Advancing Methodologies of Conducting Literature Review in Management Domain: Volume 2

The study responds to the common concerns of authors, reviewers, and editors on writing and publishing high-quality literature review (LR) studies. First, we evolved the background and decision elements on the five parameters of a quality LR paper: Planning, Operationalizing, Writing, Embedding, and Reflecting (POWER), from the editorials and guiding literature. Statistical procedure and refinement of 256 responses from writers, reviewers, and editors revealed 37 decision elements. Finally, a multicriteria-decision-making approach was applied to the detailed responses from the lead editors of ABDC, Scopus, ABS, and WoS journals, and 31 decision elements were found strong enough to represent these five parameters on the quality of LR studies. All five parameters are found important to be considered. However, a high priority is suggested for embedding (the results coming out of the review) and operationalizing (the process of conducting the review), whereas reflection, writing, and planning of LR papers still remain important. The purpose of the POWER framework is to overcome the challenges and decision dilemmas faced by writers and decision-makers. The POWER framework acts as a guiding tool to conduct LR studies in general and business management scholars in specific ways. In addition, this study provides a checklist (Table 6) and template (Appendix A1) of a quality LR study to its stakeholders.

Literature reviews help summarize the field of a research area and identify gaps to be addressed as part of a future research agenda. Many types of literature reviews can be undertaken, including narrative literature reviews, scoping literature reviews, integrative literature reviews, and systematic literature reviews. While every researcher has undertaken some form of narrative literature review, the more advanced types of literature reviews require careful planning and following well-established protocols. This chapter discusses the various types of literature reviews, with an emphasis on the systematic literature review. It details the steps required in conducting a systematic literature review and provides some practical tips to enhance the quality of such studies and their contribution to the research field.

Systematic literature review (SLR) papers have gained significant importance during the last years as many reputed journals have asked for literature review submissions from the authors. However, at the same time, authors are experiencing a high number of desk rejections because of a lack of quality and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to offer guidance to researchers who intend to communicate SLR papers in top-rated journals. We attempt to offer a guide to buddy researchers who plan to write SLR papers. This purpose is achieved by clearly stating how the traditional review method is different from SLR, when and how can each type of literature review method be used, writing effective motivation of a review paper and finally how to synthesize the available literature. We have also presented a few suggestions for writing an impactful SLR in the last. Overall, this chapter serves as a guide to various aspirants of SLR paper to understand the prerequisites of an SLR paper and offers deep insights to bring in more clarity before writing an SLR paper, thereby reducing the chances of desk rejection.

The use of structured literature review methods like bibliometric analysis is growing in the management fields, but there is limited knowledge on how they can be facilitated by technology. Hence, we conducted a broad overview of software tools, their roles, and limitations in structured (bibliometric) literature reviewing activities. Subsequently, we show that several software tools are freely available to aid in searching the literature, identifying/ extracting relevant publications, screening/assessing quality of the extracted data, and performing analyses to generate insights from the literature. However, their applications may be confronted with several challenges such as limited analytical and functional capabilities, inadequate technological skills of researchers, and the fact that the researcher's insights are still needed to generate compelling conclusions from the results produced by software tools. Consequently, we contribute toward advancing the methodologies for performing structured reviews by providing a comprehensive and updated overview of the knowledge base of key technological software tools and the conduct of structured or bibliometric literature reviews.

The proliferation of bibliometric review articles is a true reflection of how bibliometrics is gaining popularity and has been widely adopted in various disciplines. The growing interest of scholars has encouraged us to dwell upon the what, why, when, how, and where of bibliometric literature reviews. The study explained the bibliometric review with the standpoint that it can be considered a strong review method for analyzing a large volume of data and scholars can supplement their traditional reviews with bibliometric reviews to strengthen their knowledge. This will help researchers to justify the (a) need for a study on the particular topic; (b) type or method of review chosen; (c) number of articles selected; (d) inclusion and exclusion criterion; (e) method of analysis; and (f) presentation of the findings.

A literature review or review article is an integral part of a scientific body of research which synthesizes prior knowledge and provides a holistic overview of a subject domain. While several studies emphasize the significance of literature reviews and include the guidelines for conducting a review, limited studies demonstrated different types of literature review methodologies in a comprehensive way. Accordingly, this chapter presents various types of review methodologies which includes narrative, descriptive, systematic, meta-analysis, hybrid, umbrella, scoping, theoretical, and critical reviews. In addition, the authors' skills including logical reasoning, content analysis, literature mapping, critical writing, and ethical consideration are presented. Further, quality aspects of the literature review are discussed such as the rigor and relevance of the selected studies. Overall, this chapter provides implications for researchers in understanding types of literature review methodologies along with their objectives, strengths, and weaknesses which can assist them in selecting a suitable methodology while conducting a review.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is a widely accepted guideline for performing a systematic review (SR) in clinical journals. It not only helps an author to improve the reporting but also assists reviewers and editors in the critical appraisal of available SR. These tools help in achieving reproducibility in research, a major concern in contemporary academic research. But there is a lack of awareness about the approach among management researchers. This chapter attempts to fill this gap using a narrative review of reliable online resources and peer-reviewed articles to discuss the PRISMA guidelines and recent amendments. The chapter further points out the limitations of PRISMA in the review of management literature and suggests measures to overcome that. This piece of literature introduces a reader to the basics of a systematic review using PRISMA as an instrument. One of the significant contributions is to delineate a seven-step strategy to attain reproducibility in the systematic review. The chapter is useful for researchers and academicians in the field of social science and management.

Common literature review methods such as systematic review and narrative review are poorly suited to the investigation of complex management phenomena. Systematic reviews are highly driven by protocol and procedure, and are oft-criticized as reductive and poorly equipped to examine the interaction between phenomena and context, nonlinear processes, and empirical outcomes that are less predictable. Narrative reviews, on the other hand, are pluralistic and iterative and thus better suited to descriptions of the complex and unpredictable; however, they tend to lack methodological transparency, trustworthiness, and pragmatism in application. The “realist synthesis” approach to literature review can be seen as the middle-ground between these two common methods, offering both methodological rigor alongside flexibility and nuance. Realist synthesis takes an explanatory frame, with a focus on unearthing the theorized causal mechanisms at play beneath a phenomenon of interest.