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

Logistics Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.3390/logistics7040089
Mathew Azarian, Hao Yu, A. T. Shiferaw, T. K. Stevik
{"title":"Do We Perform Systematic Literature Review Right? A Scientific Mapping and Methodological Assessment","authors":"Mathew Azarian, Hao Yu, A. T. Shiferaw, T. K. Stevik","doi":"10.3390/logistics7040089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":507203,"journal":{"name":"Logistics","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7040089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
我们进行系统文献综述的方法正确吗?科学绘图和方法评估
背景:系统文献综述(Systematic literature review,SLR)被越来越多地用于最大限度地提高研究综述的严谨性和减少个体偏差。对科学网(WoS)数据库的分析表明,90%采用系统文献综述的文献综述研究发表于 2012 年至 2022 年之间。然而,由于缺乏方法上的一致性和严谨性,这一渐进议程受到了影响。为了填补这一空白,本文旨在绘制 SLR 的理论理解和实践图,并为采用这种框架提供一种循序渐进的方法。方法:本文采用综合叙述性综述的方法,分析了与文献综述类型学和 SLR 结构评估有关的研究。此外,本文还通过一系列与开展 SLR 相关的重要标准,对采用 SLR 并发表在《物流》期刊上的文献综述研究的方法论进行了评估。结果:综述的目的(即描述、测试、扩展或批判)与文献综述类型之间存在具体联系。有 17 种不同的文献综述类型,如叙述性综述、文献计量学分析等,无论 SLR 如何,都必须对其进行细致的论证。将 SLR 视为工具包或综述类型的模糊性、缺乏对综述目的和类型的论证,以及文献计量分析(作为一种独特的综述类型)与 SLR 框架之间概念上的模糊区分,只是所分析论文中存在的几个不足之处。结论:鉴于 SLR 在提高文献综述研究的严谨性方面发挥着重要作用,我们认为采用这一框架时必须注意两个整体因素:(1) 从理论上区分文献综述目的、文献综述类型和 SLR;(2) 严格遵守 SLR 程序,做到高度准确和明确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信