IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0329904.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Best practices of judicial governance: A scoping review protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Leandra Vilela Rodrigues Chaves
  • Marcos de Moraes Sousa
  • Woska Pires da Costa
  • Jéssica Traguetto
  • Flávio Manoel Coelho Borges Cardoso
  • Miguel de Matos-Torres

Abstract

Background: Enhancing performance in the public sector is closely tied to institutional structures, governance models, and the behavior of public officials. In the Judiciary, these factors significantly affect the effectiveness of court administration and justice delivery. Judicial governance is a complex and evolving concept encompassing standards and practices related to accountability, independence, resource management, and institutional performance, progressively integrating principles from public management reforms. Despite its growing relevance, the field remains fragmented, with limited evidence connecting international standards to best governance practices in judicial administration. Objective: This protocol outlines a scoping review designed to identify, map, and synthesize evidence on best practices in judicial governance, examining their relationship with the effective administration of justice and identifying research gaps to propose a future research agenda. Method: This review will follow the JBI methodology and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search will be conducted in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, and JSTOR, as well as additional searches in grey literature. The PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) framework guided the eligibility criteria, and the PRESS 2015 checklist was used to validate the search strategy. The PRISMA-S checklist will inform the reporting of the search process. Studies of all designs and publication statuses will be considered, with no restrictions on language or publication date. Two reviewers will independently screen using Rayyan software, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. Data extraction will occur at two levels: general source information and specific content related to the review scope. Qualitative data will be analyzed using NVivo software, enabling categorization, descriptive synthesis, gap identification, and the development of a research agenda. Discussion: This scoping review aims to generate key evidence that can inform institutional standards and best governance practices to support evidence-based policymaking; while it does not assess the risk of bias, its systematic methodology and inclusion of grey literature enhance its relevance for future research and innovations in the justice sector. Through this scoping review, key evidence will generate insights that can enhance institutional standards and best practices in governance, enabling evidence-based policymaking. Although the review does not assess the risk of bias, its systematic approach and inclusion of grey literature strengthen its potential to support future research and governance innovations in the justice sector. Trial registration: OSF Registries, Jan 21, 2024: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/agv3b.

Suggested Citation

  • Leandra Vilela Rodrigues Chaves & Marcos de Moraes Sousa & Woska Pires da Costa & Jéssica Traguetto & Flávio Manoel Coelho Borges Cardoso & Miguel de Matos-Torres, 2025. "Best practices of judicial governance: A scoping review protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(8), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0329904
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329904
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329904&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0329904?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0329904. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.