Try Wonders for free
The two assignments use the same sources and the same reading, which is why they get confused. They differ in what you do with the reading. An annotated bibliography asks: what is this source, and is it any good? A literature review asks: taken together, what do these sources tell us, and what do they leave open?
Definitions
Annotated bibliography. Cornell University Library's widely used definition: "a list of citations to books, articles, and documents. Each citation is followed by a brief (usually about 150 words) descriptive and evaluative paragraph, the annotation." Its purpose is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy and quality of the sources cited.
Literature review. A synthesis of the scholarship on a topic, written as connected prose and organized around themes, debates or methods. It shows how sources relate to each other and to your research question, and identifies what is missing. It can be a standalone paper, a thesis chapter or a section of an article. For a full walkthrough see how to start a literature review.
Comparison
| Annotated bibliography | Literature review | |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of organization | The source | The theme or argument |
| Order | Alphabetical by author (sometimes chronological or by subtopic) | Thematic, chronological, methodological or theoretical |
| Form | List: citation, then a paragraph, repeated | Continuous prose with an introduction, body sections and a conclusion |
| Each source appears | Once, in its own entry | Wherever relevant, often several times, usually alongside other sources |
| Main skill shown | Finding, summarizing and evaluating individual sources | Comparing, synthesizing and identifying gaps |
| Voice | Describes and assesses the source | Makes claims about the field, using sources as evidence |
| Typical length | About 150 words per source (Cornell), though it varies with the purpose | Set by the assignment or the thesis regulations |
| Ends with | Nothing. The last entry is the end | A summary of what is known, what is not, and where your study fits |
| Citations | Full reference above each annotation | In-text citations plus a reference list |
| When it is written | Early, while collecting sources | After enough reading to see patterns |
What goes in an annotation
Purdue OWL describes three jobs an annotation can do: summarize, assess and reflect. Assignments differ in which they require, so check the brief.
| Type | Contains | Use when |
|---|---|---|
| Descriptive (indicative) | What the source covers, without its conclusions | The brief asks only for a description, or for a quick reading list |
| Summary (informative) | The argument, method and findings | You need a record of content |
| Evaluative (critical) | Strengths, weaknesses, authority, bias, comparison with other sources | Most university assignments |
| Combination | Two or three sentences of summary, two or three of evaluation, one or two on relevance to your project | The default if the brief does not say |
A reliable structure for a combination annotation:
- Who and what. The author's credentials or the publication venue, and the type of source.
- Main claim or finding, and the method or evidence behind it.
- Evaluation. Sample, design, currency, limitations, how it compares with other work.
- Use. How it will serve your project.
The same two sources, written both ways
The example uses two real methodological papers on the topic of choosing a review type.
As annotated bibliography entries (APA 7)
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Writing in a health information journal, Grant and Booth catalogue fourteen types of review, from the critical review to the umbrella review, and describe each using a common framework of search, appraisal, synthesis and analysis (SALSA). Their aim is descriptive: to give librarians and researchers a shared vocabulary at a time when labels were used loosely. The main strength is the consistent table that lets types be compared line by line, including the “systematized review” typical of solo postgraduate work. The authors acknowledge that few of the types have prescribed methods and that the categories overlap. The examples are drawn from health and the paper predates PRISMA 2020 and current scoping review guidance, so it is better used for definitions than for procedure. I will use it to justify labelling my own review as systematized.
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Written by six authors from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) at the University of Adelaide, this open-access paper addresses a narrower question than Grant and Booth: when is a scoping review the right choice instead of a systematic review? It sets out six indications for a scoping review, such as identifying the types of evidence available or clarifying concepts, and provides a table contrasting traditional, scoping and systematic reviews on protocol, search, appraisal and synthesis. The guidance is clear and practical, though it reflects the position of one organization and draws mainly on health examples. It is more current and more prescriptive than Grant and Booth. It supports my decision not to draw conclusions about effectiveness from a mapping exercise.
In the submitted document, the reference has a hanging indent and the annotation paragraph is indented 0.5 inches under it. APA 7 puts the journal title and volume number in italics, as shown. Each entry stands alone. Each summarizes, evaluates and states a use. The second mentions the first, which is good practice, but the comparison is incidental.
As a literature review paragraph
What changed between the two versions:
| In the annotations | In the review paragraph |
|---|---|
| Organized by source | Organized by a claim about the field: "from description towards prescription" |
| Author credentials described | Dropped. Authority is implied by citing them |
| Each source summarized in several sentences | Each compressed to the one point relevant to the claim |
| Evaluation of each source separately | Evaluation of both together: shared limitation (health focus) |
| "I will use it to..." | Replaced by a gap: what neither source covers |
Turning annotations into a review
- Tag each annotation with two to four themes. Read through them and write keywords in the margin: "definitions", "solo reviewer", "appraisal". Recurring tags become candidate sections.
- Regroup by theme. A synthesis matrix is the cleanest way: one row per source, one column per theme, and the relevant sentence from each annotation moved into the right cell.
- Write a topic sentence for each theme that is about the literature, not about a source. "Studies agree that...", "Findings diverge on...", "Most evidence comes from...".
- Bring in sources as evidence, several per paragraph, compressed to what is relevant. Keep the evaluative comments, because they explain why findings differ.
- End each section with what is unresolved, and the review with the gap your study addresses. See how to find research gaps.
- Delete the "use" sentences. They were notes to yourself.
If a paragraph of your review cites only one source, you are probably still writing annotations.
Which one have you been asked for?
Assignment briefs are not always explicit. Some clues:
| The brief says | It probably wants |
|---|---|
| "List and evaluate 10 sources", "annotate", "for each source" | Annotated bibliography |
| "Synthesize", "critically review the literature on", "identify gaps", "situate your study" | Literature review |
| "Annotated bibliography with an introduction" | A bibliography plus a one-page overview of themes across the sources. A halfway step towards a review |
| "Literature review matrix" or "source summary table" | A table. Ask whether prose is also required |
When in doubt, ask. Submitting the wrong genre is an avoidable way to lose marks.
Common mistakes
In annotated bibliographies
- Paraphrasing the abstract instead of evaluating.
- Evaluating with empty words such as "useful" or "interesting" without saying why, for what, or compared with what.
- Inconsistent citation format. The references are half of the assignment. The citation guides cover the details for each style.
- Annotating sources you have only skimmed.
In literature reviews
- One paragraph per source, in the order you read them.
- No evaluation at all: every study is reported as equally convincing.
- No conclusion about what is missing.
- Leftover annotation language such as "this article will be useful for my project".
References
- American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). See also https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/annotated-bibliographies
- Cornell University Library. How to prepare an annotated bibliography. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/annotatedbibliography
- Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
- MLA Style Center. Annotated bibliographies. https://style.mla.org/annotated-bibliographies/
- Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., et al. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Purdue Online Writing Lab. Annotated bibliographies. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/annotated_bibliographies/index.html
- Purdue Online Writing Lab. Annotated bibliography samples. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/annotated_bibliographies/annotated_bibliography_samples.html
- University of Maryland Global Campus Library. How to write an annotated bibliography: APA style (7th edition). https://libguides.umgc.edu/annotated-bibliography-apa
- University of North Carolina Writing Center. Literature reviews. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/
