scholarly journals Reviewing systematic literature reviews: ten key questions and criteria for reviewers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Kuckertz ◽  
Joern Block
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Business Research ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Key Questions

AbstractSystematic literature review articles are important for synthesizing knowledge in management and business research. However, to date, we lack clear guidelines how to review such articles. This editorial takes the perspective of the reviewer. It presents ten key questions and criteria that reviewers should ask when reviewing systematic literature reviews.

scholarly journals Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Xiao ◽  
Maria Watson
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Planning Education ◽  
Literature Reviews

Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature reviews in planning education and research.

scholarly journals SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEWS (SLR) ANALYSIS ON NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (18) ◽  
pp. 122-132
Author(s):  
Madzli Harun ◽  
ZatulIffah Hussin ◽  
Khatijah Omar ◽  
Siti Falindah Padlee
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Significant Element ◽  
Tourism Sector ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Tourism Policy

The National Tourism Policy of Malaysia is known as the National Ecotourism Plan 2016-2025. It focuses on progressive and competitive tourism in the country by giving full thrust to appreciating a prosperous environment for stakeholders in the tourism sector. Hence the study of the systematic literature review focuses on several elements as the determinants of tourism policy namely Malaysia Tourism. Consequently, each of the previous study elements will explore the scope and dimensions functionality of each scientific article is consistently discussing to analyse the year in which the authors regularly publish their publications. This is to prove that a significant element of publication by the author. Meanwhile, the scope of the study by the author also risked the priority areas in each article by the authors of each element. It is important to prove that the scope supports the main headline of the paper which deals with the formulation of the National Tourism Policy. In fact, dimensions give priority to what they want to achieve in each article from the authors related to Tourism Policy. This paper reviews the Qualitative Method concept by referring to Content Analysis. As a result, it will illustrate that dimensions will be in sync with Tourism to achieve the national tourism policy aspirations.

The Methodology

2018 ◽  
pp. 35-55
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Brand Attachment ◽  
Literature Reviews

This chapter provides a brief description of the methodology used in this book by the following chapters (i.e. “Brand Attachment” [Chapter 3] and “Product Attachment” [Chapter 4]). Applied to address the criticism that literature reviews are naturally liable to subjective choices by the author(s), systematic reviews are based on a methodological protocol intended to minimize subjective biases, while increasing transparency and replicability. After reporting the principles of systematic literature review, the chapter presents how the method has been applied in the research presented throughput the pages of this book.

scholarly journals The Traditional or Reverse Algorithm for Diagnosis of Syphilis: Pros and Cons

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S43-S51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A Ortiz ◽  
Mayur R Shukla ◽  
Michael J Loeffelholz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Laboratory Diagnosis ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Test Part ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Key Questions

Abstract We reviewed relevant syphilis diagnostic literature to address the question “What diagnostic considerations should be taken into account when screening for syphilis using the traditional or reverse algorithm?” Improved laboratory diagnosis of syphilis is an important element of the effort to reduce syphilis rates. Screening for syphilis is performed using either a nontreponemal or treponemal test (part of the traditional or reverse algorithm, respectively). Both syphilis algorithms are used by laboratories. However, there are limited data on the performance and cost-effectiveness of the algorithms. An expert panel generated “key questions” in the laboratory diagnosis of syphilis. This paper pertains to the key factors that should be considered when deciding whether to screen for syphilis using either the traditional or the reverse algorithm. A systematic literature review was performed, and tables of evidence were created to address this question.

Plastic waste as a significant threat to environment – a systematic literature review

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ilyas ◽  
Waqas Ahmad ◽  
Hizbullah Khan ◽  
Saeeda Yousaf ◽  
Kifayatullah Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Plastic Waste ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Waste Plastics ◽  
Plastic Materials ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol

Abstract Context Materials which exceed the balance of their production and destruction lead to the deterioration in the environment. Plastic is one such material which poses a big threat to the environment. A huge amount of plastic is produced and dumped into the environment which does not readily degrade naturally. In this paper, we address the organization of a large body of literature published on the management of waste plastics being the most challenging issue of the modern world. Objectives To address the issue of the management of waste plastics, there is a dire need to organize the literature published in this field. This paper presents a systematic literature review on plastic waste, its fate and biodegradation in the environment. The objective is to make conclusions on possible practical techniques to lessen the effects of plastic waste on the environment. Method A systematic literature review protocol was followed for conducting the present study [Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 2009;51(1):7–15.]. A predefined set of book sections, conference proceedings and high-quality journal publications during the years 1999 to September 2017 were used for data collection. Results One hundred and fifty-three primary studies are selected, based on predefined exclusion, inclusion and quality criteria. These studies will help to identify the fate of different waste plastics, their impact and management and the disposal techniques frequently used. The study also identifies a number of significant techniques and measures for the conversion of waste plastic materials into useful products. Conclusion Five fundamental strategies are used for the handling of plastic waste. These strategies include: recycling, depositing in landfill, incineration, microbial degradation and conversion into useful materials. All of these methods have their own limitations, due to which there is need to explore the studies for optimum solutions of the management of plastics waste.

scholarly journals A roadmap toward the automatic composition of systematic literature reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Eugênio Monteiro da Silva Júnior ◽  
Moisés Lima Dutra
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Computational Techniques ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Automatic Composition

Objective.  This paper presents an overview of existing artificial intelligence tools to produce systematic literature reviews. Furthermore, we propose a general framework resulting from combining these techniques to highlight the challenges and possibilities currently existing in this research area. Design/Methodology/Approach. We undertook a scoping review on the systematic literature review steps to automate them via computational techniques. Results/Discussion. The process of creating a literature review is both creative and technical. The technical part of this process is liable to automation. Based on the literature, we chose to divide this technical part into four steps: searching, screening, extraction, and synthesis. For each one of these steps, we presented practical artificial intelligence techniques to carry them out. In addition, we presented the obstacles encountered in the application of each technique. Conclusion. We proposed a framework for automatically creating systematic literature reviews by combining and placing existing techniques in stages where they possess the greatest potential to be useful. Despite still lacking practical assessment in different areas of knowledge, this proposal indicates ways with the potential to reduce the time-consuming and repetitive work embedded in the systematic literature review process. Originality/Value. The paper presents the current possibilities for automating systematic literature reviews and how they can work together to reduce researchers’ operational workload.

Towards a methodology for literature reviews in social sciences

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Saur-Amaral
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Combined Approach ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Group Research ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
The Right

The emergence of the Internet, the generalized access to online databases and top journal presence in these databases generated a shift in how literature reviews are to be performed. While fifteen-twenty years ago, researchers in social sciences would focus their efforts in finding journal articles to analyze and they would read and use some dozens of articles in their research, nowadays efforts fall upon selecting the right set of articles, reading and synthesizing in such ways that helicopter and detailed views are combined. There is a generational gap between senior and junior researchers, which so far has turned difficult the development of a methodological perspetive of literature reviews in social sciences that bring together both perspetives. Our paper develops a methodology for literature reviews in social sciences, combining the systematic literature review approach, proposed and applied by several authors in management field (Kofinas & Saur-Amaral, 2008; I. Saur-Amaral & Amaral, 2010; Irina Saur-Amaral & Borges Gouveia, 2007; Thorpe, Holt, Macpherson, & Pittaway, 2005; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003; Tranfield & Mouchel, 2002), with the traditional literature review approach (Cook & Leviton, 1980; Hart, 2006; Webster & Watson, 2002). We present compare perspetives, analyzing them from a critical perspetive and we propose a combined approach to be tested and used for research in social sciences, indicating key validity concerns to be taken into account. Results are useful for senior and junior researchers in social sciences, which undertake literature reviews for their own or for group research.

What evidence on evidence-based management in healthcare?

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 2069-2084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Roshanghalb ◽  
Emanuele Lettieri ◽  
Davide Aloini ◽  
Lorella Cannavacciuolo ◽  
Simone Gitto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Performance Assessment ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Process Perspective

Purpose This manuscript discusses the main findings gathered through a systematic literature review aimed at crystallizing the state of art about evidence-based management (EBMgt) in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to narrow the main gaps in current understanding about the linkage between sources of evidence, categories of analysis and kinds of managerial decisions/management practices that different groups of decision-makers put in place. In fact, although EBMgt in healthcare has emerging as a fashionable research topic, little is still known about its actual implementation. Design/methodology/approach Using the Scopus database as main source of evidence, the authors carried out a systematic literature review on EBMgt in healthcare. Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been crystallized and applied. Only empirical journal articles and past reviews have been included to consider only well-mature and robust studies. A theoretical framework based on a “process” perspective has been designed on these building blocks: inputs (sources of evidence), processes/tools (analyses on the sources of evidence), outcomes (the kind of the decision) and target users (decision-makers). Findings Applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 30 past studies were selected. Of them, ten studies were past literature reviews conducted between 2009 and 2014. Their main focus was discussing the previous definitions for EBMgt in healthcare, the main sources of evidence and their acceptance in hospitals. The remaining studies (n=20, 67 percent) were empirical; among them, the largest part (n=14, 70 percent) was informed by quantitative methodologies. The sources of evidence for EBMgt are: published studies, real world evidence and experts’ opinions. Evidence is analyzed through: literature reviews, data analysis of empirical studies, workshops with experts. Main kinds of decisions are: performance assessment of organization units, staff performance assessment, change management, organizational knowledge transfer and strategic planning. Originality/value This study offers original insights on EBMgt in healthcare by adding to what we know from previous studies a “process” perspective that connects sources of evidence, types of analysis, kinds of decisions and groups of decision-makers. The main findings are useful for academia as they consolidate what we know about EBMgt in healthcare and pave avenues for further research to consolidate this emerging discipline. They are also useful for practitioners, as hospital managers, who might be interested to design and implement EBMgt initiatives to improve hospital performance.

scholarly journals Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina K Linnenluecke ◽  
Mauricio Marrone ◽  
Abhay K Singh
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Business Management ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Broad Overview

Literature reviews play an essential role in academic research to gather existing knowledge and to examine the state of a field. However, researchers in business, management and related disciplines continue to rely on cursory and narrative reviews that lack a systematic investigation of the literature. This article details methodological steps for conducting literature reviews in a replicable and scientific fashion. This article also discusses bibliographic mapping approaches to visualise bibliometric information and findings from a systematic literature review. We hope that the insights provided in this article are useful for researchers at different stages of their careers – ranging from doctoral students who wish to assemble a broad overview of their field of interest to guide their work, to senior researchers who wish to publish authoritative literature reviews. JEL Classification: C18, C80, C88, M10, M20

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document