Hi, I'm new here and would really appreciate some advice - I have a Masters (2013) and I want to apply for a PhD in a couple of years; is it advisable to get a literature review or two under my belt before applying? And is it difficult to submit a review as a graduate? I think writing the review will help my PhD application, help formulate my PhD proposal and improve my academic writing - am I right? Or should I wait until embarking on the PhD? Any advice is greatly appreciated!

That kind of thing will almost certainly occupy the first year of your candidature in any case.

What's your discipline? In the sciences I would say it's probably best to wait because your supervisors probably have their own idea regarding the topics they want a literature review on.

What you do mean by 'submit a review'? Get it published?

While as others have said, your lit review will occupy the bulk of your first year as a PhD candidate, you would do well to familiarize yourself with a few articles, seminal works, industry reports, etc which are key to your topic or area of interest. Looking back, my PhD proposal was utter garbage, but that's kind of the point and its understood that what you end up researching looks a fair bit different to what you originally proposed for entry into the University.

OFFTOPIC: In MY humble opinion, have a good idea about what you want to study, otherwise you may end up doing a PhD your supervisor fancies. The more focused you are about your topic, the less you will get 'pushed around' in your supervisory meetings. I'm not saying not to take good advice, that's what they are there for, BUT you also have to be able to stand your ground convincingly about the direction of your research. If you are doing a predetermined PhD as part of a cluster or project, the final paragraph does not apply of course.

Good luck though.

Thank you all for your feedback. Cognitive Neuroscience is my discipline and yes I would like to have a publication or two before my PhD (current circumstances mean I'm unable to start a PhD for a year or two). So using this time, before embarking on a PhD , to write a literature review and get it published seems like the right thing to do?

I'm not sure that's a very common thing in science. Have you seen many literature reviews published? Review papers, when done properly, are usually written by eminent scientists in the field. It will be taken less seriously if written by an amateur. There's really no need to have anything published before starting a PhD in science. Anyone I know with papers before starting a PhD had them as an undergrad or MSc student where they made a small contribution to a larger project.

Literature reviews in the higher impact factor journals are from invited academics. You may be able to get a review accepted in a lesser impact factor journal. Worth a try for the practice alone.

I've known many people who have published papers in decent journals based on their honours or Masters work. Others have generated a good publishing record prior to starting their PhD based on collaborative work in which they did most of the design, data collection, analysis and write up. Don't feel restricted or inadequate because you lack a PhD.

Thank you, will take that on board. Does it matter that I might not be applying for the PhD until next year or maybe even the year after and that I graduated from my masters in 2013? I mean will that have been too long out of academia? That was the main reason for considering writing a review as I thought it would show in my PhD application that although I have had a 3/4 year break from academia, I have been working on a review in my chosen area of interest?

Depends on the PI. In my opinion (!), it can make a difference. For instance, I was at a job interview for a gradschool that had 8 open positions and got over 150 applicants, which I was told is not even the tip of the iceberg. Chances are high that there are so many qualified applicants that they prefer someone who didn't have a break. However, there are several PhD students here in the forum who worked out of academia for several years and returned later to pursue a PhD. Therefore, it's definitely possible.

Any special reason why you took a 2-3 years break when you finished your master in 2013? It might also depend on your explanation for that. It won't make it easier, that's for sure ;)

Regarding the review : Forget it. I never heard of anything like that in science. I highly doubt that you get through the peer review process, no matter how good it is. This is done by scientists who proved to be experts in the field. With just your name on it, it will most certainly not pass. If you can get your name on a paper, great, but review is not really an option.

Wow, that's exactly what I'm afraid of - high competition amongst people that already have publications and haven't had a break from academia. The reason for my break is I relocated across the country and also fell pregnant with my son. I agree with your comments about the review and I thought that may be the case, if I want to get some publications do you have any suggestions how this may be possible other than writing a review? (I'm getting my name on a paper for the project I took part in for my Masters, but would like to have another publication under my belt if possible). Also, I appreciate reviews are written experts in their fields, although PhD students write a review in the first year?

Yes, but not for publication; they are so you can indicate your knowledge of the extant work and show where yours will fit in.

I would not worry about the break, I had a 5 year gap working in an unrelated field, and still got funding for my PhD. although im in social sciences so may be different

I agree, a break is not necessarily a problem, though it probably depends on your discipline. I had a 15 year break between my Masters and my PhD.

Re. publishing literature reviews: some PhD students do publish a literature review during the PhD, but they would use a structured approach such as a systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-ethnography etc., not just a summary of the literature.

You simply don't get "some" publications before a PhD in science ;) Some students are lucky and get on a paper as a third or fourth author, but even that is not that much of an advantage, as your contribution was usually modest. Every PI will know that you contributed some data (which is nice), but it is usually just luck whether or not they use your data for publication and whether or not it gets published in time to include it to your CV before applying to PhDs. I know exactly one student who managed to get a first author paper out of his master thesis, which is of course great and super beneficial during applications, but he is the exception. Most people don't have papers when they are applying for PhD funding. At this point it is not about papers, but about grades and your research experience (acquired methodology and overall lab time). I am currently in the process of applying for PhD positions myself and have met tons of other applicants during job interviews at grad schools. Never met a single one with a publication. I have none myself and can't complain about positive responses to applications. No worries :) They obviously don't expect you to have publications.