A collective textbook-guide by Colaboratoria
Literature Review in International Studies:
An Example of Digital Diplomacy
- Anna SytnikАвтор
In this chapter, we will discuss: why a literature review is needed and what role it plays in academic research; explain how to identify scholarly schools, approaches, and the evolution of a research field; describe how to use academic databases to search for sources; and provide practical advice and examples of prompts on how AI can help in compiling a review.
/01
Why is a literature review necessary?
Any serious academic research begins with a review of existing literature. In the context of international studies, where topics are often complex and interdisciplinary, a high-quality literature review is especially important. Using the dynamically developing field of digital diplomacy as an example, we will examine why a literature review is needed, how to compile it correctly, and what tools can help in this process.
A literature review — an analytical overview of previously published works on a topic that serves as the foundation for your own research.
Digital diplomacy (sometimes referred to as e-diplomacy, net diplomacy, or twiplomacy) is a relatively new field in international relations, associated with the use of digital technologies and social media in diplomatic practice. Since this field has emerged only over the past two decades, it is still in a formative stage: a relatively small number of studies have been published, and a unified theoretical framework is only beginning to take shape. This is precisely why reviewing the existing literature on digital diplomacy is a creative task that requires a systematic approach.
A literature review performs several important functions in academic work. Its main purpose is to demonstrate the current state of knowledge on your topic and thereby justify the niche for your own research.
A literature review is necessary in order to:
By studying what has already been done, you ensure that you are not repeating others' experiments and conclusions. A review helps eliminate duplication of existing work and clearly shows what new contribution you are making. In other words, it identifies the research problem or "gap"—what has not yet been studied or remains contested.
A well-written literature review shows that you understand the subject and are familiar with the main theories and concepts. In a master’s thesis in international relations, for example, the literature review is intended to demonstrate your ability to work with sources, analyze them, and think logically. Experts reading the review assess your competence and erudition. In effect, the review is a showcase of your critical thinking and ability to synthesize knowledge.
During the review process, the research topic is often refined. By comparing different works, you may narrow or, conversely, broaden the focus of your study and formulate clearer research questions. The review helps identify subtopics and aspects of the problem that you will examine in detail. As methodologists note, a literature review provides knowledge of what has already been discovered in science and thereby facilitates the creation of new solutions and sets guidelines for your own research.
By systematizing the literature, you identify the main theories in your field, key concepts, and models used by other authors. This allows you to select or develop your own theoretical approach.
In addition, familiarity with the methods used in previous studies shows which methods were successful or unsuccessful and why. For example, by analyzing the literature, one might conclude that most studies on digital diplomacy use qualitative methods (interviews, case studies), while quantitative research is scarce—meaning that you could fill this gap.
In addition, familiarity with the methods used in previous studies shows which methods were successful or unsuccessful and why. For example, by analyzing the literature, one might conclude that most studies on digital diplomacy use qualitative methods (interviews, case studies), while quantitative research is scarce—meaning that you could fill this gap.
A literature review outlines the boundaries of a field of knowledge: what is already known, what is contested, which aspects are well studied, and which remain in the shadows. It also allows you to see the limitations of previous work (for example, if studies focused only on major powers, you might turn to small states or non-state actors). The literature review helps situate your research within a broader context and show how it relates to current academic debates.
Through literature analysis, you demonstrate that the chosen problem is indeed relevant. For example, if numerous articles and reports on digital diplomacy have appeared over the past five years, this indicates its importance for both scholarship and practice. On the other hand, if the topic is still underdeveloped, you emphasize that your research will fill an important gap. In any case, the review convinces the reader (including your supervisor and reviewers) that you have chosen a worthwhile problem.
Ultimately, the literature review leads the reader to the hypothesis or research questions of your work. After reading the review, it should be clear what conclusions can be drawn from existing knowledge and which questions remain unanswered—these are precisely the questions your research will address.
- • Important
A literature review is not simply a list of sources you have read with brief summaries. It should not look like an abstract or a collection of annotations. On the contrary, a good review is a coherent narrative in which sources are compared, contrasted, and grouped by meaning.
• Important
A literature review is not simply a list of sources you have read with brief summaries. It should not look like an abstract or a collection of annotations. On the contrary, a good review is a coherent narrative in which sources are compared, contrasted, and grouped by meaning.
ВIt necessarily includes analysis and evaluation: you show your attitude toward other authors' works, highlight strengths and weaknesses, and identify commonalities and contradictions. A literature review is your argument about what is known and unknown on the topic, not merely a report on what you have read.
In summary, a literature review plays the role of both a foundation and a compass: it supports your research with accumulated knowledge and points to the direction in which this knowledge should be expanded. Without a solid literature review, academic work risks being groundless or repeating a path already taken by another researcher.
/02
Organization and grouping of literature
One of the challenging tasks in writing a review is structuring numerous sources in a logical and reader-friendly way. Since even a narrow topic can generate a large body of literature, it is important not to get lost in details but to identify the main lines of discussion. There are several approaches to grouping and organizing literature in a review. Let us consider the main ones and illustrate how they can be applied using digital diplomacy as an example.
/grouping by issues
Thematic approach
The thematic approach means distributing the literature according to subtopics, ideas, or concepts within your research. Key research directions within the problem are identified. For example, when studying digital diplomacy, the literature can be divided into the following conditional groups:
Works that define the concept, discuss differences between related terms ("digital," "electronic," "cyber diplomacy," etc.), and propose theoretical models. These may include comparative articles on what digital diplomacy encompasses and how it relates to traditional and public diplomacy.
Studies devoted to the use of specific digital platforms in diplomacy. For example, works on Twitter diplomacy (twiplomacy), diplomatic activity on other social platforms, ambassadors' blogs, the use of messengers or Zoom in negotiations, and so on.
This category may also include literature on social media content analysis, audience engagement metrics, and information dissemination algorithms.
This category may also include literature on social media content analysis, audience engagement metrics, and information dissemination algorithms.
Literature describing the experience of various countries and organizations in the field of digital diplomacy.
For example:
For example:
- studies on how foreign ministries implement digital communication strategies;
- overviews of EU digital initiatives;
- comparisons of how, for instance, China and India use social media in foreign policy.
Works that attempt to assess how effective digital diplomacy is in achieving foreign policy goals.
For example:
For example:
- studies of the impact of embassy social media activity on foreign public opinion;
- analyses of successful (and less successful) cases;
- discussions of risks (e.g., information leaks via social media, hacking of accounts, diplomatic scandals caused by careless tweets).
Literature that questions the trend toward digitalization of diplomacy. For example:
- critical works arguing that excessive reliance on social media may lead to a loss of depth in bilateral relations;
- discussions of whether digital diplomacy is accessible to developing countries (digital inequality);
- issues of credibility and ethics (the danger of spreading fake information on behalf of official actors).
The scheme above is only one option for thematic organization. Your task is to identify the main themes around which sources can be grouped and, within each thematic block, compare the positions of different authors.
/grouping by issues
Conceptual approach
The conceptual (theoretical) approach is close to the thematic one but focuses on theories and paradigms used in research. In this case, review sections are built around different scholarly approaches to the problem. For example, in digital diplomacy one can identify works written from the perspectives of:
Viewing digital diplomacy as a continuation of public diplomacy, with an emphasis on communication with foreign publics.
Focusing on global network structures and the viral spread of information.
Assessing digital diplomacy through the lens of balance of power and national interests, often skeptical of its impact.
If different theoretical approaches are evident in your topic, it is worth structuring the review around them. For example: "The Constructivist Approach to Digital Diplomacy" vs. "The Realist Approach," describing how they differ in interpreting the phenomenon.
/grouping by authors and schools
Personal approach
Another way to structure a review is to group sources by key authors or scholarly schools.
If there are several highly cited or particularly productive scholars in your field, you can build the narrative around comparing their views. For example, significant contributions to the study of digital diplomacy have been made by Ilan Manor, Corneliu Bjola, Marcus Holmes, Jan Melissen, Natalia Tsvetkova, and others.
You can devote a paragraph to each, noting which aspect they studied:
You can devote a paragraph to each, noting which aspect they studied:
- Manor — foreign ministry practice and terminology;
- Bjola — digital diplomacy and normative issues;
- Holmes — the link between digital diplomacy and international relations theory;
- Melissen — critical analysis and the experience of small states;
- Tsvetkova — the evolution of digital diplomacy, etc.
Sometimes several authors work together or within the same intellectual tradition, forming a school. For example, one might conditionally distinguish:
- the Oxford school of digital diplomacy (Bjola and colleagues);
- the Israeli school (Manor, who writes extensively on Israeli practice and digitalization of diplomacy in general);
- the Russian school (Tsvetkova, Zinovieva, Sytnik, Bazlutskaya, and others, who address the topic through the prism of sovereignty and social media analysis, particularly U.S. interference).
If there is a clear debate in the literature, it should be described. For example, Author A argues one position, while Author B challenges it — you can present them as two opposing lines. This adds dynamism and critical depth to the review.
In digital diplomacy, there may be debate over whether ambassadors should personally manage social media accounts. A says: "Yes, a personal approach is key," while B argues: "No, it is risky and should be handled by press offices." Presenting both arguments demonstrates analytical depth.
In digital diplomacy, there may be debate over whether ambassadors should personally manage social media accounts. A says: "Yes, a personal approach is key," while B argues: "No, it is risky and should be handled by press offices." Presenting both arguments demonstrates analytical depth.
Thus, the personal approach allows you to acknowledge the main contributions of individual researchers and schools of thought. This is especially appropriate if your topic is new and the field is concentrated around a few names, or if you want to emphasize differences in national approaches.
/grouping by methods
Methodological approach
Another dimension of literature analysis is grouping by research methods used. This helps the reader understand what different authors' conclusions are based on and how reliable they are.
For digital diplomacy, the following methodological groups can be identified:
-
Qualitative studies
- Quantitative studies
- Network analysis
- Big Data
- Mixed methods
Why this is useful: the reader of the review will understand the robustness of different findings. Qualitative studies provide depth and insights but may be subjective and not always generalizable. Quantitative studies provide scale but may miss nuances. If all studies in a particular subtopic are qualitative and reach similar conclusions, and you find even one quantitative study confirming or challenging them, this is worth noting. In addition, discussing methods lays the groundwork for identifying "gaps."
Example:
"The lack of panel-based quantitative studies does not yet allow for definitive conclusions about causal relationships between the influence of tweets and real diplomatic events"—such a conclusion logically follows from a methodological review of the literature.
"The lack of panel-based quantitative studies does not yet allow for definitive conclusions about causal relationships between the influence of tweets and real diplomatic events"—such a conclusion logically follows from a methodological review of the literature.
/evolution over time
Chronological approach
Chronological structuring presents the literature in the order of the development of ideas over time. This allows you to demonstrate the evolution of views and how the accumulation of knowledge has changed understanding of the topic. For digital diplomacy, as a relatively young field, the following stages can be distinguished:
At this time, diplomacy was only beginning to explore Web 2.0. The literature was largely futuristic or descriptive (e.g., articles like "Diplomacy in the Internet Age" without concrete data but with assumptions).
The terms "e-diplomacy" or "virtual diplomacy" were often used, and these works viewed digital technologies primarily as a new channel of public diplomacy.
The terms "e-diplomacy" or "virtual diplomacy" were often used, and these works viewed digital technologies primarily as a new channel of public diplomacy.
With the emergence of high-profile cases (presidents' Twitter accounts, diplomatic incidents on social media), the number of publications increased. The first empirical studies appeared: counting followers, analyzing content. Terminology was reconsidered: the term "digital diplomacy" became established, and concepts like "Twiplomacy" were introduced.
In a review, one can note that around 2014−2015 the first edited volumes and special journal issues on the topic appeared (for example, the volume by Bjola & Holmes, 2015, which systematized the early years of practice).
In a review, one can note that around 2014−2015 the first edited volumes and special journal issues on the topic appeared (for example, the volume by Bjola & Holmes, 2015, which systematized the early years of practice).
During this period, digital diplomacy ceased to be perceived as something new and became standard practice. The literature focused on how to integrate digital technologies into foreign ministries' work. Studies examined strategies, internal reorganization, and training diplomats in digital skills.
At the same time, some disillusionment emerged—for example, in 2018−2019 articles appeared asking "Real impact or just hype?", as authors attempted to assess the real outcomes of a decade of twiplomacy. A decline in earlier optimism became noticeable, with attention shifting to problems (superficial contacts, online trolling).
At the same time, some disillusionment emerged—for example, in 2018−2019 articles appeared asking "Real impact or just hype?", as authors attempted to assess the real outcomes of a decade of twiplomacy. A decline in earlier optimism became noticeable, with attention shifting to problems (superficial contacts, online trolling).
Recent years have brought new factors—the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced diplomacy almost entirely online (Zoom negotiations), and a surge in disinformation and cyberattacks affecting diplomacy.
The literature has begun to address these issues: how to conduct effective virtual summits, how to counter fake news, and the role of artificial intelligence (e.g., experiments with chatbots for consular services or big data analysis in conflict prediction).
In a review, one can note that digital diplomacy has become even more interdisciplinary, and since 2020 the number of works at the intersection of diplomacy and cybersecurity has been growing.
The chronological approach is best combined with the thematic one: within each theme, move from older works to newer ones. This allows you to summarize how the current understanding has emerged. The key is not to turn the history of development into a dry chronology. Always highlight the meaning of changes.
The literature has begun to address these issues: how to conduct effective virtual summits, how to counter fake news, and the role of artificial intelligence (e.g., experiments with chatbots for consular services or big data analysis in conflict prediction).
In a review, one can note that digital diplomacy has become even more interdisciplinary, and since 2020 the number of works at the intersection of diplomacy and cybersecurity has been growing.
The chronological approach is best combined with the thematic one: within each theme, move from older works to newer ones. This allows you to summarize how the current understanding has emerged. The key is not to turn the history of development into a dry chronology. Always highlight the meaning of changes.
The chronological approach is best combined with the thematic one: within each theme, move from older works to newer ones. This allows you to summarize how the current understanding has emerged. The key is not to turn the history of development into a dry chronology. Always highlight the meaning of changes.
Example:
"If in the early 2010s the literature focused on the potential of social media, by the end of the decade attention had shifted to analyzing the effectiveness of these tools in practice, and many authors became more skeptical."
"If in the early 2010s the literature focused on the potential of social media, by the end of the decade attention had shifted to analyzing the effectiveness of these tools in practice, and many authors became more skeptical."
Combined approach
In practice, a combination of all the above approaches is often used. For example:
- first, briefly outline the historical background (chronologically);
- then organize the main body thematically or conceptually (comparing approaches);
- within thematic sections, highlight key authors or schools.
There is no universal recipe. The structure of the review should follow the logic of your argument. Sometimes it is appropriate to discuss theories first (conceptually), then move to practical cases (thematically), mentioning who wrote what (authors) and when (chronologically).
If the review is extensive, you can use a multi-level structure with subheadings reflecting a combination of approaches.
Example:
"Social Media and Diplomacy" (theme) as a subheading, with subsections such as "Experience of Major Powers," "Experience of Small States," "Optimistic Assessments" vs. "Critical Perspectives," etc.
"Social Media and Diplomacy" (theme) as a subheading, with subsections such as "Experience of Major Powers," "Experience of Small States," "Optimistic Assessments" vs. "Critical Perspectives," etc.
- Tip
When drafting a review plan, write out all sources on cards with notes on their key arguments. Then try grouping the cards by themes, theories, or chronology. See which grouping most clearly tells the story of the field. Use that as your foundation.
Tip
When drafting a review plan, write out all sources on cards with notes on their key arguments. Then try grouping the cards by themes, theories, or chronology. See which grouping most clearly tells the story of the field. Use that as your foundation.
Having clarified the principles of organizing the literature, we now turn to the question of how to practically find and collect this literature. After all, before grouping sources, you need to ensure that all key works have been gathered. This is the subject of the next section.
/03
Searching for literature in academic databases
To compile a high-quality literature review, it is not enough to know how to analyze sources—you must first find and select them. In the era of digital scholarship, most relevant publications are available through online databases and academic search engines. Let us consider the main academic databases useful for international studies and how to use them effectively.
Google Scholar
Scopus
Web of Science
eLibrary
Google Scholar
Google Scholar is probably the most popular starting tool for searching academic literature. It is a free search engine that indexes scholarly articles, books, dissertations, reports, and more.
Advantages of Google Scholar
- Broad coverage and simplicityThe interface resembles standard Google: enter keywords and receive thousands of results. Google Scholar searches titles, full texts, and metadata, allowing it to find articles even when the topic is mentioned within the text rather than only in the title.
- Multilingual searchIf you need sources in Russian, enter the query in Russian. Google Scholar will find Russian-language articles as well as their translations or English abstracts. This is convenient for collecting domestic research alongside foreign literature.
- Sorting and filtersBy default, results are sorted by relevance (taking citations into account). Often, the first pages contain the most cited, "classic" works. You can switch to sorting by date to see the most recent publications. There is also a year filter to exclude outdated materials.
- Useful featuresBelow each result, there is an impact indicator showing "Cited by: X," where X is the number of works citing it in Scholar. There is a "Cite" button that generates references in different styles (APA, MLA, GOST, etc.). The "Related articles" link helps find similar works.
Advantages of Google Scholar
- Broad coverage and simplicityThe interface resembles standard Google: enter keywords and receive thousands of results. Google Scholar searches titles, full texts, and metadata, allowing it to find articles even when the topic is mentioned within the text rather than only in the title.
- Multilingual searchIf you need sources in Russian, enter the query in Russian. Google Scholar will find Russian-language articles as well as their translations or English abstracts. This is convenient for collecting domestic research alongside foreign literature.
- Sorting and filtersBy default, results are sorted by relevance (taking citations into account). Often, the first pages contain the most cited, "classic" works. You can switch to sorting by date to see the most recent publications. There is also a year filter to exclude outdated materials.
- Useful featuresBelow each result, there is an impact indicator showing "Cited by: X," where X is the number of works citing it in Scholar. There is a "Cite" button that generates references in different styles (APA, MLA, GOST, etc.). The "Related articles" link helps find similar works.
Keep in mind that Google Scholar finds everything, including sources of uneven quality (e.g., non-peer-reviewed materials, self-published works, student papers). You must critically evaluate sources: check where they were published (journal? conference? university?) and whether they are cited by others.
After an initial broad search via Scholar, it is advisable to turn to specialized databases that provide a more precise and vetted set of literature.
Tips for using Google Scholar:
Quotation marks for exact phrases ("digital diplomacy"), the OR operator to include synonyms (digital OR cyber diplomacy). You can also use site: to limit results to specific domains, such as .ru or .edu.
This is not only an indicator of importance but also a hyperlink: clicking it shows all works citing the given one. This "snowball" effect helps find newer studies building on older ones. For example, an important 2015 article with 50 citations—by reviewing them, you can find works from 2016−2022 that develop the topic.
Google Scholar often finds free copies. If a result leads to a paid journal, check the right side—there may be a [PDF] link to an archive, preprint, or presentation.
Through the Google Scholar menu, you can create alerts for any query. You will then receive email notifications about new articles for queries like "digital diplomacy" or even specific author names. This is useful for staying up to date with new publications as they appear.
/ RSCI
eLibrary
eLibrary.ru is the largest Russian database of academic publications, integrated with the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI). It is the main tool for searching Russian-language academic articles, dissertations, monographs, and conference proceedings, especially useful when preparing research in Russian universities.
Features of working with eLibrary
Features of working with eLibrary
- Advanced searchIn eLibrary, you can search by fields: article title, author, keywords, abstract, organization (affiliation), and year of publication. For example, "digital diplomacy" AND year:[2015 TO 2025] AND (keywords:"foreign ministry" OR abstract:"social networks"). This query finds articles from 2015−2025 mentioning digital diplomacy and foreign ministries or social media. The interface allows such conditions to be set via search fields and filters.
- FilteringSearch results can easily be filtered:
- by document type (journal article, conference proceedings, monograph, dissertation);
- by journals (only those included in the Higher Attestation Commission list);
- by full-text availability (PDF available);
- by author or organization (e.g., MGIMO, St. Petersburg State University);
- by year of publication and subject category ("Political Science and International Relations").
- Results analysiseLibrary provides analytical data:
- number of publications by year (dynamics charts);
- citation counts for each publication;
- author profiles with h-index and lists of other works.
- Citation analysisEach publication indicates the number of citations in RSCI. Clicking the citation count shows all works citing the publication. This helps quickly understand how the research develops and which authors actively cite each other. For example, a 2018 article on digital diplomacy may have 10 citations. By clicking on the link, you will find more recent studies continuing or criticizing her ideas.
- Export and collectionsSearch results can be saved by:
- manually creating collections of articles in your personal account;
- exporting bibliographic data in text format (GOST) to quickly insert into your reference list;
- sending links and descriptions to your email.
- Advanced searchIn eLibrary, you can search by fields: article title, author, keywords, abstract, organization (affiliation), and year of publication. For example, "digital diplomacy" AND year:[2015 TO 2025] AND (keywords:"foreign ministry" OR abstract:"social networks"). This query finds articles from 2015−2025 mentioning digital diplomacy and foreign ministries or social media. The interface allows such conditions to be set via search fields and filters.
- FilteringSearch results can easily be filtered:
- by document type (journal article, conference proceedings, monograph, dissertation);
- by journals (only those included in the Higher Attestation Commission list);
- by full-text availability (PDF available);
- by author or organization (e.g., MGIMO, St. Petersburg State University);
- by year of publication and subject category ("Political Science and International Relations").
- Results analysiseLibrary provides analytical data:
- number of publications by year (dynamics charts);
- citation counts for each publication;
- author profiles with h-index and lists of other works.
- Citation analysisEach publication indicates the number of citations in RSCI. Clicking the citation count shows all works citing the publication. This helps quickly understand how the research develops and which authors actively cite each other. For example, a 2018 article on digital diplomacy may have 10 citations. By clicking on the link, you will find more recent studies continuing or criticizing her ideas.
- Export and collectionsSearch results can be saved by:
- manually creating collections of articles in your personal account;
- exporting bibliographic data in text format (GOST) to quickly insert into your reference list;
- sending links and descriptions to your email.
Working with eLibrary provides a clear picture of the state of the topic in the Russian-language academic space. Using the database, you will obtain a structured literature list, identify key researchers, leading journals, and trace how discussions on digital diplomacy have developed in Russia and the Russian-speaking academic community.
Tips for working with eLibrary:
Например, запрос «цифровая дипломатия» может выдать много нерелевантных результатов (о цифровой экономике или просто дипломатии). Используйте кавычки «цифровая дипломатия» для поиска точной фразы или добавьте дополнительные слова: «цифровая дипломатия» AND «социальные сети».
Если знаете фамилии ключевых авторов по теме (например, Цветкова), то найдите все их работы через профиль автора. Это позволит увидеть все статьи данного ученого и понять, к какой научной школе или организации он относится.
Для глубокого обзора литературы переходите на страницы авторов и журналов. Смотрите, кто кого цитирует, какие исследования были наиболее востребованы, какие авторы сотрудничают друг с другом. Так вы быстрее выделите научные школы и ключевые статьи.
Через расширенный поиск найдите диссертации и обзорные статьи (Review). Например, введя запрос«цифровая дипломатия» AND тип документа: «обзор», вы получите уже готовые систематические обзоры по теме, которые сами по себе являются ценными источниками и помогут понять общее состояние изученности вопроса.
Например, если хотите найти публикации о цифровой дипломатии, но исключить тему «цифровая экономика», введите: «цифровая дипломатия» AND NOT «цифровая экономика». Или используйте оператор OR, чтобы охватить синонимы: «цифровая дипломатия» OR «электронная дипломатия» OR «виртуальная дипломатия».
В расширенном поиске отметьте «входит в перечень ВАК», если вам нужны статьи только из журналов, признанных для диссертации. Для цифровой дипломатии выбирайте тематическую рубрику «Политология и международные отношения», чтобы убрать результаты из других сфер (экономики, IT).
Тема цифровой дипломатии развивается динамично. Повторяйте поиски регулярно (например, раз в месяц) и сортируйте результаты по дате добавления, чтобы быстро находить свежие статьи.
Scopus
Scopus is one of the largest databases of peer-reviewed literature (Elsevier). It requires a subscription (usually available through universities) but offers powerful search and analysis tools.
Features of working with Scopus
Features of working with Scopus
- Advanced searchYou can search by various fields: title, abstract, keywords, author, affiliation, DOI, and combine conditions. For example: TITLE-ABS-KEY ("digital diplomacy") AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, "SOCI") OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, "ARTS")) This query finds documents mentioning "digital diplomacy" after 2015 in social sciences and humanities.
- FilteringResults can be filtered by year, document type (article, review, book chapter, etc.), subject area, country, and language. For example, you can select only reviews if you are looking specifically for literature reviews.
- Results analysisScopus has an Analyze Results function that generates charts:
- distribution by year (showing publication peaks),
- by authors,
- by sources (journals),
- by countries and institutions.
- Citation analysisEach record shows the number of citations in Scopus and includes a View cited by button. This is analogous to "cited by" in Google but limited to high-quality materials indexed in Scopus. You can also click View references to see the bibliography used in an article, helping you quickly identify influential authors.
- Export and collectionsYou can select results (e.g., all 120 articles from a query) and export metadata (CSV, Excel, RIS for reference managers). This helps systematize sources and import dozens of entries into tools like Zotero at once.
- Advanced searchYou can search by various fields: title, abstract, keywords, author, affiliation, DOI, and combine conditions. For example: TITLE-ABS-KEY ("digital diplomacy") AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, "SOCI") OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, "ARTS")) This query finds documents mentioning "digital diplomacy" after 2015 in social sciences and humanities.
- FilteringResults can be filtered by year, document type (article, review, book chapter, etc.), subject area, country, and language. For example, you can select only reviews if you are looking specifically for literature reviews.
- Results analysisScopus has an Analyze Results function that generates charts:
- distribution by year (showing publication peaks),
- by authors,
- by sources (journals),
- by countries and institutions.
- Citation analysisEach record shows the number of citations in Scopus and includes a View cited by button. This is analogous to "cited by" in Google but limited to high-quality materials indexed in Scopus. You can also click View references to see the bibliography used in an article, helping you quickly identify influential authors.
- Export and collectionsYou can select results (e.g., all 120 articles from a query) and export metadata (CSV, Excel, RIS for reference managers). This helps systematize sources and import dozens of entries into tools like Zotero at once.
Scopus is valuable because it primarily covers high-quality publications. It does not include unpublished dissertations or minor conferences (unlike Google). For international topics, Scopus finds most articles from leading English-language journals (Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Global Policy, Foreign Affairs, etc.), but contains little Russian-language literature.
After using Scopus, you will have a structured overview: key journals, main authors, and the most productive years. This forms the backbone of your bibliography.
Tips for working with Scopus:
Например, «digital diplomacy» в поле Keywords. Смотрите, сколько найдено результатов. Если слишком много нерелевантных (например, попались статьи про цифровую экономику, где слово «diplomacy» встречается один раз), подумайте о дополнительных фильтрах или использовании кавычек для точной фразы.
Например: TITLE («digital diplomacy») OR TITLE («e-diplomacy»)* - это включит разные варианты написания в названии. Или ABS («foreign ministry» AND «social media») — тогда сервис найдет статьи, где в аннотации упоминаются именно практики МИДов в соцсетях (что с высокой долей вероятности, относится к цифровой дипломатии).
Иногда по теме попадаются статьи из смежных областей: например, компьютерные науки могут публиковать, как разработать чат-бота для дипломатии — слишком технический упор, не наш контекст. Такие материалы можно отфильтровать, оставив только Social Science и Arts & Humanities. Сортировка по типу: если вас не интересуют короткие заметки или письма редактору — уберите Editorial и Note, оставьте Article и Review.
В фильтре Document Type есть Review. Возможно, кто-то уже делал систематический обзор цифровой дипломатии. Например, есть статья Oloo Ong’ong’a (2021) — в Scopus ее тип будет «Review». Такие работы особо ценны, их стоит читать и цитировать: они представляют собой концентрированный литературный обзор.
/ WoS
Web of Science
Web of Science is another large academic database (Clarivate). In many respects, it duplicates Scopus: topic search, filters, analysis, citation metrics. Some journals are indexed only in WoS or only in Scopus, so it is sometimes worth checking both.
Features of working with Web of Science
- SearchSimilar to Scopus, with combinations such as:
TS=("digital diplomacy") AND PY=(2015−2025), where TS stands for topic (including title, abstract, keywords). - Citation networkWoS allows you to view citations (Times Cited) and lists of citing works. There is also a Create Citation Report option that shows citation dynamics by year and the h-index for the results.
- Web of Science categoriesEach journal is assigned to categories such as International Relations, Communication, Computer Science. You can filter by categories—digital diplomacy research typically falls under IR, Communication, and sometimes Public Administration.
- Related databasesWoS включает базы Science, Social Science, Arts & Humanities и региональные базы — в частности, RSCI (Индекс цитирования в российской науке) — подборку российских журналов на русском или английском. Можно переключиться на поиск внутри этой базы, чтобы выявить российские статьи по теме.
Features of working with Web of Science
- SearchПохож на Scopus, можно задавать комбинации. Например: TS=(«digital
diplomacy») AND PY=(2015−2025), где TS — topic (тема, включает заголовок,
аннотацию, ключевые слова). - Web of Science categoriesEach journal is assigned to categories such as International Relations, Communication, Computer Science. You can filter by categories—digital diplomacy research typically falls under IR, Communication, and sometimes Public Administration.
- Citation networkВ WoS тоже можно посмотреть цитирования (Times Cited) и перечень цитирующих. Есть опция Create Citation Report, которая суммарно показывает график цитирования по годам и индекс Хирша для найденных результатов.
- Related databasesWoS включает базы Science, Social Science, Arts & Humanities и региональные базы — в частности, RSCI (Индекс цитирования в российской науке) — подборку российских журналов на русском или английском. Можно переключиться на поиск внутри этой базы, чтобы выявить российские статьи по теме.
WoS, как и Scopus, требует подписки. Если доступ есть, неплохо сверить с Scopus — вдруг найдете несколько уникальных статей.
-
- important
Scopus and WoS do not fully index books (monographs), although WoS may include individual chapters via the Book Citation Index, and Scopus includes only certain book series. Therefore, books should be searched for separately.
- important
Scopus and WoS do not fully index books (monographs), although WoS may include individual chapters via the Book Citation Index, and Scopus includes only certain book series. Therefore, books should be searched for separately.
Other sources and search methods
If you identify that most articles appear in a few journals, visit their websites and browse tables of contents from recent years. This can be useful—some significant articles may not be well reflected in citation databases.
When reading an important article, examine its reference list. From there, you may find earlier works that did not appear in database search results due to different terminology but were considered significant by the author. For example, a 2019 article may cite a 2005 work—at that time, "digital diplomacy" was not used, but the work may address "ICT in diplomacy."
Doctoral and master’s dissertations often contain extensive literature reviews. In international relations, dissertations on digital diplomacy may have been defended. Russian dissertations can be found in eLibrary or the Russian State Library’s "Dissertations" database. Foreign ones can be found in ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. If you find one, the review in the abstract may provide additional sources.
On SSRN, ResearchGate, Academia.edu authors sometimes upload materials not yet formally published. For new topics, these sources may be the most current. Use them cautiously: ensure the author is a legitimate researcher affiliated with a university or reputable think tank.
A standard web search can find reports by international organizations or think tanks on your topic. For example, "digital diplomacy foreign ministry report" may lead to policy papers (grey literature). These can also be cited, especially if they contain data or official definitions.
It can be useful to see what leading centers recommend on the topic. For example, the DiploFoundation website offers many articles and webinars on digital diplomacy training. Such resources are less academic but provide valuable practical insights (especially for examples or relevance sections). Much useful information can also be found in specialized Telegram channels, such as «Colaboratory».
Thus, by gathering literature using the methods described above, you should have a sufficient base for a review: classic and recent works, domestic and foreign, theoretical and applied. For more on digital tools that help organize and analyze collected works, see Chapter 5.
Practicum
Open ChatGPT (or its analogue — DeepSeek, etc.) and try entering the following prompts. Note: if you have a paid subscription, use the deep research function.
[What unresolved questions exist in research on… ?]
Evaluate the answer critically: does it contain anything you have not encountered in the literature? If so, try to find confirmation in Google Scholar. Edit ChatGPT’s answer and integrate it (after fact-checking) into your draft literature review.
[Prepare a brief analytical review of academic publications on digital diplomacy published after 2024. Indicate key themes, methods, and authors]
Compare the resulting themes with what you have already seen in databases. Note which authors and themes do not match — this may indicate gaps in the model’s data corpus. Edit the model’s text by removing inaccurate references or adding more reliable sources. Include this in your draft paper.
[Imagine you are an academic advisor. Name 5−7 research directions in digital diplomacy and briefly describe each]
Compare these directions with the tables of contents of books, major edited volumes, or special journal issues on digital diplomacy. Identify directions that are rarely mentioned in academic sources — the model may be offering a fresh perspective. Note which directions you can develop in your own work.
[Compare the terms "digital diplomacy," "e-diplomacy," and "cyber diplomacy." What are the differences and who uses them?]
Use the answer as a draft glossary. Check the mentioned authors in Google Scholar: do they actually use these terms? Formulate your own understanding of the terms based on sources.
[Create a table of approaches to studying digital diplomacy and list one author for each approach]
Find the original publications by these authors and verify the accuracy of the descriptions. Edit the table. Choose which approach best aligns with the goals of your research.
[What debates exist in the literature on digital diplomacy? Who disagrees with whom and why?]
Make sure the model refers to real debates. Look for the original articles to confirm the existence of the dispute. Decide which position you support — and why.
[Group the literature by methods used: qualitative, quantitative, mixed. What is missing?]
Compare with meta-reviews, if available. Consider which methodological niche you could occupy.
[How is digital diplomacy studied in the West and in countries of the Global Majority? Examples, conclusions, differences]
Use this as a draft for a paragraph with a comparative perspective.
Clarify author references and add academic sources.
[I am writing a master's thesis on "Digital Diplomacy of the Russian Federation at the Present Stage." Indicate: key theories, suitable methods of analysis, existing studies on the topic and main authors, gaps in the study of the region]
Double-check and integrate the obtained data into your thesis plan.
[What unresolved questions exist in research on… ?]
Evaluate the answer critically: does it contain anything you have not encountered in the literature? If so, try to find confirmation in Google Scholar. Edit ChatGPT’s answer and integrate it (after fact-checking) into your draft literature review.
[Prepare a brief analytical review of academic publications on digital diplomacy published after 2024. Indicate key themes, methods, and authors]
Compare the resulting themes with what you have already seen in databases. Note which authors and themes do not match — this may indicate gaps in the model’s data corpus. Edit the model’s text by removing inaccurate references or adding more reliable sources. Include this in your draft paper.
[Imagine you are an academic advisor. Name 5−7 research directions in digital diplomacy and briefly describe each]
Compare these directions with the tables of contents of books, major edited volumes, or special journal issues on digital diplomacy. Identify directions that are rarely mentioned in academic sources — the model may be offering a fresh perspective. Note which directions you can develop in your own work.
[Compare the terms "digital diplomacy," "e-diplomacy," and "cyber diplomacy." What are the differences and who uses them?]
Use the answer as a draft glossary. Check the mentioned authors in Google Scholar: do they actually use these terms? Formulate your own understanding of the terms based on sources.
[Create a table of approaches to studying digital diplomacy and list one author for each approach]
Find the original publications by these authors and verify the accuracy of the descriptions. Edit the table. Choose which approach best aligns with the goals of your research.
[What debates exist in the literature on digital diplomacy? Who disagrees with whom and why?]
Make sure the model refers to real debates. Look for the original articles to confirm the existence of the dispute. Decide which position you support — and why.
[Group the literature by methods used: qualitative, quantitative, mixed. What is missing?]
Compare with meta-reviews, if available. Consider which methodological niche you could occupy.
[How is digital diplomacy studied in the West and in countries of the Global Majority? Examples, conclusions, differences]
Use this as a draft for a paragraph with a comparative perspective.
Clarify author references and add academic sources.
[I am writing a master's thesis on "Digital Diplomacy of the Russian Federation at the Present Stage." Indicate: key theories, suitable methods of analysis, existing studies on the topic and main authors, gaps in the study of the region]
Double-check and integrate the obtained data into your thesis plan.
Take the publication chronology from the first task (pay attention to the years). Build a simple graph (on paper or in Excel):
X-axis — years, Y-axis — number of publications (from those you found, or data from Scopus / WoS if you have access).
What can be said about the dynamics of interest in the topic? Write a short commentary (3−4 sentences) on the evolution: is attention increasing, have new aspects emerged over time?
X-axis — years, Y-axis — number of publications (from those you found, or data from Scopus / WoS if you have access).
What can be said about the dynamics of interest in the topic? Write a short commentary (3−4 sentences) on the evolution: is attention increasing, have new aspects emerged over time?
Go to Google Scholar or (if you have access) Scopus / WoS and try to find review articles (Review) on your topic. Use the year filter to find the most recent publication (2021−2025). Download it or read the abstract.
What 2−3 key conclusions does it contain about the state of research? Do they correspond to what you observed yourself in Tasks 1 and 2?
What 2−3 key conclusions does it contain about the state of research? Do they correspond to what you observed yourself in Tasks 1 and 2?
- Open ChatGPT (or its analogue) and ask it a question on your topic, for example: "What unresolved questions exist in research on … ?"
- Evaluate the answer critically: does it contain anything you have not encountered in the literature? If so, try to find confirmation in Google.
- Edit ChatGPT’s answer and integrate it (after fact-checking) into your draft literature review.
- Note for yourself how AI helped — or where it was misleading.
- Ong’ong’a, Daniel Oloo. Systematic Literature Review: Online Digital Platforms Utilization by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Adopting Digital Diplomacy. Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, vol. 9, no. 1, 2021, pp. 8−18., Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4 667 712
- Baker M.J. (2000). Writing a Literature Review // The Marketing Review, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 219−247. Переведено на русский язык А. А. Оганесят, Л. А. Шафиров: cyberleninka.ru/article/n/napisanie-obzora-literatury
- Tsvetkova, N. A., & Sytnik, A. N. (2023). Digital diplomacy and data diplomacy in the practice of international relations. In: Digital International Relations. Torkunov A. V., Sherstyuk V. P., et al. In two volumes. University textbook. Edited by E. S. Zinovieva, S. V. Shitkov. Moscow, 2023. pp. 137−164.
- Term paper and thesis: how to write? Part 1: https://vk.com/video11270576456 239 018?to=L3ZpZGVvMTEyNzA1NzZfNDU2MjM5MDE4Pw--; Part 2: https://vk.com/video11270576456 239 019
- Open seminar on reading and writing "Analytical Reading," Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xa47R6gOOI
- Text summarization services, overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DZawzWejeI
- White Paper Artificial Intelligence and Education: https://t.me/colaboratoria/573
