Search results

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 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.

This study aims to examine entry-level PhD students’ experiences with participating in Critical Friends, a peer review protocol, used to support learning the threshold concept of literature review. It also sought to determine if, and how, students used the peer review protocol electively during their first year of doctoral study.

The authors used a sequential, QUAL-qual mixed-method design to guide the study. Reflective learning journals, surveys and interviews were collected from three cohorts of PhD students (N = 18).

Thematic analysis revealed that giving and receiving writing critique was uncomfortable for these novice peer reviewers and many described emotional disciplining associated with vulnerability. Critical Friends offered a safe space to begin mastery of the literature review and begin transforming new researcher and writer identities. While Critical Friends was a positive experience for students, they struggled implementing the protocol on their own following the course.

These findings support the need for faculty to embed peer review opportunities in courses during the first year to facilitate role modeling and mentoring. The findings also demonstrate the need to engage students with peer review early in the program to increase comfort, cultivate student resiliency for accepting critical feedback and build capacity for students to learn with and from others.

This paper advocates for the use of peer review practices early in the doctoral study to promote the development of researcher identity and positioning within the research community.

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.

This study aims to investigate basic/core principles and practical tools behind successful manuscript writing for education journals. Drawing on the insights of journal editors and related literature, this paper seeks to clarify the craft of preparing quality manuscripts to meet the expectations of academic journals.

This paper uses an interpretivist framework by incorporating a qualitative analysis of the literature with the authors’ experiences to identify key principles and issues in academic publishing. These narratives provide an empirical basis for understanding the mechanics and essence of effective manuscript crafting. The study integrates theoretical knowledge with actionable strategies, focusing on identifying the objectives and processes of writing, determining common challenges and directing readers toward comprehensive resources for guidance in article writing.

This study reveals that manuscript rejections often transcend technical shortcomings. Issues that are central to nonacceptance include misalignment with a journal’s thematic focus, absence of a coherent and persuasive argument, methodological weaknesses and insufficient evidence underpinning the assertions. Successful publication depends not just on data presentation and adherence to submission norms but also on developing a narrative that enriches the prevailing scholarly discourse. Our findings advocate for manuscripts that strike an appropriate balance between lucidity and analytical rigor, avoid superfluous technical language and express a mix of assertiveness and scholarly modesty.

Although there is literature on academic writing, very few recent articles have been uncovered that probe the intricacies of crafting education manuscripts and point to resources.

Multimodal writing portfolios were introduced and integrated into an undergraduate course and a graduate course in a research-oriented university in northwest Taiwan. This study aims to examine the influence of multimodal writing portfolios of novice researchers' academic writing.

Comparative case studies involve collecting data from several cases and analyzing the similarities, differences and patterns across cases (Merriam, 2009). To address this underdeveloped area of research, a comparative case study method was employed to understand undergraduate and graduate students' multimodal writing portfolios in academic writing in two courses in Taiwan.

First, multimodal writing portfolios enabled novice researchers to be more familiar with the structure of academic paper and they had better performance in intrapersonal and linguistic aspects. Second, novice researchers held positive attitude toward multimodal writing portfolios because they regarded process of making multimodal writing portfolios as preparation for their future academic writing. Finally, participants highly valued the class PowerPoint slides, weekly writing tasks and the instructor's modeling as effective facilitation for making multimodal writing portfolios.

Limited studies focus on multimodal writing portfolios (e.g. Silver, 2019). The present case study explores the integration of a multimodal writing portfolio into one undergraduate and one graduate course to explore learners' attitude and performance in academic writing.

Novice researchers can learn to compose multimodal academic texts for the academic writing community.

Suggestions on effective integration of multimodal writing portfolios into academic writing instruction were provided based on the research findings.

The findings of the study provide the field of L2 writing with insights into the pedagogical development of multilingual writing portfolios and help educators to be better prepared for teaching novice researchers to comprehend and compose multimodal texts and enter the academic writing community. The framework in Figure 1 and suggestions on course designs for academic writing can inform educators on the integration of multimodality in academic discourse. Moreover, this study moves beyond general writing courses at the tertiary level and could contribute to L2 writers' deeper understanding of how multimodal writing portfolios can be constructed.

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.

This study aims to understand and a lay a foundation of how analytics has been used in depression management, this study conducts a systematic literature review using two techniques – text mining and manual review. The proposed methodology would aid researchers in identifying key concepts and research gaps, which in turn, will help them to establish the theoretical background supporting their empirical research objective.

This paper explores a hybrid methodology for literature review (HMLR), using text mining prior to systematic manual review.

The proposed rapid methodology is an effective tool to automate and speed up the process required to identify key and emerging concepts and research gaps in any specific research domain while conducting a systematic literature review. It assists in populating a research knowledge graph that does not reach all semantic depths of the examined domain yet provides some science-specific structure.

This study presents a new methodology for conducting a literature review for empirical research articles. This study has explored an “HMLR” that combines text mining and manual systematic literature review. Depending on the purpose of the research, these two techniques can be used in tandem to undertake a comprehensive literature review, by combining pieces of complex textual data together and revealing areas where research might be lacking.

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.

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.