Do We Perform Systematic Literature Review Right? A Scientific Mapping and Methodological Assessment

Author:

Azarian Mathew1ORCID,Yu Hao2ORCID,Shiferaw Asmamaw Tadege1,Stevik Tor Kristian1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Technology Management, Faculty of Science and Technology, NMBU Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1433 Ås, Norway

2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 8514 Narvik, Norway

Abstract

Background: Systematic literature review (SLR) is increasingly utilized to maximize the element of rigor and minimize the individual bias of research synthesis. An analysis of the Web of Science (WoS) database indicates that 90% of the literature review studies using SLR have been published between 2012 and 2022. However, this progressive agenda is impaired by the lack of methodological consistency and rigorousness. To fill this gap, this paper aims at mapping the theoretical comprehension and practices of SLR and providing a stepwise approach to employing such a framework. Methods: A comprehensive narrative review is used in this paper to analyze the studies concerning the literature review typology and the structural assessment of the SLR. Furthermore, the methodological approach of the literature review studies that adopted the SLR and were published in the Logistics journal is assessed across a set of vital criteria associated with conducting an SLR. Results: There is a concrete link between the purpose of a review, i.e., to describe, test, extend, or critique, and the literature review type. There are 17 distinct literature review types, e.g., a narrative review, a bibliometric analysis, etc., which must be justified meticulously regardless of the SLR. The ambiguity in conceiving the SLR either as a toolkit or a review type, the lack of justification regarding the review purpose and type, and vague conceptual distinguishment between the bibliometric analysis, as a distinct review type, and the SLR framework, are only a few of the shortcomings observed in the analyzed papers. Conclusions: Given the significant role of SLR in elevating the element of rigor within the literature review studies, it is deemed essential to employ this framework by paying attention to two holistic factors: (1) theoretical distinction between the literature review purpose, the literature review type, and the SLR; (2) strict adherence to the SLR procedure with a high degree of accuracy and explicitness.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Information Systems and Management,Management Science and Operations Research,Transportation,Management Information Systems

Reference128 articles.

1. Chen, C. (2003). Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization, Springer. [2nd ed.].

2. Merton, R.K. (1965). On The Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript, The Free Press.

3. Keith, B., Vitasek, K., Manrodt, K., and Kling, J. (2016). Strategic Sourcing in The New Economy: Harnessing the Potential of Sourcing Business Models for Modern Procurement, Palgrave Macmillan. [1st ed.].

4. Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews;Trudel;Inf. Manag.,2015

5. Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., and Jackson, G.B. (1982). Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies, SAGE Publications. [1st ed.].

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3