(1) identity the subject or issue of concern (2) divide studies under review into meaningful categories and summarize the key proposition of individual studies (3) discuss the similarities as well as the differences across each each work (4) evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the reading (for instance, are the assumptions and the logic behind them reasonable? Are the key theoretical propositions coherently organized and logically persuasive? Are the methods appropriately employed in answering the research questions? Does the evidence fully support the conclusions?) (5) Conclude by discussing contributions and implications of the studies under review to the field of corruption or comparative politics.
Can corruption be measured? What are the common subjective and objective measurements of corruption? How well do they overlap with each other? What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of existing measures?