Supervisors and reviewers use these three terms precisely, even when students use them loosely. Choosing the wrong one — or using the right name for the wrong process — is a common reason a methods section gets sent back.
Literature review: argument-driven, selection is judgment-based
A traditional (narrative) literature review builds an argument from selected sources. The researcher decides what counts as relevant using expertise and the needs of the argument, not a pre-registered protocol. It is the right choice for framing a thesis introduction or a discussion section, where the goal is contextualizing a claim rather than exhaustively mapping a field.
Systematic review: protocol-driven, reproducible, exhaustive
A systematic review answers a narrowly defined question using a documented, reproducible search and screening protocol — typically with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, dual screening, and a reporting standard such as PRISMA. The goal is that another researcher, following the same protocol, would retrieve substantially the same evidence base. This is a methods commitment, not a stylistic choice; if you have not pre-registered criteria or documented your search strings, you have not conducted one, whatever you call it.
Scoping review: maps the field before the question is fixed
A scoping review is used when the question itself is still being defined — to map how much evidence exists, what concepts and terminology are in use, and where the boundaries of a field sit. It follows a systematic process for search and screening but does not typically assess study quality or synthesize a pooled answer the way a systematic review does. It is often the honest choice for early-stage doctoral work, where the real task is finding out what is even out there.
Which one are you actually doing?
Ask three questions: Is your question fixed and narrow, or still forming? Do you have a documented protocol you could hand to someone else? Are you assessing study quality and pooling findings, or mapping a landscape? The honest answers usually make the label obvious — and naming your review type correctly, early, saves a difficult conversation with a supervisor later.
Keep the process proportionate
A transparent screening table is useful in any review, but it does not by itself turn a narrative review into a systematic one. Record the search date, sources consulted, and the reason a central item was included or excluded; then describe the process honestly in the methods section. The Deep workspace can hold that decision trail, while the review design remains a methodological choice rather than a software setting.