There is a lack of generalizable empirical analyses of whether particular types of monitoring promote effective forest governance, and under what circumstances. We reviewed a specific sample of the peer-reviewed literature on how monitoring, including state-level, participatory, and third-party monitoring, might affect forest conditions. Examining 25 cases, we found three trends which limit our understanding of the effect of monitoring. First, there was a bias toward studies in Brazil and India, indicating that the literature might not be globally representative. Second, no studies compared different types of monitoring. Third, the majority of studies relied on qualitative approaches, making comparison across cases difficult. These insights suggest focusing research agendas on comparative assessment across sites and monitoring systems.