Timeline for How to write the literature review part of a paper when 'the perfect one' has already been written?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2017 at 17:15 | vote | accept | ebosi | ||
| Mar 25, 2016 at 16:54 | comment | added | Geo | @ebo Perhaps a good way to deal with this is to go only into sufficient depth as is necessary to give sufficient background to understand your paper and the context it sits within. Then you can use the common line "For a more in depth discussion of design processes within aviation, see (1)." This directs the reader who wants more depth to the correct source and acknowledges that you are aware of the other review. | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | ebosi | Thx. Is it an issue if it makes the literature review unbalanced (ratio "significance of the topic" vs. "amount of text dealing with it")? And if my report is not standalone readable (i.e. if you need concepts explained in the "perfect paper" to understand what I'm saying)? | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 10:05 | history | answered | Maarten Buis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |