There are several examples in current literature where assumptions regarding residual stresses are made, yet rarely confirmed in practice. To validate this statement, this work presents a critical view on the subject through a bibliographic review. A series of conflicting results were found when researchers attempted, both experimentally and by simulation, to define, quantify, or even qualify, the individual effect of each factor on residual stress generation. It was concluded that the reason for this would be the lack of a holistic view to study the subject. Therefore, a diagram is proposed, which lists and classifies as primary and secondary the governing factors related to the generation of residual stresses, to facilitate the understanding of the effect of each factor. It was also observed a lack of harmonization in publications, both in symbology and in terminology, of the residual stress axes and components. Therefore, a symbology and terminology proposal, with the intention of facilitating the comprehension and transportability of results, is presented. Eventually, from this work is therefore expected a better understanding of the reasons for the literature assumptions to be not always confirmed in practice.