IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlogis/v7y2023i4p89-d1288693.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mathew Azarian

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

  • Hao Yu

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

  • Asmamaw Tadege Shiferaw

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

  • Tor Kristian Stevik

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

Suggested Citation

  • Mathew Azarian & Hao Yu & Asmamaw Tadege Shiferaw & Tor Kristian Stevik, 2023. "Do We Perform Systematic Literature Review Right? A Scientific Mapping and Methodological Assessment," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-32, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:7:y:2023:i:4:p:89-:d:1288693
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/7/4/89/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/7/4/89/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng Marc, 2021. "How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    3. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Robert, Glenn & Macfarlane, Fraser & Bate, Paul & Kyriakidou, Olympia & Peacock, Richard, 2005. "Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 417-430, July.
    4. E. C. M. Noyons & H. F. Moed & A. F. J. Raan, 1999. "Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 591-604, November.
    5. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    6. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    7. Bahareh Mansouri & Subhasmita Sahu & M. Ali Ülkü, 2023. "Toward Greening City Logistics: A Systematic Review on Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility in Managing Urban Distribution Centers," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Vilker Zucolotto Pessin & Luciana Harue Yamane & Renato Ribeiro Siman, 2022. "Smart bibliometrics: an integrated method of science mapping and bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3695-3718, June.
    9. Henry Small, 1999. "Visualizing science by citation mapping," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(9), pages 799-813.
    10. Naoki Shibata & Yuya Kajikawa & Yoshiyuki Takeda & Katsumori Matsushima, 2009. "Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(3), pages 571-580, March.
    11. Ozden Tozanli & Gazi Murat Duman & Elif Kongar & Surendra M. Gupta, 2017. "Environmentally Concerned Logistics Operations in Fuzzy Environment: A Literature Survey," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-42, June.
    12. T. D. Stanley, 2001. "Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 131-150, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rocío González-Sánchez & Sara Alonso-Muñoz & María Sonia Medina-Salgado, 2023. "Circularity in waste management: a research proposal to achieve the 2030 Agenda," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 1520-1540, September.
    2. Pawinee Iamtrakul & Sararad Chayphong & Derlie Mateo-Babiano, 2023. "The Transition of Land Use and Road Safety Studies: A Systematic Literature Review (2000–2021)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    4. Lin Hu & Qinghai Chen & Tingting Yang & Chuanjian Yi & Jing Chen, 2024. "Visualization and Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Seafood Cold Chain Logistics Based on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and RStudio Bibliometrix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    6. Nirojan JASINTHA, 2023. "What Is Known And Unknown: A Bibliometric Analysis Of Organizational Politics," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 15(2), pages 5-16, June.
    7. Habib Sadri & Ibrahim Yitmen & Lavinia Chiara Tagliabue & Florian Westphal & Algan Tezel & Afshin Taheri & Goran Sibenik, 2023. "Integration of Blockchain and Digital Twins in the Smart Built Environment Adopting Disruptive Technologies—A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-46, February.
    8. Persson, Olle, 2010. "Identifying research themes with weighted direct citation links," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 415-422.
    9. Sharma, Wamika & Lim, Weng Marc & Kumar, Satish & Verma, Aastha & Kumra, Rajeev, 2024. "Game on! A state-of-the-art overview of doing business with gamification," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Xiaomei Luo & Yuduo Wu & Lina Niu & Lucheng Huang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Health Technology Research: 1990~2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, July.
    11. Veronica Paul Kundy & Kamini Shah, 2024. "The knowledge base of financial technology: a bibliometric analysis review," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 4(7), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Adela Laura Popa & Naiana Nicoleta Ţarcă & Dinu Vlad Sasu & Simona Aurelia Bodog & Remus Dorel Roşca & Teodora Mihaela Tarcza, 2022. "Exploring Marketing Insights for Healthcare: Trends and Perspectives Based on Literature Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Vilker Zucolotto Pessin & Luciana Harue Yamane & Renato Ribeiro Siman, 2022. "Smart bibliometrics: an integrated method of science mapping and bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3695-3718, June.
    14. Prattana Punnakitikashem & Philip Hallinger, 2019. "Bibliometric Review of the Knowledge Base on Healthcare Management for Sustainability, 1994–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Itsuki Kageyama & Karin Kurata & Shuto Miyashita & Yeongjoo Lim & Shintaro Sengoku & Kota Kodama, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Wearable Device Research Trends 2001–2022—A Study on the Reversal of Number of Publications and Research Trends in China and the USA," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Yuntao Lian & Jiafeng Xie, 2024. "The Evolution of Digital Cultural Heritage Research: Identifying Key Trends, Hotspots, and Challenges through Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-39, August.
    17. Wenting Yang & Jiantong Zhang & Ruolin Ma, 2020. "The Prediction of Infectious Diseases: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Liyan Huang & Hong Ching Goh & Rosli Said, 2023. "Understanding the social integration process of rural–urban migrants in urban china: a bibliometrics review," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 1-34, December.
    19. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    20. Ying Lu & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Rural Development Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:7:y:2023:i:4:p:89-:d:1288693. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.