Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade.

By B. Green, Claire D. Johnson, A. Adams. Journal Chiropractic Medicine, 2006

1,908 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3cb39216f39ddc5f793cf2575c810d1e3c395200

How researchers see this paper

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

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Publishing not perishing: how research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews (2015, positive): “…ontological, epistemological and methodological problems and gaps; and (iii) providing much - needed evidence for decision - makers when identifying and supporting priority issues – esp ecially through funding for policy development (CEBC 2010; Davies 2000; Green et al. 2006; Hammersley 2001).”
Where you search determines what you find: the effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews (2021, positive): “Our concerns over the rigorous selection and use of databases during a systematic review are shared within the research literature, which points to a set of caveats regarding: the number of databases selected for a systematic search (Green et al., 2006); the appropriateness of the selected database(”
Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: an empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field (2018, background): “They can be especially valuable as a means of orientation in an emerging domain (Green et al. 2006; Jones and Gatrell 2014).”
A Systematic Review on the Practice of Evaluating Visualization (2013, background): “Qualitative literature reviews are a standard technique in many areas of science to objectively report on current knowledge or practices on a topic of interest [22].”
On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS (2015, background): “…is the generation of new insights, perspectives and understanding by problematizing knowledge claims, approaches and assumptions in earlier research Alvesson and Sandberg (2011); Green et al. (2006); Hart (1998); Khoo et al. (2011); MacLure (2005) specific kind of literature reviews can be useful.”
Employers' Attitudes Towards Hiring and Retaining People with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature (2013, background): “…involved the formulation of the speciﬁc questions, a preliminary review of the literature, identifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, selecting and accessing the literature, assessing the quality of the literature, and analysing and reporting the ﬁndings (Green, Johnson & Adams, 2006).”
How Social Are Social Media? A Review of Online Social Behaviour and Connectedness (2017, methodology): “This narrative review was conducted according to guidelines proposed by Green, Johnson, and Adams (2001).”
Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature (2020, methodology): “According to Green et al. (2006), “… the critical factor in writing a good narrative review is to use good methods” (p. 103).”
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review (2017, background): “Types of descriptive reviews include the narrative review (Green, Johnson, and Adams 2001), textual narrative synthesis (Popay et al. 2006; Lucas et al. 2007), metasummary (Sandelowski, Barroso, and Voils 2007), meta-narrative (Greenhalgh et al. 2005), and scoping review (Arksey and O’Malley 2005).”