Apply the following corrections.
Please see the example of what I am looking for attached below.
Overall, while the topic is highly relevant and well-researched, the literature review suffers from inconsistencies in writing quality, structure, synthesis, and citation formatting that weaken its scholarly impact. A proper graduate literature review should present a clear, coherent synthesis of existing research, identify gaps, and establish a logical argument for future inquiry or policy reform. Although this review attempts to do so, its organization is somewhat fragmented, with abrupt topic transitions and repetitive phrases (e.g., repeated references to Fort Lauderdale without deep comparative analysis). The introductory paragraph lacks a precise thesis statement or guiding research question. Phrases like “throws lights in” and “training axis” suggest non-standard academic phrasing and reduce the review’s professional tone. The review makes strong use of government reports and real-world events, which is commendable, but it sometimes relies on summarization rather than critical synthesis. For instance, listing agency actions without discussing their theoretical or practical implications leaves the reader with information but little analytical depth.
The section on “Training Methodologies in Use” introduces key concepts like ALICE training but does not adequately critique their limitations within the specific operational constraints of airports. Similarly, when referencing psychological readiness and interagency communication, the review often cites statistics without discussing their methodological basis or drawing broader conclusions. There is also a tendency to insert findings without adequate contextualization—for example, the use of Hong Kong and Lufthansa as exemplary cases could be strengthened by comparing them with U.S. practices or discussing transferability of those models. Additionally, the review inconsistently cites sources, sometimes placing years in parentheses and sometimes not, and occasionally references documents without full integration (e.g., “GAO, 2025” dropped mid-sentence without connecting context). The use of terminology and grammar at times appears imprecise or awkward, such as “on fiery” instead of “on firearm scenarios” and “staff was” instead of “staff were,” which further undermines clarity.
Finally, while the conclusion attempts to synthesize key points and offer future directions, it remains somewhat vague. Statements like “transcend the compliancy training that they are” are grammatically flawed and unclear. A stronger conclusion would explicitly tie back to the gaps identified earlier and reinforce how the proposed research directions and policy changes directly address them. Overall, this literature review has a solid foundation and thoughtful source selection, but it requires more refined academic writing, clearer organization, deeper synthesis, and rigorous attention to style and coherence to meet graduate-level standards.
