Narrative literature reviews are essential for scientific progress, yet few resources guide their writing. Unlike empirical reports, literature reviews can address broader, more abstract questions, engage in post hoc theorizing without risking false conclusions, and better appreciate methodological diversity. They can conclude that a hypothesis is correct, not conclusively established but currently the best guess, is false, or no conclusion can be drawn. Common mistakes in literature reviews include inadequate introductions, insufficient coverage of evidence, poor integration of studies, lack of critical appraisal, failure to adjust conclusions, blurring assertion and proof, selective evidence review, focusing on researchers rather than research, and neglecting future research implications. Literature reviews serve as a bridge between scattered research and readers, offering theoretical insights that individual studies cannot. They are crucial for theory development, evaluation, and identifying problems in the literature. However, they differ from empirical studies in that they can theorize after reviewing evidence, which is less common in empirical research. This flexibility allows literature reviews to build or test theories, identify unresolved issues, and guide future research. Despite their importance, literature reviews are often written without clear guidelines, leading to common errors. Authors must ensure their introductions clearly present theoretical frameworks, cover all relevant evidence, integrate studies effectively, critically assess the evidence, adjust conclusions based on flaws, distinguish between assertions and evidence, avoid confirmation bias, focus on research rather than researchers, and suggest future research directions. These practices enhance the quality and impact of literature reviews, making them a vital component of scientific communication.Narrative literature reviews are essential for scientific progress, yet few resources guide their writing. Unlike empirical reports, literature reviews can address broader, more abstract questions, engage in post hoc theorizing without risking false conclusions, and better appreciate methodological diversity. They can conclude that a hypothesis is correct, not conclusively established but currently the best guess, is false, or no conclusion can be drawn. Common mistakes in literature reviews include inadequate introductions, insufficient coverage of evidence, poor integration of studies, lack of critical appraisal, failure to adjust conclusions, blurring assertion and proof, selective evidence review, focusing on researchers rather than research, and neglecting future research implications. Literature reviews serve as a bridge between scattered research and readers, offering theoretical insights that individual studies cannot. They are crucial for theory development, evaluation, and identifying problems in the literature. However, they differ from empirical studies in that they can theorize after reviewing evidence, which is less common in empirical research. This flexibility allows literature reviews to build or test theories, identify unresolved issues, and guide future research. Despite their importance, literature reviews are often written without clear guidelines, leading to common errors. Authors must ensure their introductions clearly present theoretical frameworks, cover all relevant evidence, integrate studies effectively, critically assess the evidence, adjust conclusions based on flaws, distinguish between assertions and evidence, avoid confirmation bias, focus on research rather than researchers, and suggest future research directions. These practices enhance the quality and impact of literature reviews, making them a vital component of scientific communication.