IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v11y2023i1p2-d1027811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising

Author

Listed:
  • Uchendu Eugene Chigbu

    (Department of Land and Spatial Sciences, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek 9000, Namibia)

  • Sulaiman Olusegun Atiku

    (Department of Economic and Business Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha 5100, South Africa
    Harold Pupkewitz Graduate School of Business, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek 9000, Namibia)

  • Cherley C. Du Plessis

    (Department of Marketing, Logistics and Sport Management, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek 9000, Namibia)

Abstract

The ability to conduct an explicit and robust literature review by students, scholars or scientists is critical in producing excellent journal articles, academic theses, academic dissertations or working papers. A literature review is an evaluation of existing research works on a specific academic topic, theme or subject to identify gaps and propose future research agenda. Many postgraduate students in higher education institutions lack the necessary skills and understanding to conduct in-depth literature reviews. This may lead to the presentation of incorrect, false or biased inferences in their theses or dissertations. This study offers scientific knowledge on how literature reviews in different fields of study could be conducted to mitigate against biased inferences such as unscientific analogies and baseless recommendations. The literature review is presented as a process that involves several activities including searching, identifying, reading, summarising, compiling, analysing, interpreting and referencing. We hope this article serves as reference material to improve the academic rigour in the literature review chapters of postgraduate students’ theses or dissertations. This article prompts established scholars to explore more innovative ways through which scientific literature reviews can be conducted to identify gaps (empirical, knowledge, theoretical, methodological, application and population gap) and propose a future research agenda.

Suggested Citation

  • Uchendu Eugene Chigbu & Sulaiman Olusegun Atiku & Cherley C. Du Plessis, 2023. "The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:1:p:2-:d:1027811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/1/2/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/1/2/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    2. Gad Saad, 2006. "Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 117-120, October.
    3. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    4. Pablo D. Batista & Mônica G. Campiteli & Osame Kinouchi, 2006. "Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 179-189, July.
    5. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2006. "An informetric model for the Hirsch-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 121-129, October.
    6. Robert W. Palmatier & Mark B. Houston & John Hulland, 2018. "Review articles: purpose, process, and structure," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-5, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Uchendu Eugene Chigbu, 2019. "Visually Hypothesising in Scientific Paper Writing: Confirming and Refuting Qualitative Research Hypotheses Using Diagrams," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Miriam J. Metzger, 2007. "Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2078-2091, November.
    10. Andrea Caputo & Mariya Kargina, 2022. "A user-friendly method to merge Scopus and Web of Science data during bibliometric analysis," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 82-88, March.
    11. Witell, Lars & Snyder, Hannah & Gustafsson, Anders & Fombelle, Paul & Kristensson, Per, 2016. "Defining service innovation: A review and synthesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2863-2872.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Uchendu Eugene Chigbu & Chigozie Nweke-Eze, 2023. "Green Hydrogen Production and Its Land Tenure Consequences in Africa: An Interpretive Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Hosany, A. R. Shaheen & Hosany, Sameer & He, Hongwei, 2022. "Children sustainable behaviour: A review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 236-257.
    4. Antonis Sidiropoulos & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2007. "Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(2), pages 253-280, August.
    5. Lenart-Gansiniec Regina, 2022. "The dilemmas of systematic literature review: the context of crowdsourcing in science," International Journal of Contemporary Management, Sciendo, vol. 58(1), pages 11-21, March.
    6. J. W. Fedderke, 2013. "The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 177-206, November.
    7. Zhang, Lin & Thijs, Bart & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2011. "The diffusion of H-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 583-593.
    8. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico A., 2010. "Analysis of the Hirsch index's operational properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 494-504, June.
    9. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "The h-index of h-index and of other informetric topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 591-605, June.
    10. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2008. "Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 257-271, February.
    11. Sascha Kraus & Matthias Breier & Weng Marc Lim & Marina Dabić & Satish Kumar & Dominik Kanbach & Debmalya Mukherjee & Vincenzo Corvello & Juan Piñeiro-Chousa & Eric Liguori & Daniel Palacios-Marqués &, 2022. "Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(8), pages 2577-2595, November.
    12. Chen, Yanyan & Mandler, Timo & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2021. "Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 179-197.
    13. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Maurizio Galetto & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2012. "The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 621-641, September.
    14. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    15. Daniel Caballero-Julia & Philippe Campillo, 2021. "Epistemological Considerations of Text Mining: Implications for Systematic Literature Review," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-26, August.
    16. Kusha Sharma & Dr. Madhuri Hooda, 2023. "The New Elective of National Cadet Corps (NCC): A Review of Literature," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(7), pages 384-396, July.
    17. Mandler, Timo & Sezen, Burcu & Chen, Jieke & Özsomer, Ayşegül, 2021. "Performance consequences of marketing standardization/adaptation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 416-435.
    18. Shuchi Pahuja & Anita Agrawal, 2023. "Board Attributes and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Perspectives," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 16(1), pages 108-138, June.
    19. Lim, Weng Marc & Rasul, Tareq, 2022. "Customer engagement and social media: Revisiting the past to inform the future," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 325-342.
    20. Petridis, Konstantinos & Malesios, Chrisovalantis & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2013. "Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals’ quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 505-521.

    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:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:1:p:2-:d:1027811. 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.