Should my literature review precede the introduction for three weekly assignments?

You should follow your professor’s specific instructions and place the literature review before the introduction for these assignments, even though it goes against standard academic publishing conventions. In most scientific writing, the introduction sets the stage and defines the research gap, while the literature review expands on that context. However, in an academic setting, the syllabus and the instructor's explicit formatting guidelines always trump general style guides. Your professor likely has a specific pedagogical reason for this structural choice, perhaps wanting you to demonstrate a deep understanding of the existing research landscape before you even define the specific scope of your own papers. The main challenge you are facing is that we are conditioned to write introductions that funnel down into a thesis statement, which naturally leads into a literature review. When you flip this order, the transition feels clunky because you are trying to review the state of the art before you have even told the reader what your paper is actually about. To fix this, think of the literature review in this specific context as a broad thematic survey of the field rather than a targeted justification for your specific hypothesis. For instance, if you are writing one of your biomedical engineering papers on 3D-bioprinting vascular grafts, your literature review would map out the general history, materials, and current limitations of bioprinting as a whole. Only after establishing this broad landscape would your introduction step in to say, "Given these established limitations in the literature, this paper specifically analyzes the mechanical integrity of alginate-based hydrogels." This approach allows the literature review to serve as a massive foundation, making the subsequent introduction feel like a natural narrowing of focus rather than an awkward afterthought. While this structure might feel counterintuitive, it is a great exercise in adaptability, which is a crucial skill in engineering where different journals and funding agencies demand wildly different formatting styles. The biggest pitfall to avoid here is repeating yourself; do not write a traditional introduction that summarizes the literature, only to repeat those same points in the preceding section. Keep the literature review strictly focused on what other researchers have done, and reserve your introduction for the specific objectives, scope, and outline of your current assignment. Since these papers are quite substantial at 2,500 words each and are all due next week, you cannot afford to waste time overthinking the structural philosophy. Your best next step is to draft a quick, one-paragraph transition at the end of your literature review that explicitly bridges the gap to the introduction, perhaps by summarizing the overarching theme of the past research and stating that the following section will outline your specific paper's focus. If you are still struggling with the flow after trying this approach, I highly recommend sending a polite, brief email to your professor or teaching assistant to ask if they have a preferred transition strategy or a past student exemplar they can share.