On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS

By Sebastian K. Boell, Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic. Journal of Information and Technology, 2015

631 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A review of (almost) 20 years of regional innovation systems research (2017, background): “…literature review follows a rigorous, replicable and transparent scheme in order to identify key scientific contributions to a research field or a question and provide a conclusive assessment regarding a research question (Amrollahi, Ghapanchi, & Talaei-Khoei, 2013; Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015).”
Why do people play games? A meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “Systematic review processes result in straightforward search, with a low ambiguity in the inclusion of studies and the details needed for a replicable review process, as well as a transparent methodology (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic 2014; Oates 2015).”
Artificial intelligence in marketing: A systematic literature review (2021, background): “…identify and understand the objectives priorly and define the criteria for inclusion and exclusion (Štrukelj, 2018) protocol that defines the rationale for identifying and assessing published research that should be included and stated (Afrooz & Navimipour, 2017; Boell & Cecez-kecmanovic, 2015).”
Debating big data: A literature review on realizing value from big data (2017, methodology): “Therefore, we used three additional keywords to increase the number of potentially relevant search results (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015): ‘‘business intelligence”, ‘‘data driven”, and different forms of ‘‘business analytics”.”