How to Build a Research Landscape Note Before You Apply

Before you spend time tailoring an application, make a small research landscape note. It is a working record of what you have actually found about a research direction: the questions people are asking, the methods they use, the groups doing related work, and the pages that support each point.

This is not a literature review. It is not a ranking of labs, and it is not a claim that a particular researcher will supervise you. It is a compact note that helps you move from “I am interested in this area” to “I can explain what I have seen, what connects with my direction, and what I still need to check.”

Keep the note short enough to use. One or two pages is usually more useful than a large collection of copied abstracts. Make a separate note for each research direction or opportunity you are seriously considering.

Start with one question, not a field label

A field label is often too broad to guide an application. “Materials science,” “machine learning,” or “biomedical engineering” may describe thousands of different questions, methods, and settings. Begin with a question that is narrow enough to search and revise.

Your first line might look like this:

What problems are researchers currently trying to solve in [area], and which methods and research settings appear most relevant to the question I want to pursue?

You do not need to know the final answer before you begin. The point is to give your reading a direction. As you find better terms, change the question. A useful note records the terms you started with and the terms that proved more precise.

For example, separate three things that are often mixed together:

• the research problem, or what needs to be understood, measured, designed, or improved;
• the method, or how researchers are approaching that problem; and
• the setting, material, system, population, or dataset in which the work happens.

That separation stops a general interest from turning into a vague search. It also makes it easier to see why two groups that use similar words may be doing very different work.

Give the note a simple structure

Use headings that make it easy to trace each conclusion back to a page. The outline below is enough for most early-stage research. Do not fill every line just because it is there. Leave an item blank if you do not yet have a source.

Research direction:
Working question:
Terms and alternative terms:

Questions that recur in recent work:
Methods or tools that recur:
Relevant journals, societies, or publisher collections:

Relevant groups or centres:
Current projects or project signals:
Relevant publications:
People or collaborations to understand further:

What seems connected to my direction:
What is still unknown:
Source links and date accessed:

The note should distinguish what a page says from what you think it may mean. This is especially important when you are new to a field or reading across disciplines.

This small distinction protects the note from becoming a collection of guesses. It also makes it much easier to revise when a link changes or you find a better source.

Find the vocabulary through journals and societies

Your first task is to learn the words used by the field itself. Start with the aims and scope pages of journals that publish work close to your question. Then read a small set of recent article titles, abstracts, and keywords from those journals. You are not trying to prove that one journal is the “best.” You are looking for repeated language that helps you search more carefully.

Publisher pages are useful because they give you a journal’s own description of its scope and its current articles. For instance, Elsevier's guidance on journal selection points readers to a journal's aims and scope and to recently published work when deciding whether a topic belongs there. The same reading habit works when you are trying to understand a field rather than submit a manuscript.

Learned societies can help you notice subject terms and subareas that a general web search may miss. Their journal catalogues, specialist groups, meeting programmes, and public resources are often a useful way to see how a discipline names its parts. Use a society source to expand your vocabulary, then return to the original journal article or official group page for claims about a specific project or research environment.

Open-access indexes can help you discover journals you would not otherwise find. The Directory of Open Access Journals is one route for finding open-access journals and article records. Treat it as a discovery layer, not a complete judgement about a journal or a substitute for the journal's own page.

In the note, record only the terms that help you ask a better question. A long keyword list is not useful. A short list of problem terms, method terms, and setting terms is.

Read recent publications for patterns, not for volume

Choose a manageable set of recent articles that are close to your working question. Read the title, abstract, keywords, and, where needed, the introduction and conclusion. For every article, add one or two lines in your own words:

• What question does this paper address?
• What approach does it use?
• What does it leave open that seems relevant to your direction?

Do not copy the abstract into the note. Copying makes it difficult to see the pattern across papers and easy to repeat language you do not fully understand. A short paraphrase forces you to decide what the paper is actually doing.

Look for recurrence rather than simple popularity. If several recent publications are asking related questions, using similar methods, or working with the same type of system, add that as a pattern with links to the specific articles. If you see only one paper, describe it as one example, not as a field-wide trend.

DOIs and metadata services can make this tracing easier. Crossref provides metadata lookup for scholarly works, including records that can point to a DOI, journal, author identifiers, and other linked information. Use this to find the publication record or follow a DOI. Then open the publisher's page to read the actual article information you need. Metadata is useful for discovery; the publisher page remains the better place to confirm what the paper says.

Move from publications to groups and current work

Once a small pattern is visible, search for the groups, centres, and departments connected to the work. Start with the authors' institutional links on the article page, then use the university or research-organisation page for the group itself.

Your goal is not to build a biography of every researcher. You are looking for a current, evidence-backed picture of the research setting:

• Which questions does the group say it works on?
• Which methods, facilities, or data resources does it name?
• Does it link to a current project, centre, collaboration, or funder page?
• Is there a public route for finding opportunities or programme information?

Record the exact page that supports each point. A department overview can confirm that a group belongs to an institution, but it may not say what the group is doing now. A project page may describe the work in more detail, but it may not tell you whether the project has a PhD opening. Keep those questions separate.

When you find a researcher's ORCID record, use it in the same careful way. ORCID records can show public work, affiliation, funding, and other activity information, and their items can carry source and visibility information. They are useful for connecting a name to publications and identifiers. They do not replace the current university page for a person's role, and they do not tell you whether they are taking new researchers.

Add an “open questions” section before you draw conclusions

The most valuable part of the note is often the part you cannot fill yet. Write down the questions that remain after your reading. They may include:

• Is this project current, or is the page describing completed work?
• Does the group use the method in the way I assumed, or is that only visible in one paper?
• Is there an advertised doctoral route connected to this research?
• Which background skills would the official opportunity or programme actually require?
• What should I read next to understand the gap between my experience and this work?

An open question is not a weakness. It is a reminder not to turn a reasonable impression into an application claim. It can also become the basis of a respectful, specific question later, if the official opportunity page allows contact.

Keep a date next to every external link in your private note. Research-group and project pages can change. If you cannot find a date on the page, record the day you accessed it instead of guessing when the information was published.

Use the note to prepare, not to perform certainty

When the note is ready, you should be able to explain your interest in plain language: the research question you are following, two or three terms that now have a clear meaning, the kinds of methods that appear relevant, and the sources that led you there. You should also be able to say what needs confirmation.

That is enough to prepare a more focused search, read an opportunity with context, or decide whether it is worth learning more about a group. It is not enough to claim fit, predict supervision, or assume that a project is open. Those decisions need the relevant current opportunity, programme, and university pages.

Keep the note useful

Remove anything that does not change your next decision. Rankings, copied publication lists, generic claims about a university, and assumptions about a person's availability usually do not belong in this note. Keep the short source trail, the repeated questions and methods, the current project signals, and the unanswered points.

A landscape note should make the next piece of reading easier. If it does, it is working.

Official sources

• Crossref REST API documentation explains the scholarly metadata available through DOI lookups and related queries. Use it to trace records, then confirm article-level details on the publisher page.
• ORCID record schema documentation describes the public record's works, activity, sources, identifiers, and visibility fields. Use an ORCID record to follow links, not as proof of a current institutional role.
• Directory of Open Access Journals is an open directory for discovering open-access journals and article records. Check the journal's own page before drawing conclusions about scope or current content.
• Elsevier's journal-selection guidance recommends checking a journal's aims and scope and recently published work. Apply that habit when learning a research area.
• Royal Society of Chemistry journal catalogue is one example of a learned society's subject-based journal collection. Use comparable society sources in your own field to find vocabulary and relevant publications.

Create your search profile