should flow logically from the review] **Draft of my first section (paste your rough draft):** [Your rough draft of one section — write it yourself first, even badly, then ask for feedback] For this draft section, please: 1. **Assess whether it makes an argument** — A literature review section should not be a list of summaries. It should be making a claim. What is the claim of my draft section? If you cannot identify a clear claim, tell me. 2. **Evaluate the synthesis** — Am I explaining the relationship between studies, or just listing them? When I mention multiple papers, am I showing how they relate to each other (agree, contradict, extend, qualify)? 3. **Check the critical voice** — Literature reviews require critical evaluation, not just description. Am I noting the limitations and assumptions of the studies I discuss, or am I treating them all as equally authoritative? 4. **Assess the transitions** — Does each paragraph connect to the next? Does the section build toward a point, or does it just stop? 5. **Identify missing papers** — Based on the claims I am making, are there any points where I say something that clearly needs a citation but does not have one? Flag those. 6. **Suggest 3-5 specific revisions** — Give me the most impactful edits I can make, with the reason each one matters. Do not rewrite my section — point me to the specific problems.