I am interested in a research topic (say X). I see several survey papers on X, but they all date back to 2013. I can't find a recent survey paper from 2013 to 2022. I feel a need to get a recent snapshot of the X for my thesis and future research. Upon discussing it with my supervisor, he thinks we can write our own survey paper covering literature from 2013-2022. However, I have doubts about the significance of the work. For example, how should the title be justified as "A literature review on X from 2013 to 2022?" I have never seen such a title or such a review paper.

2 Answers 2


I concur with Sursula that a recent update to literature that has no surveys for the past nine years or so could be a very helpful scholarly contribution. To increase the helpfulness of such a survey, you should not take for granted that the previous 2013 survey is fully satisfactory. After doing your updated survey, you should critically consider whether the previous survey did as good a job for pre-2013 literature as you have done with post-2013 literature. If not, you might want to reassess some or much of the previous literature. However, if you consider that the 2013 survey did a good job, then you can position yourself as building upon it and then contrast the recent literature with the earlier literature.

In any case, there is plenty of value to be offered by such an updated survey.

Concerning title, I personally dislike titles that say that they are "new", "recent", "current", etc. because such titles expire very quickly--within a couple of years, they become old. You can simply say that your review is "A Review of the Literature on the Topic". Your published article carries a date, and so any reader will now how "recent" it is and it is obvious that your 2022 review is more recent than a 2013 review. There is no need to say anything about that in the title.


Most of review papers like the one you are planning to write are titled "A current overview on topic X", "Recent advances in X", and other titles along those lines.

If the topic X is still (somewhat) relevant today, then writing a review paper on X covering the last 10 years is not insignificant. It makes sense to mention in the introduction why you only concentrate on the last few years, though.

  • the term 'current review' will seem nondeterministic after some years. Is there a better way of doing it. Also, what should be a minimum timeline for a review paper? (3 years? 5 years?)
    – foobar
    Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 14:31
  • 1
    @Ashfaq92 I cannot tell you if there is a better way. Titles like these do exist, and since you are able to see when a paper was written, readers will be individually able to contextualize what approximate timeframe is meant by "current". As to the minimum timeframe: I would say this is completely up to how much has happened in which amount of time or how much and what has changed in the field. There is no one answer to that. You as the author have to make that decision. That is your scientific contribution to judge what should go into the review and what doesn't need to.
    – Sursula
    Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 14:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .