Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

By J. Macdonald. 2014

1,398 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a7df4c0c26d8d6550955b254903c7e285f866696

How researchers see this paper

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

In Information Systems

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Writing Literature Reviews (2014, background): “…and funding agencies in the medical sciences, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, sought what they considered to be more credible reviews that were driven by evidence-based results and that clearly and explicitly identified and appraised existing research (Booth et al., 2012).”
Targeting human fear of large carnivores — Many ideas but few known effects (2016, methodology): “The final search string was used in the comprehensive literature search up to December 2014 using the four electronic databases Web of Science (ISI), Scopus, EBSCO (PsycInfo and SocINDEX with Full Text) (Booth et al., 2012) (see Table 1).”
Standing on the shoulders of giants? A critical review of empirical talent management research (2016, methodology): “As Figure 1 shows, we undertook this literature review in five distinct stages drawing on established methods (cf. Booth et al., 2014).”
Computer-Mediated Communication, Social Media, and Mental Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Meta-Review (2020, methodology): “…our definitions of (1) CMC and (2) MH, (3) their conceptual independence, and (4) include investigations of non-clinical samples) and methodology (i.e., synthesis articles had to be (5) systematic (Booth et al., 2012), (6) synthesize empirical evidence, and be (7) written in English and published).”
Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research (2021, methodology): “Methodological pieces on systematic reviews mostly advocate quality assessments based on criteria other than journal rankings (e.g., Booth et al., 2016; Jesson et al., 2011; Petticrew & Roberts, 2012; Tranfield et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2020).”
A systematic review of augmented reality applications in maintenance (2018, methodology): “Then the PICOC framework has been utilised to define the key concepts of the research [7].”
A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the manufacturing industry (2015, background): “Inclusion and exclusion criteria are stated in order to make it clear to the reader why some articles with which they are familiar have been excluded from the review (Booth et al., 2012).”
Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017, background): “In general, performing an appraisal is useful to check the trustworthiness of individual studies to a review and if the quality might impact the review findings [18].”
Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review (2016, methodology): “According to Booth et al. (2012), the stages of the search process and recommended techniques should be utilized in relation to the purpose of the review.”
Panic buying research: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2021, methodology): “3 | METHODOLOGY This study uses a systematic literature review to analyse and synthesize relevant studies to identify gaps and highlight synergies within them (Booth et al., 2012; Hao et al., 2019; Kennedy, 2007).”
Achieving Rigor in Literature Reviews: Insights from Qualitative Data Analysis and Tool-Support (2015, background): “The “recommendations from a research synthesis may be disregarded, however its very existence allows transparency on a research topic” (Booth et al., 2012, p. 4).”
Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) (2015, background): “• To date, CERQual has been piloted on evidence syntheses that have used framework [44] or narrative synthesis approaches [45] and that have produced largely descriptive findings.”