the importance of literature review process

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 What is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

- Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

• Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

•   [email protected]

Writing and Presenting Guide

Writing literature reviews, what is a literature review.

"A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant." Source: The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. (2013). Literature Reviews. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/ This link opens in a new window

Need help writing a literature review?

Check out these resources:

Helpful Books from the Library

Helpful Web Resources

• Literature Reviews (UNC Writing Center) This link opens in a new window
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature (The Writing Center at the Univ. of Wisconsin) This link opens in
• The Literature Review (Univ. of Toronto) This link opens in a new window
• Write a Literature Review (University Library at Univ. Of California Santa Cruz) This link opens in a new wi
• Literature Reviews (Ithaca) This link opens in a new window
• << Previous: Writing Papers
• Next: APA Annotated Bibliography >>

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Matada Research

Understanding the importance of a literature review in research

• March 29, 2023

Gerald Naepi

When conducting research, a literature review plays a crucial role as it provides an overview of the existing literature related to a specific topic. Its main objective is to identify the gaps in the current knowledge and provide direction for future research. This article delves into the purpose and structure of a literature review, along with the various types of literature reviews typically employed in research. By familiarising themselves with the different types of literature reviews and their unique features, researchers can determine which review type would best suit their research question and help them achieve their desired results.

Purpose of a literature review in research

The primary goal of a literature review in research is to offer a comprehensive overview of the relevant research within a given area. A well-executed literature review should provide readers with a clear understanding of the theoretical and empirical contributions made in the field, while also highlighting areas that require further exploration or investigation. Additionally, literature reviews help researchers identify gaps in existing knowledge that can lead to new hypotheses or questions for future study.

When conducting a literature review, researchers should pay close attention to key themes and topics covered by previous studies, including the approaches used to answer specific questions or address particular issues. This ensures that any conclusions drawn by the researcher are supported by established evidence and build on prior work in the field. Moreover, when synthesising information from multiple studies, researchers should aim to identify conflicting opinions or discrepancies in the literature and draw implications for further study. Through this process, a comprehensive literature review can provide invaluable insights into the current state of research and inform future studies.

Literature review format

The format of a literature review in research typically consists of the following elements:

Introduction: The introduction is an important part of a literature review, as it gives the reader a sense of what to expect. It should start with a clear statement of the research question or objective, so that the reader understands what the review is trying to achieve. It’s also important to explain why the topic is important, so that the reader understands the relevance of the review. Finally, the introduction should give the reader an overview of the structure and organisation of the review, so that they can easily navigate through the rest of the content.

Search Strategy: The search strategy should be comprehensive, focused, and systematic. It involves selecting appropriate databases, developing effective search terms, and utilizing other sources to collect information. To begin, the researcher needs to determine the most relevant databases to search. Depending on the topic, discipline, and research question, different databases may be more suitable. Some commonly used databases are PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Once the databases are selected, the researcher can develop a set of search terms that accurately reflect the topic and research question. These search terms can be a combination of keywords and subject headings. Other sources of information may include reference lists, grey literature, conference proceedings, and experts in the field. These sources can provide additional insights and help to ensure a comprehensive search.

The search strategy should be documented in detail to enable replication and transparency. This documentation should include the databases searched, search terms used, search dates, and any filters or limits applied. By having a clear and systematic search strategy, the researcher can ensure that they have identified all relevant literature and that the research findings are reliable and valid.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Inclusion criteria refer to the characteristics that a study must have to be included in the review, while exclusion criteria refer to the characteristics that disqualify a study from being included. The inclusion and exclusion criteria may vary depending on the research question, but generally, they should be clearly defined and stated in the methods section of the review. Common criteria include study design, population, intervention or exposure, and outcome measures. For example, a systematic review on the effectiveness of a particular drug for a specific condition may include only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum sample size of 50 participants, and exclude non-randomized studies or studies with a high risk of bias.

Defining clear inclusion and exclusion criteria is crucial in ensuring that the studies included in the review are relevant, appropriate, and of high quality. It also helps to minimize bias and enhance the validity of the review’s findings. Additionally, transparent reporting of inclusion and exclusion criteria allows readers to assess the rigor of the review process and the generalizability of the findings to their own context.

Methodology: The methodology section typically involves outlining the procedures and techniques employed to collect relevant data and information, including any data extraction forms that were used. Additionally, this section may also include information about the process of data extraction, such as how the data was collected, coded, and analysed. Furthermore, it is essential to include a description of the quality assessment process used to ensure that the extracted data was reliable and valid. This may involve explaining the criteria used to evaluate the quality of the studies, as well as any potential biases or limitations that were taken into consideration. By providing a thorough description of the methodology, readers will be able to assess the rigor of the research and better understand the context and implications of the findings.

Results: The results section summarises the main outcomes and findings of the review process, including the key themes, concepts, and trends identified in the literature. The results section provides a clear and concise description of the analysed data and should be presented in a logical and organized manner to make it easy for readers to understand. The results section of a literature review provides an overview of the evidence and information obtained from the analysed sources and explains how the findings support or challenge the research question or hypothesis. It is essential to ensure that the results are presented accurately, and any limitations or weaknesses of the study are acknowledged to provide a transparent and objective review of the literature.

Discussion: The discussion section of a literature review in research is an important component that provides a critical analysis of the literature reviewed in the study. This section allows the researcher to present their findings and interpretations of the literature, as well as to draw conclusions about the research question or problem being investigated. In the discussion section, the researcher will typically summarise the key findings of the literature review and then discuss these findings in relation to the research question or problem. The discussion section may also identify gaps in the literature and suggest areas for further research, as well as discuss the implications of the findings for theory, practice, or policy. Ultimately, the discussion section of a literature review should provide a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the literature reviewed, which contributes to the overall understanding of the research question or problem at hand.

Conclusion: The conclusion section in a literature review summarises the key findings and implications of the reviewed studies. It is the final part of the literature review that brings together all the main points and themes discussed in the previous sections. In this section, the researcher should provide a critical evaluation of the reviewed literature, highlighting the strengths and limitations of the studies, and how they relate to the research question or problem. The conclusion section should also address any gaps or inconsistencies in the existing literature and suggest future research directions. Furthermore, it should provide a clear and concise summary of the main findings and their significance for the field of study.

References: The reference section provides a comprehensive list of all the sources that have been cited in the literature review, including books, journal articles, reports, and other relevant materials. The purpose of the reference section is to give credit to the authors whose work has been used to support the arguments and ideas presented in the paper. Additionally, the reference section allows readers to locate and retrieve the sources that have been cited, which can help them further explore the topic or verify the accuracy of the information presented. The reference section is typically organized in alphabetical order by the last name of the first author of each source, and it includes all of the necessary bibliographic information such as the title of the work, the name of the journal or book, the date of publication, and the page numbers

Download our literature review template

Types of literature review in research

Literature reviews in research can be conducted for a variety of reasons, including to gain a comprehensive understanding of a topic, to identify research gaps, or to support the development of research proposals.

Here are the different types of literature reviews in research:

• Narrative Literature Review: A narrative literature review is an overview of the literature on a specific topic or research question that does not follow a structured or systematic approach. It is a qualitative review that summarizes and synthesizes the findings from different studies.
• Systematic Literature Review: A systematic literature review is a rigorous and structured approach to reviewing literature that involves a comprehensive search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and critical appraisal of the quality of evidence. It involves a meta-analysis and quantitative synthesis of data from multiple studies.
• Meta-analysis: A meta-analysis is a quantitative review of the literature that involves statistical analysis of the data from multiple studies. It combines the results of different studies to produce an overall estimate of the effect size of a particular intervention or treatment.
• Scoping Review: A scoping review is a type of literature review that aims to map the existing literature on a topic, identify research gaps, and provide an overview of the evidence. It is useful when the research question is broad or unclear.
• Rapid Review: A rapid review is a type of systematic review that uses streamlined methods to quickly and efficiently review the literature. It is useful when there is a time constraint or when there is a need to update a previous review.
• Umbrella Review: An umbrella review is a type of systematic review that synthesizes the findings of multiple systematic reviews on a particular topic. It provides a higher level of evidence by combining the findings from multiple studies.
• Critical Review: A critical review involves the evaluation and analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the literature on a particular topic. It assesses the quality, credibility, and relevance of the literature and identifies research gaps.

Literature review example:

A literature review can play a crucial role in connecting with qualitative talanoa research. Talanoa is a research approach that emphasises collaboration, dialogue, and relationships within Pacific communities. Conducting a thorough literature review can help researchers to identify existing knowledge and gaps in ta specific field. This can inform the design of Talanoa research that centers on community engagement and dialogue. By reviewing literature that focuses on Pacific cultures, histories, and knowledge systems, researchers can develop a deeper understanding of the context and values of the community they are working with. This can help to build trust and establish meaningful relationships between researchers and community members.

An example of a literature review is our social research on Pacific peoples’ concerns about COVID-19, titled “The $7 cabbage dilemma: Pacific peoples’ experiences and New Zealand’s COVID-19 response.pdf” The objective of our study was to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the wellbeing of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. To accomplish this, we conducted a comprehensive literature review of existing research on Pacific peoples’ urban climate change, health, economy, and housing in New Zealand. Through our talanoa-based research, we discovered that many Pacific peoples were worried about the cost of living, access to healthcare, support for parents, and affordable healthy food options, which were all connected to the broader themes of urban climate change, health, economy, and housing that we had identified in our literature review.

In conclusion, a literature review is an essential component of research as it helps to identify gaps in existing knowledge, provide direction for future research and support or challenge research questions or hypotheses. The purpose of a literature review is to offer a comprehensive overview of the relevant research within a given area, identify key themes and topics, and synthesize information from multiple studies. Researchers need to pay attention to the different types of literature reviews and their unique features when conducting literature reviews to determine which review type would best suit their research question and help them achieve their desired results. A well-structured literature review should include an introduction, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodology and results sections. A well-executed literature review ensures that the research findings are reliable and valid and provides invaluable insights into the current state of research to inform future studies.

Checkout our Pinterest for the infographic

Matada is a social enterprise that specializes in transformative research, evaluation, consultation, knowledge dissemination and program development to improve the health and wellbeing of communities in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our mission is to create solutions that enhance the wellbeing of individuals, communities, and society. We are backed by highly qualified and experienced researchers with both international and domestic experience. We lead with core values (relationships, respect, reciprocity, community and service) that shape our goals and vision which helps us create positive change.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

By: Gerald Naepi

[email protected].

Advertisement

A systematic review of vision transformers and convolutional neural networks for Alzheimer’s disease classification using 3D MRI images

• Published: 17 September 2024

Cite this article

• Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz 1 , 2 , 7   na1 ,
• Sergio Alejandro Holguin-Garcia 1 , 2 , 7   na1 ,
• Sebastián Quiñones-Arredondo 1 ,
• Alejandro Mora-Rubio 6 ,
• Ernesto Guevara-Navarro 1 , 2 ,
• Harold Brayan Arteaga-Arteaga 1 ,
• Gonzalo A. Ruz 3 , 4 , 5 &
• Reinel Tabares-Soto 1 , 2 , 3  

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that mainly affects memory and other cognitive functions, such as thinking, reasoning, and the ability to carry out daily activities. It is considered the most common form of dementia in older adults, but it can appear as early as the age of 25. Although the disease has no cure, treatment can be more effective if diagnosed early. In diagnosing AD, changes in the brain’s morphology are identified macroscopically, which is why deep learning models, such as convolutional neural networks (CNN) or vision transformers (ViT), excel in this task. We followed the Systematic Literature Review process, applying stages of the review protocol from it, which aims to detect the need for a review. Then, search equations were formulated and executed in several literature databases. Relevant publications were scanned and used to extract evidence to answer research questions. Several CNN and ViT approaches have already been tested on problems related to brain image analysis for disease detection. A total of 722 articles were found in the selected databases. Still, a series of filters were performed to decrease the number to 44 articles, focusing specifically on brain image analysis with CNN and ViT methods. Deep learning methods are effective for disease diagnosis, and the surge in research activity underscores its importance. However, the lack of access to repositories may introduce bias into the information. Full access demonstrates transparency and facilitates collaborative work in research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Imaging

Data availability

Not applicable.

Ballard C, Gauthier S, Corbett A, Brayne C, Aarsland D, Jones E (2011) Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 377(9770):1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61349-9

Google Scholar  

DeTure MA, Dickson DW (2019) The neuropathological diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease. Mol Neurodegenerat 14(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-019-0333-5

Moradi E, Pepe A, Gaser C, Huttunen H, Tohka J, Initiative ADN et al (2015) Machine learning framework for early mri-based alzheimer’s conversion prediction in mci subjects. Neuroimage 104:398–412

Article   Google Scholar  

Hassan SA, Khan T (2017) A machine learning model to predict the onset of alzheimer disease using potential cerebrospinal fluid (csf) biomarkers. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 8(12)

Salvatore C, Cerasa A, Battista P, Gilardi MC, Quattrone A, Castiglioni I, Initiative ADN (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers for the early diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease: a machine learning approach. Front Neurosci 9:307

Long X, Chen L, Jiang C, Zhang L, Initiative ADN (2017) Prediction and classification of alzheimer disease based on quantification of mri deformation. PloS One 12(3):0173372

LaMontagne PJ, Benzinger TL, Morris JC, Keefe S, Hornbeck R, Xiong C, Grant E, Hassenstab J, Moulder K, Vlassenko AG, et al (2019) Oasis-3: longitudinal neuroimaging, clinical, and cognitive dataset for normal aging and alzheimer disease. MedRxiv

Petersen RC, Aisen P, Beckett LA, Donohue M, Gamst A, Harvey DJ, Jack C, Jagust W, Shaw L, Toga A et al (2010) Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (adni): clinical characterization. Neurology 74(3):201–209

Mora-Rubio A, Bravo-Ortíz MA, Arredondo SQ, Torres JMS, Ruz GA, Tabares-Soto R (2023) Classification of alzheimer’s disease stages from magnetic resonance images using deep learning. PeerJ Comput Sci 9:1490

Sharma S, Sharma V, Sharma A (2016) Performance based evaluation of various machine learning classification techniques for chronic kidney disease diagnosis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.09581

Chan H-P, Samala RK, Hadjiiski LM, Zhou C (2020) Deep learning in medical image analysis. Deep Learn Med Image Anal, pp 3–21

Bravo-Ortíz MA, Arteaga-Arteaga HB, Tabares-Soto KR, Padilla-Buriticá JI, Orozco-Arias S (2021) Cervical cancer classification using convolutional neural networks, transfer learning and data augmentation. Revista EIA 18(35):100–111

Liu S, Liu S, Cai W, Pujol S, Kikinis R, Feng D (2014) Early diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease with deep learning. In: 2014 IEEE 11th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI), pp 1015–1018. IEEE

Chitradevi D, Prabha S (2020) Analysis of brain sub regions using optimization techniques and deep learning method in alzheimer disease. Appl Soft Comput 86:105857

Currie G, Rohren E (2021) Intelligent imaging in nuclear medicine: the principles of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning. In: Seminars in nuclear medicine, vol 51, pp 102–111. Elsevier

Porumb M, Stranges S, Pescapè A, Pecchia L (2020) Precision medicine and artificial intelligence: a pilot study on deep learning for hypoglycemic events detection based on ecg. Sci Rep 10(1):1–16

Karami V, Nittari G, Amenta F (2019) Neuroimaging computer-aided diagnosis systems for alzheimer’s disease. Int J Imag Syst Technol 29(1):83–94

Mohapatra S, Swarnkar T, Das J (2021) Deep convolutional neural network in medical image processing. In: Handbook of deep learning in biomedical engineering, pp 25–60. Elsevier

Shanmugavadivel K, Sathishkumar V, Cho J, Subramanian M (2023) Advancements in computer-assisted diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease: a comprehensive survey of neuroimaging methods and ai techniques for early detection. Ageing Res Rev, 102072

Weimer DL, Sager MA (2009) Early identification and treatment of alzheimer’s disease: social and fiscal outcomes. Alzheimer’s Dementia 5(3):215–226

Sujith A, Sajja GS, Mahalakshmi V, Nuhmani S, Prasanalakshmi B (2022) Systematic review of smart health monitoring using deep learning and artificial intelligence. Neurosci Informat 2(3):100028

Maqsood M, Nazir F, Khan U, Aadil F, Jamal H, Mehmood I, Song O-y (2019) Transfer learning assisted classification and detection of alzheimer’s disease stages using 3d mri scans. Sensors 19(11), 2645

Basaia S, Agosta F, Wagner L, Canu E, Magnani G, Santangelo R, Filippi M (2019) Automated classification of alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment using a single mri and deep neural networks. NeuroImage: Clin 21:101645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.101645

Hawkins DM (2004) The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci0342472 . ( PMID: 14741005 )

Liu M, Li F, Yan H, Wang K, Ma Y, Shen L, Xu M (2020) A multi-model deep convolutional neural network for automatic hippocampus segmentation and classification in alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage 208:116459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116459

Hochreiter S (1998) The vanishing gradient problem during learning recurrent neural nets and problem solutions. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 6(02):107–116

Li W, Lin X, Chen X (2020) Detecting alzheimer’s disease based on 4d fmri: an exploration under deep learning framework. Neurocomputing 388:280–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.01.053

Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780

Zhang J, Zheng B, Gao A, Feng X, Liang D, Long X (2021) A 3d densely connected convolution neural network with connection-wise attention mechanism for alzheimer’s disease classification. Magnetic Resonance Imag 78:119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2021.02.001

Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, Kaiser Ł, Polosukhin I (2017) Attention is all you need. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 5998–6008

Janghel RR, Rathore YK (2021) Deep convolution neural network based system for early diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease. IRBM 42(4):258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irbm.2020.06.006

Bi X, Li S, Xiao B, Li Y, Wang G, Ma X (2020) Computer aided alzheimer’s disease diagnosis by an unsupervised deep learning technology. Neurocomputing 392:296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.11.111

Hosseini-Asl E, Keynton R, El-Baz A (2016) Alzheimer’s disease diagnostics by adaptation of 3d convolutional network. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pp 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2016.7532332

Raghavaiah P, Varadarajan S (2021) A cad system design to diagnosize alzheimers disease from mri brain images using optimal deep neural network. Multimedia Tools Appl 80(17):26411–26428

Kang W, Lin L, Zhang B, Shen X, Wu S (2021) Multi-model and multi-slice ensemble learning architecture based on 2d convolutional neural networks for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Comput Biol Med 136:104678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104678

Radford A, Metz L, Chintala S (2015) Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06434

Dosovitskiy A, Beyer L, Kolesnikov A, Weissenborn D, Zhai X, Unterthiner T, Dehghani M, Minderer M, Heigold G, Gelly S, et al (2020) An image is worth 16x16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

Khan S, Naseer M, Hayat M, Zamir SW, Khan FS, Shah M (2022) Transformers in vision: a survey. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 54(10s):1–41

Jang J, Hwang D (2022) M3t: three-dimensional medical image classifier using multi-plane and multi-slice transformer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 20718–20729

Cho K, Kim J, Kim KD, Park S, Kim J, Yun J, Ahn Y, Oh SY, Lee SM, Seo JB et al (2023) Music-vit: A multi-task siamese convolutional vision transformer for differentiating change from no-change in follow-up chest radiographs. Med Image Anal 89:102894

Li J, Liu Z, Li L, Lin J, Yao J, Tu J (2023) Multi-view convolutional vision transformer for 3d object recognition. J Vis Commun Image Represent 95:103906

Bravo-Ortiz MA, Mercado-Ruiz E, Villa-Pulgarin JP, Hormaza-Cardona CA, Quiñones-Arredondo S, Arteaga-Arteaga HB, Orozco-Arias S, Cardona-Morales O, Tabares-Soto R (2024) Cvtstego-net: A convolutional vision transformer architecture for spatial image steganalysis. J Inf Security Appl 81:103695

Holguin-Garcia SA, Guevara-Navarro E, Daza-Chica AE, Patiño-Claro MA, Arteaga-Arteaga HB, Ruz GA, Tabares-Soto R, Bravo-Ortiz MA (2024) A comparative study of cnn-capsule-net, cnn-transformer encoder, and traditional machine learning algorithms to classify epileptic seizure. BMC Med Informat Decis Making 24(1):60

Zhu J, Tan Y, Lin R, Miao J, Fan X, Zhu Y, Liang P, Gong J, He H (2022) Efficient self-attention mechanism and structural distilling model for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Comput Biol Med 147:105737

Yin Y, Jin W, Bai J, Liu R, Zhen H (2022) Smil-deit: Multiple instance learning and self-supervised vision transformer network for early alzheimer’s disease classification. In: 2022 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), pp 1–6. IEEE

Li C, Cui Y, Luo N, Liu Y, Bourgeat P, Fripp J, Jiang T (2022) Trans-resnet: Integrating transformers and cnns for alzheimer’s disease classification. In: 2022 IEEE 19th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 1–5. IEEE

Kitchenham B, Charters S, et al (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. UK

Reinel T-S, Raul R-P, Gustavo I (2019) Deep learning applied to steganalysis of digital images: a systematic review. IEEE Access 7:68970–68990

Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S (2009) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 51(1):7–15

Anwer F, Aftab S (2017) Latest customizations of xp: a systematic literature review. Int J Mod Educ Comput Sci 9(12):26

Ashraf S, Aftab S (2017) Scrum with the spices of agile family: a systematic mapping. Int J Mod Educ Comput Sci 9(11):58–72

Ahmad M, Aftab S, Bashir MS, Hameed N (2018) Sentiment analysis using svm: a systematic literature review. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 9(2)

Matloob F, Ghazal TM, Taleb N, Aftab S, Ahmad M, Khan MA, Abbas S, Soomro TR (2021) Software defect prediction using ensemble learning: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access 9:98754–98771

Wen J, Li S, Lin Z, Hu Y, Huang C (2012) Systematic literature review of machine learning based software development effort estimation models. Inf Softw Technol 54(1):41–59

Yu X, Peng B, Shi J, Zhu J, Dai Y (2019) 3d convolutional networks based automatic diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease using structural mri. In: 2019 12th international congress on image and signal processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI), pp 1–6. IEEE

Jin D, Xu J, Zhao K, Hu F, Yang Z, Liu B, Jiang T, Liu Y (2019) Attention-based 3d convolutional network for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and biomarkers exploration. In: 2019 IEEE 16th international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI 2019), pp 1047–1051. IEEE

Ge C, Qu Q, Gu IY-H, Jakola AS (2019) Multiscale deep convolutional networks for characterization and detection of alzheimer’s disease using mr images. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pp 789–793. IEEE

Goenka N, Tiwari S (2021) Volumetric convolutional neural network for alzheimer detection. In: 2021 5th International conference on trends in electronics and informatics (ICOEI), pp 1500–1505. IEEE

Dua M, Makhija D, Manasa P, Mishra P (2020) A cnn-rnn-lstm based amalgamation for alzheimer’s disease detection. J Med Biol Eng 40(5):688–706

Raju M, Gopi VP, Anitha V, Wahid KA (2020) Multi-class diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease using cascaded three dimensional-convolutional neural network. Phys Eng Sci Med 43(4):1219–1228

Parmar H, Nutter B, Long R, Antani S, Mitra S (2020) Spatiotemporal feature extraction and classification of alzheimer’s disease using deep learning 3d-cnn for fmri data. J Med Imag 7(5):056001

Niu J, Tang X (2020) 3d residual dense convolutional network for diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. In: 2020 IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation (ICMA), pp 1581–1586. IEEE

Li A, Li F, Elahifasaee F, Liu M, Zhang L (2021) Hippocampal shape and asymmetry analysis by cascaded convolutional neural networks for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Brain Imag Behav 15(5):2330–2339

Basher A, Kim BC, Lee KH, Jung HY (2021) Volumetric feature-based alzheimer’s disease diagnosis from smri data using a convolutional neural network and a deep neural network. IEEE Access 9:29870–29882

Solano-Rojas B, Villalón-Fonseca R (2021) A low-cost three-dimensional densenet neural network for alzheimer’s disease early discovery. Sensors 21(4):1302

Zhang J, Zheng B, Gao A, Feng X, Liang D, Long X (2021) A 3d densely connected convolution neural network with connection-wise attention mechanism for alzheimer’s disease classification. Magnetic Resonance Imag 78:119–126

Katabathula S, Wang Q, Xu R (2021) Predict alzheimer’s disease using hippocampus mri data: a lightweight 3d deep convolutional network model with visual and global shape representations. Alzheimer’s Res Therapy 13(1):1–9

Pei Z, Gou Y, Ma M, Guo M, Leng C, Chen Y, Li J (2021) Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis based on long-range dependency mechanism using convolutional neural network. Multimedia Tools Appl, pp 1–16

Ebrahimi A, Luo S, Chiong R, Initiative ADN et al (2021) Deep sequence modelling for alzheimer’s disease detection using mri. Comput Biol Med 134:104537

Lin C-J, Lin C-W (2021) Using three-dimensional convolutional neural networks for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Sens Mater 33(10):3399–3413

Zhang P, Lin S, Qiao J, Tu Y (2021) Diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease with ensemble learning classifier and 3d convolutional neural network. Sensors 21(22):7634

Dwivedi S, Goel T, Sharma R, Murugan R (2021) Structural mri based alzheimer’s disease prognosis using 3d convolutional neural network and support vector machine. In: 2021 Advanced communication technologies and signal processing (ACTS), pp 1–4. IEEE

Bakkouri I, Afdel K, Benois-Pineau J et al (2022) Bg-3dm2f: Bidirectional gated 3d multi-scale feature fusion for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Multimedia Tools Appl 81(8):10743–10776

Kadri R, Bouaziz B, Tmar M, Gargouri F (2022) Multimodal deep learning based on the combination of efficientnetv2 and vit for alzheimer’s disease early diagnosis enhanced by sagan data augmentation. Int J Comput Inf Syst Ind Manag Appl 14:313–325

Sarraf S, Sarraf A, DeSouza DD, Anderson JA, Kabia M, Initiative ADN (2023) Ovitad: Optimized vision transformer to predict various stages of alzheimer’s disease using resting-state fmri and structural mri data. Brain Sci 13(2):260

Carcagnì P, Leo M, Del Coco M, Distante C, De Salve A (2023) Convolution neural networks and self-attention learners for alzheimer dementia diagnosis from brain mri. Sensors 23(3):1694

Odusami M, Maskeliūnas R, Damaševičius R (2023) Pixel-level fusion approach with vision transformer for early detection of alzheimer’s disease. Electronics 12(5):1218

Hoang GM, Kim U-H, Kim JG (2023) Vision transformers for the prediction of mild cognitive impairment to alzheimer’s disease progression using mid-sagittal smri. Front Aging Neurosci 15:1102869

Tang C, Wei M, Sun J, Wang S, Zhang Y, Initiative ADN, et al (2023) Csagp: Detecting alzheimer’s disease from multimodal images via dual-transformer with cross-attention and graph pooling. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci, 101618

Zhao Q, Huang G, Xu P, Chen Z, Li W, Yuan X, Zhong G, Pun C-M, Huang Z (2023) Ida-net: Inheritable deformable attention network of structural mri for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Biomed Signal Process Control 84:104787

Lyu Y, Yu X, Zhu D, Zhang L (2022) Classification of alzheimer’s disease via vision transformer: Classification of alzheimer’s disease via vision transformer. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments, pp 463–468

Duan Y, Wang R, Li Y (2023) Aux-vit: Classification of alzheimer’s disease from mri based on vision transformer with auxiliary branch. In: 2023 5th International conference on communications, information system and computer engineering (CISCE), pp 382–386. IEEE

Liu L, Liu S, Zhang L, To XV, Nasrallah F, Chandra SS (2023) Cascaded multi-modal mixing transformers for alzheimer’s disease classification with incomplete data. NeuroImage 277:120267

Zhang J, He X, Liu Y, Cai Q, Chen H, Qing L (2023) Multi-modal cross-attention network for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with multi-modality data. Comput Biol Med 162:107050

Xin J, Wang A, Guo R, Liu W, Tang X (2023) Cnn and swin-transformer based efficient model for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis with smri. Biomed Signal Process Control 86:105189

Dai Y, Zou B, Zhu C, Li Y, Chen Z, Ji Z, Kui X, Zhang W (2023) De-janet: A unified network based on dual encoder and joint attention for alzheimer’s disease classification using multi-modal data. Comput Biol Med 165:107396

Hu Z, Li Y, Wang Z, Zhang S, Hou W, Initiative ADN et al (2023) Conv-swinformer: Integration of cnn and shift window attention for alzheimer’s disease classification. Comput Biol Med 164:107304

Miao S, Xu Q, Li W, Yang C, Sheng B, Liu F, Bezabih TT, Yu X (2024) Mmtfn: Multi-modal multi-scale transformer fusion network for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Int J Imag Syst Technol 34(1):22970

Tang Y, Xiong X, Tong G, Yang Y, Zhang H (2024) Multimodal diagnosis model of alzheimer’s disease based on improved transformer. BioMedical Eng OnLine 23(1):8

Wang C, Piao S, Huang Z, Gao Q, Zhang J, Li Y, Shan H, Initiative ADN et al (2024) Joint learning framework of cross-modal synthesis and diagnosis for alzheimer’s disease by mining underlying shared modality information. Med Image Anal 91:103032

Khan AA, Mahendran RK, Perumal K, Faheem M (2024) Dual-3dm 3-ad: Mixed transformer based semantic segmentation and triplet pre-processing for early multi-class alzheimer’s diagnosis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabilit Eng

Khatri U, Kwon G-R (2024) Diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease via optimized lightweight convolution-attention and structural mri. Comput Biol Med, 108116

Chen Q, Fu Q, Bai H, Hong Y (2024) Longformer: Longitudinal transformer for alzheimer’s disease classification with structural mris. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pp 3575–3584

Wang Y, Chen K, Zhang Y, Wang H (2024) Medtransformer: accurate ad diagnosis for 3d mri images through 2d vision transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06349

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group* t (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. Ann Internal Med 151(4):264–269

Reinel T-S, Brayan A-AH, Alejandro B-OM, Alejandro M-R, Daniel A-G, Alejandro A-GJ, Buenaventura B-JA, Simon O-A, Gustavo I, Raul R-P (2021) Gbras-net: a convolutional neural network architecture for spatial image steganalysis. IEEE Access 9:14340–14350

Orozco-Arias S, Isaza G, Guyot R, Tabares-Soto R (2019) A systematic review of the application of machine learning in the detection and classification of transposable elements. PeerJ 7:8311

Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Acm Sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 785–794

Basher A, Choi KY, Lee JJ, Lee B, Kim BC, Lee KH, Jung HY (2019) Hippocampus localization using a two-stage ensemble hough convolutional neural network. IEEE Access 7:73436–73447

Basher A, Kim BC, Lee KH, Jung HY (2020) Automatic localization and discrete volume measurements of hippocampi from mri data using a convolutional neural network. IEEE Access 8:91725–91739. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2994388

Zavaliangos-Petropul A, Tubi MA, Zhu A, Haddad E, Jahanshad N, Thompson PM, Liew S-L (2020) Automated hippocampal segmentation improved by convolutional neural network approach in participants with a history of cerebrovascular accident: Neuroimaging/new imaging methods. Alzheimer’s Dementia 16:041634

Wu H, Xiao B, Codella N, Liu M, Dai X, Yuan L, Zhang L (2021) Cvt: Introducing convolutions to vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp 22–31

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz is supported by a Ph.D. grant Convocatoria 22 OCAD de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación del Sistema General de Regalías de Colombia y Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia. We would like to thank Universidad Autónoma de Manizales for making this paper as part of the “Clasificación de los estadios del Alzheimer utilizando Imágenes de Resonancia Magnética Nuclear y datos clínicos a partir de técnicas de Deep Learning” with code 873-139 and "Aplicación de Vision Transformer para clasificar estadios del Alzheimer utilizando imágenes de resonancia magnética nuclear y datos clínicos" project with code 847-2023 TD. Additionally, we acknowledge the support from the projects ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002 and ANID/PIA/ANILLO ACT210096. We also extend our gratitude to Universidad de Caldas for their support, as this paper is part of the project “Plataforma tecnológica para la clasificación de los estadios de la enfermedad de alzheimer utilizando imágenes de resonancia magnética nuclear, datos clínicos y técnicas de deep learning.” with code PRY-89. We also thank the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID); Applied Research Subdirection (SIA); through the instrument IDeA I+D 2023, code ID23I10357, and ORIGEN 0011323, Sistema General de Regalías (SGR) - Asignación para la Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, project BPIN 2021000100368, and PRY-121 - Interactive Virtual Didactic Strategy for the Promotion of ICT Skills and their Relationship with Computational Thinking.

This work was funded by Universidad Autonoma de Manizales as part of the project “Clasificación de los estadios del Alzheimer utilizando Imágenes de Resonancia Magnética Nuclear y datos clínicos a partir de técnicas de Deep Learning” with code 873-139, and also by the projects “CH-T1246: Oportunidades de Mercado para las Empresas de Tecnología-Compras Públicas de Algoritmos Responsables, Éticos y Transparentes,” ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002, and ANID/PIA/ANILLOS ACT210096.

Author information

Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz and Sergio Alejandro Holguin-Garcia have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Departamento de Electrónica y Automatización, Universidad Autónoma de Manizales, Manizales, 170001, Caldas, Colombia

Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz, Sergio Alejandro Holguin-Garcia, Sebastián Quiñones-Arredondo, Ernesto Guevara-Navarro, Harold Brayan Arteaga-Arteaga & Reinel Tabares-Soto

Departamento de Sistemas e Informática, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales, 170004, Caldas, Colombia

Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz, Sergio Alejandro Holguin-Garcia, Ernesto Guevara-Navarro & Reinel Tabares-Soto

Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, 7941169, Santiago, Chile

Gonzalo A. Ruz & Reinel Tabares-Soto

Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), 8331150, Santiago, Chile

Gonzalo A. Ruz

Data Observatory Foundation, 7941169, Santiago, Chile

Unidad Mixta de Imagen Biomédica FISABIO-CIPF, Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitario y Biomédica de la Comunidad Valenciana, 46020, Valencia, Spain

Alejandro Mora-Rubio

Centro de Bioinformática y Biología Computacional (BIOS), 170001, Manizales, Colombia

Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz & Sergio Alejandro Holguin-Garcia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MABO contributed to Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. SAHG contributed to Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. SQA contributed to Writing—review and editing. EGN contributed to Writing—review and editing. AMR: Writing—review and editing. HBAA contributed to Writing—review and editing. GAR: Writing—review and editing, acquired the funding and provided the resources. RTS contributed to Writing—review and editing, acquired the funding and provided the resources.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Alejandro Bravo-Ortiz .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Consent to participate, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bravo-Ortiz, M.A., Holguin-Garcia, S.A., Quiñones-Arredondo, S. et al. A systematic review of vision transformers and convolutional neural networks for Alzheimer’s disease classification using 3D MRI images. Neural Comput & Applic (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-10420-x

Download citation

Received : 26 April 2024

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 17 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-10420-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Alzheimer’s disease
• Deep learning
• 3D magnetic resonance image
• Convolutional neural networks
• Vision transformer
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A review of data-driven methods in building retrofit and performance optimization: from the perspective of carbon emission reductions.

1. Introduction

1.1. background, 1.2. previous reviews, 1.2.1. a review of building retrofit research, 1.2.2. a review of building cer retrofit research, 1.2.3. a review of the application of data-driven methods in building-performance analyses, 1.3. outline and structure of this review, 2. literature screening and bibliometric analysis, 2.1. literature search and screening.

• To ensure timeliness, articles published within the last 20 years (2003–2023) were selected. Journal articles, known for their rigorous peer-review process [ 36 ], were prioritized for their representation and impact in this field [ 37 ]. Conference papers, dissertations, and non-English language publications were excluded, retaining only English-language journal articles. Additionally, to facilitate the focus on research methodologies and processes, review papers were omitted from consideration.
• The literature reviewed addresses CEs during the operational phase of buildings, covering life-cycle carbon emissions (LCCEs), the GWP, and building environmental effects. Studies focusing solely on energy consumption (EC) without converting it to CE objectives were excluded due to differences in concepts and calculation methodologies. Similarly, the literature exclusively discussing CEs during building construction or other phases was also omitted from consideration.
• The research must incorporate one or more data-driven methods, such as statistical analyses, optimization algorithms, or machine learning (ML) to optimize building performance. Studies that merely listed and compared retrofit plans without employing these methods were excluded.
• The literature must address the impacts of envelope retrofit measures on the overall building performance. Studies exclusively focusing on the operations of building mechanical systems, energy structure predictions, and similar topics were excluded. Additionally, articles concentrating solely on specific local building components like curtain wall retrofits and structural seismic performance optimizations were also excluded.

2.2. Literature Statistics and Bibliometric Analysis

2.3. general process of bpo based on data-driven methods, 3. the construction bpo models, 3.1. optimization model based on physical simulation methods, 3.1.1. bps tools, 3.1.2. model calibration, 3.2. surrogate and mathematical models.

• The samples of input data are selected using sampling methods, and output data are computed through physical model simulations. Typically, the sample size should range from 10 to 100 times the number of input parameters [ 113 ], although this can vary depending on the model’s complexity [ 114 ].
• Continuous and discrete variables are distinguished, and both input and output variables are standardized and normalized to ensure a comparability of the data. Typically, the correctly formatted data are divided into training and testing sets in an 80%-to-20% ratio [ 115 ], after which an appropriate mathematical model is selected [ 116 ].
• The model is trained, and to prevent overfitting (where the model performs well on the training datasets but struggles with out-of-sample data), hyperparameter optimization is needed to balance variances and biases. When choosing hyperparameters, strategies like a grid search can be employed [ 117 ], with cross-validations serving as the scoring method [ 118 ].
• The model is validated, and various metrics are chosen to assess its accuracy. Common evaluation indicators include the mean absolute percent error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and CV (RMSE) [ 119 ], with CV (RMSE) being particularly favored, due to its ability to provide a unitless measurement, which facilitates straightforward comparisons of indicators [ 120 ].

3.3. Optimization Objectives and Parameters

3.3.1. building-performance indicators, 3.3.2. optimization parameters and variables, 3.3.3. constraints on optimization objectives and parameters, 4. optimization and decision-making process, 4.1. optimization process based on data-driven methods, 4.2. solution set evaluation and decision-making methods, 5. discussions, 5.1. the research status quo, 5.2. optimization and surrogate models, 5.3. optimization methods and tools, 5.4. future work, 6. conclusions.

• There are usually two workflows to optimize the building performance. One is the workflow of the optimization of the physical simulation (model surrogate) performance: Using the combined input of a building site and energy-carbon-related retrofit variables, a BPO process based on a physical simulation is established. The generated datasets can be either iteratively processed with optimization algorithms directly or trained as a surrogate model, validated, and then processed using the MOO method. The other is the workflow of mathematical modeling-optimization analyses: with sufficient actual field-measured empirical data available, data-driven methods, such as regression or machine learning, are used to develop mathematical models, and multiple objectives are comprehensively optimized from the perspective of building CERs.
• A building retrofit aims to maximize its benefits by integrating environmental, economic, and social considerations. Therefore, alongside CE objectives, factors like costs and thermal comfort should also be taken into account. There are 27 relevant studies in Table 2 related to the comprehensive optimization of three or more objectives, accounting for 60% of the total. Discussions on retrofit parameters should extensively cover aspects such as the thermal performance of the building envelope, building equipment and energy systems, and the utilization of renewable energy sources.
• Data-driven methods applied in optimization enable the sampling, screening, and iterative refinement of retrofit plans using computational tools, facilitating the determination of optimal solutions. The advancement and deployment of surrogate models make simplified mathematical calculations replace complex physical simulations, which further enhance optimization efficiency while ensuring accuracy.
• In the reviewed studies, only 2.2% (1 article) and 6.7% (3 articles) of the total focus on the impacts of human behaviors and climate change on building retrofits, respectively. Future research should delve deeper into the application of data-driven methods in building CER retrofits and BPO, considering user behaviors and variations in retrofit conditions amid long-term climate change scenarios. In addition, more work is needed to improve the accuracy of surrogate models and enhance generalizations and transfer capabilities.

Author Contributions

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Gan, V.J.L.; Deng, M.; Tse, K.T.; Chan, C.M.; Lo, I.M.C.; Cheng, J.C.P. Holistic BIM Framework for Sustainable Low Carbon Design of High-Rise Buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 195 , 1091–1104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qian, D.; Li, Y.; Niu, F.; O’Neill, Z. Nationwide Savings Analysis of Energy Conservation Measures in Buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019 , 188 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CO 2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed on 5 March 2024).
• Mata, É.; Korpal, A.K.; Cheng, S.H.; Jiménez Navarro, J.P.; Filippidou, F.; Reyna, J.; Wang, R. A Map of Roadmaps for Zero and Low Energy and Carbon Buildings Worldwide. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020 , 15 , 113003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, Y.; Zhang, X.; Shi, Y.; Xia, L.; Pan, S.; Wu, J.; Han, M.; Zhao, X. A Review of Data-Driven Approaches for Prediction and Classification of Building Energy Consumption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 82 , 1027–1047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Love, P.; Arthur Bullen, P. Toward the Sustainable Adaptation of Existing Facilities. Facilities 2009 , 27 , 357–367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deb, C.; Schlueter, A. Review of Data-Driven Energy Modelling Techniques for Building Retrofit. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021 , 144 , 110990. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, Z.; Cooper, P.; Daly, D.; Ledo, L. Existing Building Retrofits: Methodology and State-of-the-Art. Energy Build. 2012 , 55 , 889–902. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jensen, P.A.; Maslesa, E.; Berg, J.B.; Thuesen, C. 10 Questions Concerning Sustainable Building Renovation. Build. Environ. 2018 , 143 , 130–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, J.; Wang, S.; Teng, F.; Feng, W. Thermal Performance Optimization of Envelope in the Energy-Saving Renovation of Existing Residential Buildings. Energy Build. 2021 , 247 , 111103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vilches, A.; Garcia-Martinez, A.; Sanchez-Montañes, B. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Building Refurbishment: A Literature Review. Energy Build. 2017 , 135 , 286–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, Y.; Xu, P.; Ye, Y. HVAC Terminal Hourly End-Use Disaggregation in Commercial Buildings with Fourier Series Model. Energy Build. 2015 , 97 , 33–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jagarajan, R.; Abdullah Mohd Asmoni, M.N.; Mohammed, A.H.; Jaafar, M.N.; Lee Yim Mei, J.; Baba, M. Green Retrofitting—A Review of Current Status, Implementations and Challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017 , 67 , 1360–1368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nielsen, A.N.; Jensen, R.L.; Larsen, T.S.; Nissen, S.B. Early Stage Decision Support for Sustainable Building Renovation—A Review. Build. Environ. 2016 , 103 , 165–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Wilde, P. Ten Questions Concerning Building Performance Analysis. Build. Environ. 2019 , 153 , 110–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roman, N.D.; Bre, F.; Fachinotti, V.D.; Lamberts, R. Application and Characterization of Metamodels Based on Artificial Neural Networks for Building Performance Simulation: A Systematic Review. Energy Build. 2020 , 217 , 109972. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Z.; Xia, X.; Wang, B. Improving Building Energy Efficiency by Multiobjective Neighborhood Field Optimization. Energy Build. 2015 , 87 , 45–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hong, T.; Langevin, J.; Sun, K. Building Simulation: Ten Challenges. Build. Simul. 2018 , 11 , 871–898. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Attia, S.; Hamdy, M.; O’Brien, W.; Carlucci, S. Assessing Gaps and Needs for Integrating Building Performance Optimization Tools in Net Zero Energy Buildings Design. Energy Build. 2013 , 60 , 110–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Biccari, C.; Calcerano, F.; D’Uffizi, F.; Esposito, A.; Campari, M.; Gigliarelli, E. Building Information Modeling and Building Performance Simulation Interoperability: State-of-the-Art and Trends in Current Literature. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022 , 54 , 101753. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, X.; Tian, Z.; Chen, W.; Si, B.; Jin, X. A Review on Building Energy Efficient Design Optimization Rom the Perspective of Architects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016 , 65 , 872–884. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Westermann, P.; Evins, R. Surrogate Modelling for Sustainable Building Design—A Review. Energy Build. 2019 , 198 , 170–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, X.J.; Oyedele, L.O. A Data-Driven Life-Cycle Optimisation Approach for Building Retrofitting: A Comprehensive Assessment on Economy, Energy and Environment. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 43 , 102934. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thrampoulidis, E.; Mavromatidis, G.; Lucchi, A.; Orehounig, K. A Machine Learning-Based Surrogate Model to Approximate Optimal Building Retrofit Solutions. Appl. Energy 2021 , 281 , 116024. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; Mauro, G.; Napolitano, D.; Vanoli, G. A Multi-Criteria Approach to Achieve Constrained Cost-Optimal Energy Retrofits of Buildings by Mitigating Climate Change and Urban Overheating. Climate 2018 , 6 , 37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Yu, C.; Qian, Q.K.; Huang, R.; You, K.; Visscher, H.; Zhang, G. Incentive Initiatives on Energy-Efficient Renovation of Existing Buildings towards Carbon–Neutral Blueprints in China: Advancements, Challenges and Prospects. Energy Build. 2023 , 296 , 113343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Du, H.; Kumaraswamy, S.B. Case-Based Reasoning Approach for Decision-Making in Building Retrofit: A Review. Build. Environ. 2024 , 248 , 111030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mostafavi, F.; Tahsildoost, M.; Zomorodian, Z. Energy Efficiency and Carbon Emission in High-Rise Buildings: A Review (2005–2020). Build. Environ. 2021 , 206 , 108329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pombo, O.; Rivela, B.; Neila, J. The Challenge of Sustainable Building Renovation: Assessment of Current Criteria and Future Outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 123 , 88–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, J.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M. Review of Low-Carbon Refurbishment Solutions for Residential Buildings with Particular Reference to Multi-Story Buildings in Hong Kong. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017 , 73 , 393–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aghamolaei, R.; Fallahpour, M. Strategies towards Reducing Carbon Emission in University Campuses: A Comprehensive Review of Both Global and Local Scales. J. Build. Eng. 2023 , 76 , 107183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Haghighat, F.; Fung, B.C.M. A Review of The-State-of-the-Art in Data-Driven Approaches for Building Energy Prediction. Energy Build. 2020 , 221 , 110022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021 , 10 , 89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Son, T.H.; Weedon, Z.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Sanchez, T.; Corchado, J.M.; Mehmood, R. Algorithmic Urban Planning for Smart and Sustainable Development: Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023 , 94 , 104562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis. Scientometrics 2016 , 106 , 213–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olawumi, T.O.; Chan, D.W.M. A Scientometric Review of Global Research on Sustainability and Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 183 , 231–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santos, R.; Costa, A.A.; Grilo, A. Bibliometric Analysis and Review of Building Information Modelling Literature Published between 2005 and 2015. Autom. Constr. 2017 , 80 , 118–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, X.J. An Integrated Passive and Active Retrofitting Approach toward Minimum Whole-Life Carbon Footprint. Energy Build. 2023 , 295 , 113337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, X.J.; Oyedele, L.O. Assessment and Optimisation of Life Cycle Environment, Economy and Energy for Building Retrofitting. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2021 , 65 , 77–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, Y.; Pan, Y.; Yuan, X.; Yang, Y.; Fu, L.; Li, J.; Sun, T.; Huang, Z.; Kosonen, R. Assessment of Operational Carbon Emission Reduction of Energy Conservation Measures for Commercial Buildings: Model Development. Energy Build. 2022 , 268 , 112189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aghamolaei, R.; Ghaani, M.R. Balancing the Impacts of Energy Efficiency Strategies on Comfort Quality of Interior Places: Application of Optimization Algorithms in Domestic Housing. J. Build. Eng. 2020 , 29 , 101174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Charles, A.; Maref, W.; Ouellet-Plamondon, C.M. Case Study of the Upgrade of an Existing Office Building for Low Energy Consumption and Low Carbon Emissions. Energy Build. 2019 , 183 , 151–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niemelä, T.; Levy, K.; Kosonen, R.; Jokisalo, J. Cost-Optimal Renovation Solutions to Maximize Environmental Performance, Indoor Thermal Conditions and Productivity of Office Buildings in Cold Climate. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017 , 32 , 417–434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amani, N.; Kiaee, E. Developing a Two-Criteria Framework to Rank Thermal Insulation Materials in Nearly Zero Energy Buildings Using Multi-Objective Optimization Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 276 , 122592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharif, S.A.; Hammad, A. Developing Surrogate ANN for Selecting Near-Optimal Building Energy Renovation Methods Considering Energy Consumption, LCC and LCA. J. Build. Eng. 2019 , 25 , 100790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jeong, K.; Hong, T.; Kim, J.; Cho, K. Development of a Multi-Objective Optimization Model for Determining the Optimal CO 2 Emissions Reduction Strategies for a Multi-Family Housing Complex. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019 , 110 , 118–131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chantrelle, F.P.; Lahmidi, H.; Keilholz, W.; Mankibi, M.E.; Michel, P. Development of a Multicriteria Tool for Optimizing the Renovation of Buildings. Appl. Energy 2011 , 88 , 1386–1394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salata, F.; Ciancio, V.; Dell’Olmo, J.; Golasi, I.; Palusci, O.; Coppi, M. Effects of Local Conditions on the Multi-Variable and Multi-Objective Energy Optimization of Residential Buildings Using Genetic Algorithms. Appl. Energy 2020 , 260 , 114289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niemelä, T.; Kosonen, R.; Jokisalo, J. Energy Performance and Environmental Impact Analysis of Cost-Optimal Renovation Solutions of Large Panel Apartment Buildings in Finland. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017 , 32 , 9–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mostafazadeh, F.; Eirdmousa, S.J.; Tavakolan, M. Energy, Economic and Comfort Optimization of Building Retrofits Considering Climate Change: A Simulation-Based NSGA-III Approach. Energy Build. 2023 , 280 , 112721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, Y.; Luo, S.; Jiang, J.; Rong, Y. Environmental-Thermal-Economic Performance Trade-off for Rural Residence Retrofitting in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region, Northern China: A Multi-Objective Optimisation Framework under Different Scenarios. Energy Build. 2023 , 286 , 112910. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q.; Hu, H.; Ma, L.; Wang, Z.; Arıcı, M.; Li, D.; Luo, D.; Jia, J.; Jiang, W.; Qi, H. Evaluation of Energy-Saving Retrofits for Sunspace of Rural Residential Buildings Based on Orthogonal Experiment and Entropy Weight Method. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022 , 70 , 569–580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kertsmik, K.-A.; Kuusk, K.; Lylykangas, K.; Kalamees, T. Evaluation of Renovation Strategies: Cost-Optimal, CO 2 e Optimal, or Total Energy Optimal? Energy Build. 2023 , 287 , 112995. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Son, H.; Kim, C. Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization for Retrofit Planning in Public Buildings: A Comparative Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 190 , 403–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, J.; Wang, W.; Ni, P.; Zheng, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, Y. Framework on Low-Carbon Retrofit of Rural Residential Buildings in Arid Areas of Northwest China: A Case Study of Turpan Residential Buildings. Build. Simul. 2023 , 16 , 279–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Yang, L.; Zhang, Y.; He, J. How Does Future Climatic Uncertainty Affect Multi-Objective Building Energy Retrofit Decisions? Evidence from Residential Buildings in Subtropical Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023 , 92 , 104482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwartz, Y.; Raslan, R.; Mumovic, D. Implementing Multi Objective Genetic Algorithm for Life Cycle Carbon Footprint and Life Cycle Cost Minimisation: A Building Refurbishment Case Study. Energy 2016 , 97 , 58–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shadram, F.; Mukkavaara, J. Improving Life Cycle Sustainability and Profitability of Buildings through Optimization: A Case Study. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 497. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miglani, S.; Orehounig, K.; Carmeliet, J. Integrating a Thermal Model of Ground Source Heat Pumps and Solar Regeneration within Building Energy System Optimization. Appl. Energy 2018 , 218 , 78–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Hewage, K.; Prabatha, T.; Sadiq, R. Life Cycle Thinking-Based Energy Retrofits Evaluation Framework for Canadian Residences: A Pareto Optimization Approach. Build. Environ. 2021 , 204 , 108115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seyedzadeh, S.; Pour Rahimian, F.; Oliver, S.; Rodriguez, S.; Glesk, I. Machine Learning Modelling for Predicting Non-Domestic Buildings Energy Performance: A Model to Support Deep Energy Retrofit Decision-Making. Appl. Energy 2020 , 279 , 115908. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ciardiello, A.; Rosso, F.; Dell’Olmo, J.; Ciancio, V.; Ferrero, M.; Salata, F. Multi-Objective Approach to the Optimization of Shape and Envelope in Building Energy Design. Appl. Energy 2020 , 280 , 115984. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, B.; Pouramini, S. Multi-Objective Optimization for Thermal Comfort Enhancement and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Residential Buildings Applying Retrofitting Measures by an Enhanced Water Strider Optimization Algorithm: A Case Study. Energy Rep. 2021 , 7 , 1915–1929. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montana, F.; Kanafani, K.; Wittchen, K.; Birgisdottir, H.; Longo, S.; Cellura, M.; Riva Sanseverino, E. Multi-Objective Optimization of Building Life Cycle Performance. A Housing Renovation Case Study in Northern Europe. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7807. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosso, F.; Ciancio, V.; Dell’Olmo, J.; Salata, F. Multi-Objective Optimization of Building Retrofit in the Mediterranean Climate by Means of Genetic Algorithm Application. Energy Build. 2020 , 216 , 109945. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kadrić, D.; Aganović, A.; Kadrić, E. Multi-Objective Optimization of Energy-Efficient Retrofitting Strategies for Single-Family Residential Homes: Minimizing Energy Consumption, CO 2 Emissions and Retrofit Costs. Energy Rep. 2023 , 10 , 1968–1981. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, B.; Zhu, X.; Ren, J.; Ran, J.; Kim, M.K.; Liu, J. Multi-Objective Optimization of Energy-Saving Measures and Operation Parameters for a Newly Retrofitted Building in Future Climate Conditions: A Case Study of an Office Building in Chengdu. Energy Rep. 2023 , 9 , 2269–2285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, R.; Mavromatidis, G.; Orehounig, K.; Carmeliet, J. Multiobjective Optimisation of Energy Systems and Building Envelope Retrofit in a Residential Community. Appl. Energy 2017 , 190 , 634–649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schütz, T.; Schiffer, L.; Harb, H.; Fuchs, M.; Müller, D. Optimal Design of Energy Conversion Units and Envelopes for Residential Building Retrofits Using a Comprehensive MILP Model. Appl. Energy 2017 , 185 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, H.; Wang, H.; Hu, Y.-J.; Li, C.; Wang, X. Optimal Plan for Energy Conservation and CO2 Emissions Reduction of Public Buildings Considering Users’ Behavior: Case of China. Energy 2022 , 261 , 125037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panagiotidou, M.; Aye, L.; Rismanchi, B. Optimisation of Multi-Residential Building Retrofit, Cost-Optimal and Net-Zero Emission Targets. Energy Build. 2021 , 252 , 111385. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dou, Z.; Jin, L.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Z. Optimization of Cost–Carbon Reduction–Technology Solution for Existing Office Parks Based on Genetic Algorithm. Processes 2023 , 11 , 2452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Yan, C.; Wang, G.; Shi, J.; Sheng, K.; Li, J.; Jiang, Y. Optimization Research on Energy-Saving and Life-Cycle Decarbonization Retrofitting of Existing School Buildings: A Case Study of a School in Nanjing. Sol. Energy 2023 , 254 , 54–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karatas, A.; El-Rayes, K. Optimizing Tradeoffs among Housing Sustainability Objectives. Autom. Constr. 2015 , 53 , 83–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwartz, Y.; Raslan, R.; Mumovic, D. Refurbish or Replace? The Life Cycle Carbon Footprint and Life Cycle Cost of Refurbished and New Residential Archetype Buildings in London. Energy 2022 , 248 , 123585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharif, S.A.; Hammad, A. Simulation-Based Multi-Objective Optimization of Institutional Building Renovation Considering Energy Consumption, Life-Cycle Cost and Life-Cycle Assessment. J. Build. Eng. 2019 , 21 , 429–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saad, M.M.; Menon, R.P.; Eicker, U. Supporting Decision Making for Building Decarbonization: Developing Surrogate Models for Multi-Criteria Building Retrofitting Analysis. Energies 2023 , 16 , 6030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Gong, G.; Wang, Y.; Li, L. Thermodynamic Investigation of Building Integrated Energy Efficiency for Building Retrofit. Energy Build. 2014 , 77 , 139–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Galimshina, A.; Moustapha, M.; Hollberg, A.; Padey, P.; Lasvaux, S.; Sudret, B.; Habert, G. What Is the Optimal Robust Environmental and Cost-Effective Solution for Building Renovation? Not the Usual One. Energy Build. 2021 , 251 , 111329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mei, J.; Xu, G.; Ahmad, W.; Khan, K.; Amin, M.N.; Aslam, F.; Alaskar, A. Promoting Sustainable Materials Using Recycled Rubber in Concrete: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 373 , 133927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Boeck, L.; Verbeke, S.; Audenaert, A.; De Mesmaeker, L. Improving the Energy Performance of Residential Buildings: A Literature Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 52 , 960–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shaamala, A.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Nili, A.; Nyandega, D. Algorithmic Green Infrastructure Optimisation: Review of Artificial Intelligence Driven Approaches for Tackling Climate Change. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024 , 101 , 105182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Production: How Great Is the Impact? Scientometrics 2015 , 105 , 1809–1831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study among Tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011 , 62 , 1382–1402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006 , 57 , 359–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tetteh, M.O.; Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Jafari, A.; Brilakis, I.; Chen, W.; Nani, G.; Kwame Yevu, S. Scientometric Mapping of Global Research on Green Retrofitting of Existing Buildings (GREB): Pathway towards a Holistic GREB Framework. Energy Build. 2022 , 277 , 112532. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, N.; Yang, C.; Wang, S. Research Progress and Prospect of Environmental, Social and Governance: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2024 , 447 , 141489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Debrah, C.; Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A. Artificial Intelligence in Green Building. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 137 , 104192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, H.; Magoulès, F. A Review on the Prediction of Building Energy Consumption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012 , 16 , 3586–3592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, J.; Krietemeyer, B.; Bartosh, A.; Gao, Z.; Zhang, J. Green Design Studio: A Modular-Based Approach for High-Performance Building Design. Build. Simul. 2021 , 14 , 241–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DesignBuilder Software Ltd-Home. Available online: https://designbuilder.co.uk/ (accessed on 21 February 2024).
• OpenStudio. Available online: https://openstudio.net/ (accessed on 21 February 2024).
• 3D Design Software|3D Modeling on the Web. Available online: http://www.sketchup.com/page/homepage (accessed on 21 February 2024).
• Ladybug Tools|Honeybee. Available online: https://www.ladybug.tools/honeybee.html (accessed on 11 March 2024).
• Network, S.D. Created This N. Grasshopper. Available online: https://www.grasshopper3d.com/ (accessed on 21 February 2024).
• Li, C.Z.; Zhang, L.; Liang, X.; Xiao, B.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Lai, X.; Chen, Z. Advances in the Research of Building Energy Saving. Energy Build. 2022 , 254 , 111556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, Y.; Zhu, M.; Lv, Y.; Yang, Y.; Liang, Y.; Yin, R.; Yang, Y.; Jia, X.; Wang, X.; Zeng, F.; et al. Building Energy Simulation and Its Application for Building Performance Optimization: A Review of Methods, Tools, and Case Studies. Adv. Appl. Energy 2023 , 10 , 100135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, J.; Liu, R.; Xia, T.; Pouramini, S. Energy Model Calibration in an Office Building by an Optimization-Based Method. Energy Rep. 2021 , 7 , 4397–4411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ASHRAE. Guideline 14, Measurement of Energy and Demand Savings ; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• EVO. International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings ; Efficiency Valuation Organization: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; Volume 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• US DOE FEMP. M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based Contracts, Version 4.0 ; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; US DOE FEMP: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
• Hong, T.; Kim, J.; Koo, C. LCC and LCCO 2 Analysis of Green Roofs in Elementary Schools with Energy Saving Measures. Energy Build. 2012 , 45 , 229–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coakley, D.; Raftery, P.; Keane, M. A Review of Methods to Match Building Energy Simulation Models to Measured Data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014 , 37 , 123–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nguyen, A.-T.; Reiter, S.; Rigo, P. A Review on Simulation-Based Optimization Methods Applied to Building Performance Analysis. Appl. Energy 2014 , 113 , 1043–1058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, W. A Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods in Building Energy Analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013 , 20 , 411–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hou, D.; Hassan, I.G.; Wang, L. Review on Building Energy Model Calibration by Bayesian Inference. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021 , 143 , 110930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, H.; Wang, H.; Hu, Y.-J.; Li, C.; Wang, X. The Development Trends of Existing Building Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction—A Comprehensive Review. Energy Rep. 2022 , 8 , 13170–13188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torabi Moghadam, S.; Toniolo, J.; Mutani, G.; Lombardi, P. A GIS-Statistical Approach for Assessing Built Environment Energy Use at Urban Scale. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018 , 37 , 70–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yussuf, R.O.; Asfour, O.S. Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Energy Efficiency throughout the Building Lifecycle: An Overview. Energy Build. 2024 , 305 , 113903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seyedzadeh, S.; Rahimian, F.P.; Oliver, S.; Glesk, I.; Kumar, B. Data Driven Model Improved by Multi-Objective Optimisation for Prediction of Building Energy Loads. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 116 , 103188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grillone, B.; Danov, S.; Sumper, A.; Cipriano, J.; Mor, G. A Review of Deterministic and Data-Driven Methods to Quantify Energy Efficiency Savings and to Predict Retrofitting Scenarios in Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020 , 131 , 110027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seyedzadeh, S.; Pour Rahimian, F.; Rastogi, P.; Glesk, I. Tuning Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Building Energy Loads. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019 , 47 , 101484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magnier, L.; Haghighat, F. Multiobjective Optimization of Building Design Using TRNSYS Simulations, Genetic Algorithm, and Artificial Neural Network. Build. Environ. 2010 , 45 , 739–746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alwosheel, A.; Van Cranenburgh, S.; Chorus, C.G. Is Your Dataset Big Enough? Sample Size Requirements When Using Artificial Neural Networks for Discrete Choice Analysis. J. Choice Model. 2018 , 28 , 167–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Sun, B.; Zhang, C.; Li, F. A Hybrid Prediction Model for Residential Electricity Consumption Using Holt-Winters and Extreme Learning Machine. Appl. Energy 2020 , 275 , 115383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Gelder, L.; Das, P.; Janssen, H.; Roels, S. Comparative Study of Metamodelling Techniques in Building Energy Simulation: Guidelines for Practitioners. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2014 , 49 , 245–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Claesen, M.; De Moor, B. Hyperparameter Search in Machine Learning. arXiv 2015 , arXiv:1502.02127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rätz, M.; Javadi, A.P.; Baranski, M.; Finkbeiner, K.; Müller, D. Automated Data-Driven Modeling of Building Energy Systems via Machine Learning Algorithms. Energy Build. 2019 , 202 , 109384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Xiao, T.; Wang, H.; Hou, P. A Novel Short-Term Load Forecasting Framework Based on Time-Series Clustering and Early Classification Algorithm. Energy Build. 2021 , 251 , 111375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amasyali, K.; El-Gohary, N.M. A Review of Data-Driven Building Energy Consumption Prediction Studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 81 , 1192–1205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Shargabi, A.A.; Almhafdy, A.; Ibrahim, D.M.; Alghieth, M.; Chiclana, F. Buildings’ Energy Consumption Prediction Models Based on Buildings’ Characteristics: Research Trends, Taxonomy, and Performance Measures. J. Build. Eng. 2022 , 54 , 104577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abbasabadi, N.; Ashayeri, M.; Azari, R.; Stephens, B.; Heidarinejad, M. An Integrated Data-Driven Framework for Urban Energy Use Modeling (UEUM). Appl. Energy 2019 , 253 , 113550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Guo, M.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Z.; Ji, Y. Physical Energy and Data-Driven Models in Building Energy Prediction: A Review. Energy Rep. 2022 , 8 , 2656–2671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Venkatraj, V.; Dixit, M.K. Challenges in Implementing Data-Driven Approaches for Building Life Cycle Energy Assessment: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022 , 160 , 112327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fenner, A.E.; Kibert, C.J.; Li, J.; Razkenari, M.A.; Hakim, H.; Lu, X.; Kouhirostami, M.; Sam, M. Embodied, Operation, and Commuting Emissions: A Case Study Comparing the Carbon Hotspots of an Educational Building. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 268 , 122081. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, T.Y.; Burnett, J.; Chau, C.K. Analysis of Embodied Energy Use in the Residential Building of Hong Kong. Energy 2001 , 26 , 323–340. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elaouzy, Y.; El Fadar, A. Energy, Economic and Environmental Benefits of Integrating Passive Design Strategies into Buildings: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022 , 167 , 112828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, M.; Ali, A.; Andargie, M.S.; Azar, E. Multidomain Drivers of Occupant Comfort, Productivity, and Well-Being in Buildings: Insights from an Exploratory and Explanatory Analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2021 , 37 , 04021020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, C.; Hou, Y.; Ding, L.; Li, P. Visualized Literature Review on Sustainable Building Renovation. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 44 , 102622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evins, R. A Review of Computational Optimisation Methods Applied to Sustainable Building Design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013 , 22 , 230–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hashempour, N.; Taherkhani, R.; Mahdikhani, M. Energy Performance Optimization of Existing Buildings: A Literature Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020 , 54 , 101967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urbikain, M.K. Energy Efficient Solutions for Retrofitting a Residential Multi-Storey Building with Vacuum Insulation Panels and Low-E Windows in Two European Climates. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 269 , 121459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Sharples, S.; Mohammadpourkarbasi, H. A Review of Building Energy Retrofit Measures, Passive Design Strategies and Building Regulation for the Low Carbon Development of Existing Dwellings in the Hot Summer–Cold Winter Region of China. Energies 2023 , 16 , 4115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamby, D.M. A Review of Techniques for Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of Environmental Models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1994 , 32 , 135–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kheiri, F. A Review on Optimization Methods Applied in Energy-Efficient Building Geometry and Envelope Design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 92 , 897–920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heiselberg, P.; Brohus, H.; Hesselholt, A.; Rasmussen, H.; Seinre, E.; Thomas, S. Application of Sensitivity Analysis in Design of Sustainable Buildings. Renew. Energy 2009 , 34 , 2030–2036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, Z.; Zhang, X.; Jin, X.; Zhou, X.; Si, B.; Shi, X. Towards Adoption of Building Energy Simulation and Optimization for Passive Building Design: A Survey and a Review. Energy Build. 2018 , 158 , 1306–1316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asadi, E.; Silva, M.G.D.; Antunes, C.H.; Dias, L.; Glicksman, L. Multi-Objective Optimization for Building Retrofit: A Model Using Genetic Algorithm and Artificial Neural Network and an Application. Energy Build. 2014 , 81 , 444–456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, W.; Heo, Y.; De Wilde, P.; Li, Z.; Yan, D.; Park, C.S.; Feng, X.; Augenbroe, G. A Review of Uncertainty Analysis in Building Energy Assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 93 , 285–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Y.-J.; Ahn, K.-U.; Park, C.-S. Decision Making of HVAC System Using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method. Energy Build. 2014 , 72 , 112–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Longo, S.; Montana, F.; Riva Sanseverino, E. A Review on Optimization and Cost-Optimal Methodologies in Low-Energy Buildings Design and Environmental Considerations. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019 , 45 , 87–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Y.; Niu, J. Optimal Building Envelope Design Based on Simulated Performance: History, Current Status and New Potentials. Energy Build. 2016 , 117 , 387–398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2002 , 6 , 182–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Heuvelink, G.B.M.; Bai, Z.; He, P.; Xu, X.; Ding, W.; Huang, S. Analysis of Spatio-Temporal Variation of Crop Yield in China Using Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression. Field Crops Res. 2021 , 264 , 108098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ali, A.; Jayaraman, R.; Azar, E.; Maalouf, M. A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning and Statistical Methods for Evaluating Building Performance: A Systematic Review and Future Benchmarking Framework. Build. Environ. 2024 , 252 , 111268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amini Toosi, H.; Lavagna, M.; Leonforte, F.; Del Pero, C.; Aste, N. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Building Energy Retrofitting; A Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020 , 60 , 102248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mousavi, S.; Villarreal-Marroquín, M.G.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.; Smith, N.R. Data-Driven Prediction and Optimization toward Net-Zero and Positive-Energy Buildings: A Systematic Review. Build. Environ. 2023 , 242 , 110578. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Machairas, V.; Tsangrassoulis, A.; Axarli, K. Algorithms for Optimization of Building Design: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014 , 31 , 101–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Congradac, V.; Kulic, F. HVAC System Optimization with CO 2 Concentration Control Using Genetic Algorithms. Energy Build. 2009 , 41 , 571–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Delgarm, N.; Sajadi, B.; Delgarm, S.; Kowsary, F. A Novel Approach for the Simulation-Based Optimization of the Buildings Energy Consumption Using NSGA-II: Case Study in Iran. Energy Build. 2016 , 127 , 552–560. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deb, K.; Thiele, L.; Laumanns, M.; Zitzler, E. Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. In Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization ; Abraham, A., Jain, L., Goldberg, R., Eds.; Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing; Springer: London, UK, 2005; pp. 105–145. ISBN 978-1-85233-787-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deb, K.; Jain, H. An Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization Algorithm Using Reference-Point-Based Nondominated Sorting Approach, Part I: Solving Problems with Box Constraints. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2014 , 18 , 577–601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Emmerich, M.T.M.; Deutz, A.H. A Tutorial on Multiobjective Optimization: Fundamentals and Evolutionary Methods. Nat. Comput. 2018 , 17 , 585–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mendoza, F.; Bernal-Agustin, J.L.; Dominguez-Navarro, J.A. NSGA and SPEA Applied to Multiobjective Design of Power Distribution Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2006 , 21 , 1938–1945. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zitzler, E.; Laumanns, M.; Thiele, L. SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm ; ETH Zurich: Zürich, Switzerland, 2001; p. 21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, S.; Tao, R.; Tam, C.M. Optimizing Cost and CO 2 Emission for Construction Projects Using Particle Swarm Optimization. Habitat Int. 2013 , 37 , 155–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gan, V.J.L.; Lo, I.M.C.; Ma, J.; Tse, K.T.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Chan, C.M. Simulation Optimisation towards Energy Efficient Green Buildings: Current Status and Future Trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 254 , 120012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raschka, S.; Patterson, J.; Nolet, C. Machine Learning in Python: Main Developments and Technology Trends in Data Science, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence. Information 2020 , 11 , 193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MATLAB. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html (accessed on 7 April 2024).
• Start [Jeplus.Org]. Available online: http://www.jeplus.org/wiki/doku.php?id=start (accessed on 7 April 2024).
• Multiobjective Optimization-MATLAB & Simulink. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/help/gads/multiobjective-optimization.html (accessed on 7 April 2024).
• Cui, Y.; Geng, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Han, Y. Review: Multi-Objective Optimization Methods and Application in Energy Saving. Energy 2017 , 125 , 681–704. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Veldhuizen, D.A.V.; Lamont, G.B. Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Research: A History and Analysis ; TR-98e03; Air Force Institute of Technology: Dayton, OH, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zitzler, E.; Thiele, L.; Laumanns, M.; Fonseca, C.M.; Da Fonseca, V.G. Performance Assessment of Multiobjective Optimizers: An Analysis and Review. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2003 , 7 , 117–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinzon Amorocho, J.A.; Hartmann, T. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Residential Building Renovation Using Pairwise Comparison and TOPSIS Methods. J. Build. Eng. 2022 , 53 , 104596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chauhan, A.; Vaish, R. A Comparative Study on Decision Making Methods with Interval Data. J. Comput. Eng. 2014 , 2014 , 93074. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rokbani, N.; Neji, B.; Slim, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Ghandour, R. A Multi-Objective Modified PSO for Inverse Kinematics of a 5-DOF Robotic Arm. Appl. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 7091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francart, N.; Malmqvist, T.; Hagbert, P. Climate Target Fulfilment in Scenarios for a Sustainable Swedish Built Environment beyond Growth. Futures 2018 , 98 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmad, M.W.; Mourshed, M.; Rezgui, Y. Trees vs Neurons: Comparison between Random Forest and ANN for High-Resolution Prediction of Building Energy Consumption. Energy Build. 2017 , 147 , 77–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, H.; Zhang, R.; Srinivasan, R.S. Practical Issues in Implementing Machine-Learning Models for Building Energy Efficiency: Moving beyond Obstacles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021 , 143 , 110929. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singaravel, S.; Suykens, J.; Geyer, P. Deep-Learning Neural-Network Architectures and Methods: Using Component-Based Models in Building-Design Energy Prediction. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2018 , 38 , 81–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khalil, M.; McGough, A.S.; Pourmirza, Z.; Pazhoohesh, M.; Walker, S. Machine Learning, Deep Learning and Statistical Analysis for Forecasting Building Energy Consumption—A Systematic Review. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022 , 115 , 105287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qian, F.; Gao, W.; Yang, Y.; Yu, D. Potential Analysis of the Transfer Learning Model in Short and Medium-Term Forecasting of Building HVAC Energy Consumption. Energy 2020 , 193 , 116724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, C.; Li, S.; Lu, Z. Building Energy Prediction Using Artificial Neural Networks: A Literature Survey. Energy Build. 2022 , 262 , 111718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Man, Q.; Yu, H.; Feng, K.; Olofsson, T.; Lu, W. Transfer of Building Retrofitting Evaluations for Data-Scarce Conditions: An Empirical Study for Sweden to China. Energy Build. 2024 , 310 , 114041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fahlstedt, O.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A.; Lohne, J.; Bohne, R.A. Holistic Assessment of Carbon Abatement Strategies in Building Refurbishment Literature—A Scoping Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022 , 167 , 112636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bian, Y.; Chen, Y.; Sun, Y.; Ma, Y.; Yu, D.; Leng, T. Simulation of Daylight Availability, Visual Comfort and View Clarity for a Novel Window System with Switchable Blinds in Classrooms. Build. Environ. 2023 , 235 , 110243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, S.; Li, C.; He, W.; Chu, W.; Hu, Z.; Lu, B. Experimental Study of Bifacial Photovoltaic Wall System Incorporating Thermochromic Material. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024 , 106 , 105372. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bui, D.-K.; Nguyen, T.N.; Ghazlan, A.; Ngo, T.D. Biomimetic Adaptive Electrochromic Windows for Enhancing Building Energy Efficiency. Appl. Energy 2021 , 300 , 117341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, Y.; Chen, X.; Xu, B.; Pei, G.; Jiao, D. Experimental Analysis of Building Envelope Integrating Phase Change Material and Cool Paint under a Real Environment in Autumn. J. Clean. Prod. 2024 , 461 , 142674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quan, S.J.; Wu, J.; Wang, Y.; Shi, Z.; Yang, T.; Yang, P.P.-J. Urban Form and Building Energy Performance in Shanghai Neighborhoods. Energy Procedia 2016 , 88 , 126–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ekici, B.; Cubukcuoglu, C.; Turrin, M.; Sariyildiz, I.S. Performative Computational Architecture Using Swarm and Evolutionary Optimisation: A Review. Build. Environ. 2019 , 147 , 356–371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Octopus. Available online: https://www.grasshopper3d.com/groups/group/show?groupUrl=octopus (accessed on 7 April 2024).
• Fan, Z.; Liu, M.; Tang, S. A Multi-Objective Optimization Design Method for Gymnasium Facade Shading Ratio Integrating Energy Load and Daylight Comfort. Build. Environ. 2022 , 207 , 108527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nasrollahzadeh, N. Comprehensive Building Envelope Optimization: Improving Energy, Daylight, and Thermal Comfort Performance of the Dwelling Unit. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 44 , 103418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, Y.; Wang, W.; He, Y.; Li, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, T. Performance in Generation: An Automatic Generalizable Generative-Design-Based Performance Optimization Framework for Sustainable Building Design. Energy Build. 2023 , 298 , 113512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, R.; Samuelson, H.; Zou, Y.; Zheng, X.; Cao, Y. Improving Building Resilience in the Face of Future Climate Uncertainty: A Comprehensive Framework for Enhancing Building Life Cycle Performance. Energy Build. 2024 , 302 , 113761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madushika, U.G.D.; Lu, W. Green Retrofitting Application in Developing Economies: State of the Art and Future Research Directions. Energy Build. 2023 , 301 , 113712. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wei, S.; Du, S.; Shi, X. A Review of Data-Driven Building Performance Analysis and Design on Big on-Site Building Performance Data. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 41 , 102706. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, M.K.; Attia, S.; Mahapatra, S.; Teller, J. Assessment of Thermal Comfort in Existing Pre-1945 Residential Building Stock. Energy 2016 , 98 , 122–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alonso, A.; Patricio, J.; Suárez, R.; Escandón, R. Acoustical Retrofit of Existing Residential Buildings: Requirements and Recommendations for Sound Insulation between Dwellings in Europe and Other Countries Worldwide. Build. Environ. 2020 , 174 , 106771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aftab, M.; Chen, C.; Chau, C.-K.; Rahwan, T. Automatic HVAC Control with Real-Time Occupancy Recognition and Simulation-Guided Model Predictive Control in Low-Cost Embedded System. Energy Build. 2017 , 154 , 141–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hong, Y.; Ezeh, C.I.; Deng, W.; Hong, S.-H.; Peng, Z. Building Energy Retrofit Measures in Hot-Summer–Cold-Winter Climates: A Case Study in Shanghai. Energies 2019 , 12 , 3393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.; Ma, Q.; Gao, W.; Wei, X. Incorporating Users’ Adaptive Behaviors into Multi-Objective Optimization of Shading Devices: A Case Study of an Office Room in Qingdao. Energy Build. 2023 , 301 , 113683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Wilde, P.; Coley, D. The Implications of a Changing Climate for Buildings. Build. Environ. 2012 , 55 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daly, D.; Cooper, P.; Ma, Z. Implications of Global Warming for Commercial Building Retrofitting in Australian Cities. Build. Environ. 2014 , 74 , 86–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balezentis, T.; Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I.; Streimikiene, D. Stakeholder Involvement for Sustainable Energy Development Based on Uncertain Group Decision Making: Prioritizing the Renewable Energy Heating Technologies and the BWM-WASPAS-IN Approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021 , 73 , 103114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beccali, M.; Cellura, M.; Fontana, M.; Longo, S.; Mistretta, M. Energy Retrofit of a Single-Family House: Life Cycle Net Energy Saving and Environmental Benefits. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013 , 27 , 283–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Allegrini, J.; Dorer, V.; Carmeliet, J. Influence of the Urban Microclimate in Street Canyons on the Energy Demand for Space Cooling and Heating of Buildings. Energy Build. 2012 , 55 , 823–832. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santamouris, M.; Papanikolaou, N.; Livada, I.; Koronakis, I.; Georgakis, C.; Argiriou, A.; Assimakopoulos, D.N. On the Impact of Urban Climate on the Energy Consumption of Buildings. Sol. Energy 2001 , 70 , 201–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reitberger, R.; Palm, N.; Palm, H.; Lang, W. Urban Systems Exploration: A Generic Process for Multi-Objective Urban Planning to Support Decision Making in Early Design Phases. Build. Environ. 2024 , 254 , 111360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Luo, S.-L.; Shi, X.; Yang, F. A Review of Data-Driven Methods in Building Retrofit and Performance Optimization: From the Perspective of Carbon Emission Reductions. Energies 2024 , 17 , 4641. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17184641

Luo S-L, Shi X, Yang F. A Review of Data-Driven Methods in Building Retrofit and Performance Optimization: From the Perspective of Carbon Emission Reductions. Energies . 2024; 17(18):4641. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17184641

Luo, Shu-Long, Xing Shi, and Feng Yang. 2024. "A Review of Data-Driven Methods in Building Retrofit and Performance Optimization: From the Perspective of Carbon Emission Reductions" Energies 17, no. 18: 4641. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17184641

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.