Review of Managerial Science (2022) 16:2577–2595

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for

academic practice

Sascha Kraus1,2 · Matthias Breier3 · Weng Marc Lim4,8,22 · Marina Dabić5,6 ·

Satish Kumar7,8 · Dominik Kanbach9,10 · Debmalya Mukherjee11 ·
Vincenzo Corvello12 · Juan Piñeiro-Chousa13 · Eric Liguori14 ·
Daniel Palacios-Marqués15 · Francesco Schiavone16,17 · Alberto Ferraris18,21 ·
Cristina Fernandes19,20 · João J. Ferreira19

Received: 15 August 2022 / Accepted: 7 September 2022 / Published online: 14 October 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Review articles or literature reviews are a critical part of scientific research. While
numerous guides on literature reviews exist, these are often limited to the phi-
losophy of review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures, triggering non-par-
simonious reporting and confusion due to overlapping similarities. To address the
aforementioned limitations, we adopt a pragmatic approach to demystify and shape
the academic practice of conducting literature reviews. We concentrate on the types,
focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions of literature reviews as inde-
pendent, standalone studies. As such, our article serves as an overview that scholars
can rely upon to navigate the fundamental elements of literature reviews as stand-
alone and independent studies, without getting entangled in the complexities of
review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures.

Keywords Literature reviews · Bibliometrics · Meta Analysis · Methods ·

Contributions

JEL classification M1 · M10 · M19 · M20

1 Introduction

A literature review – or a review article – is “a study that analyzes and synthesizes

an existing body of literature by identifying, challenging, and advancing the building
blocks of a theory through an examination of a body (or several bodies) of prior work
(Post et al. 2020, p. 352). Literature reviews as standalone pieces of work may allow

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
2578 S. Kraus et al.

Fig. 1 Full-year publication trend of review articles on Scopus (1945–2021)

researchers to enhance their understanding of prior work in their field, enabling them
to more easily identify gaps in the body of literature and potential avenues for future
research. More importantly, review articles may challenge established assumptions
and norms of a given field or topic, recognize critical problems and factual errors, and
stimulate future scientific conversations around that topic. Literature reviews1 come
in many different formats and purposes:

● Some review articles conduct a critical evaluation of the literature, whereas oth-
ers elect to adopt a more exploratory and descriptive approach.
● Some reviews examine data, methodologies, and findings, whereas others look at
constructs, themes, and theories.
● Some reviews provide summaries by holistically synthesizing the existing
research on a topic, whereas others adopt an integrative approach by assessing
related and interdisciplinary work.

The number of review articles published as independent or standalone studies has

been increasing over time. According to Scopus (i.e., search database), reviews (i.e.,
document type) were first published in journals (i.e., source type) as independent
studies in 1945, and they subsequently appeared in three digits yearly from the late
1980s to the late 1990s, four digits yearly from the early 2000s to the late 2010s, and
five digits in the year 2021 (Fig. 1). This increase is indicative that reviewers and
editors in business and management research alike see value and purpose in review
articles to such a level that they are now commonly accepted as independent, stand-
alone studies. This development is also reflected in the fact that some academic jour-
nals exclusively publish review articles (e.g., the Academy of Management Annals,
or the International Journal of Management Reviews), and journals publishing in

1
Our focus here is on standalone literature reviews in contrast with literature reviews that form the theo-
retical foundation for a research article.

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2579

various fields often have special issues dedicated to literature reviews on certain topic
areas (e.g., the Journal of Management and the Journal of International Business
Studies).
One of the most important prerequisites of a high-quality review article is that the
work follows an established methodology, systematically selects and analyzes arti-
cles, and periodically covers the field to identify latest developments (Snyder 2019).
Additionally, it needs to be reproducible, well-evidenced, and transparent, resulting
in a sample inclusive of all relevant and appropriate studies (Gusenbauer and Had-
daway 2020; Hansen et al. 2021). This observation is in line with Palmatier et al.
(2018), who state that review articles provide an important synthesis of findings and
perspectives in a given body of knowledge. Snyder (2019) also reaffirmed this ratio-
nale, pointing out that review articles have the power to answer research questions
beyond that which can be achieved in a single study. Ultimately, readers of review
articles stand to gain a one-stop, state-of-the-art synthesis (Lim et al. 2022a; Popli
et al. 2022) that encapsulates critical insights through the process of re-interpreting,
re-organizing, and re-connecting a body knowledge (Fan et al. 2022).
There are many reasons to conduct review articles. Kraus et al. (2020) explicitly
mention the benefits of conducting systematic reviews by declaring that they often
represent the first step in the context of larger research projects, such as doctoral
dissertations. When carrying out work of this kind, it is important that a holistic
overview of the current state of literature is achieved and embedded into a proper
synthesis. This allows researchers to pinpoint relevant research gaps and adequately
fit future conceptual or empirical studies into the state of the academic discussion
(Kraus et al., 2021). A review article as an independent or standalone study is a viable
option for any academic – especially young scholars, such as doctoral candidates –
who wishes to delve into a specific topic for which a (recent) review article is not
available.
The process of conducting a review article can be challenging, especially for nov-
ice scholars (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015). Therefore, it is not surprising that
numerous guides have been written in an attempt to improve the quality of review
studies and support emerging scholars in their endeavors to have their work pub-
lished. These guides for conducting review articles span a variety of academic fields,
such as engineering education (Borrego et al. 2014), health sciences (Cajal et al.
2020), psychology (Laher and Hassem 2020), supply chain management (Durach et
al. 2017), or business and entrepreneurship (Kraus et al. 2020; Tranfield et al. 2003)
– the latter were among the first scholars to recognize the need to educate business/
management scholars on the roles of review studies in assembling, ascertaining, and
assessing the intellectual territory of a specific knowledge domain. Furthermore, they
shed light on the stages (i.e., planning the review, conducting the review, report-
ing, and dissemination) and phases (i.e., identifying the need for a review, prepara-
tion of a proposal for a review, development of a review protocol, identification of
research, selection of studies, study quality assessment, data extraction and monitor-
ing progress, data synthesis, the report and recommendations, and getting evidence
into practice) of conducting a systematic review. Other scholars have either adapted
and/or developed new procedures (Kraus et al. 2020; Snyder 2019) or established
review protocols such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and

13
2580 S. Kraus et al.

Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Moher et al. 2015 ). The latter provides a
checklist that improves transparency and reproducibility, thus reducing questionable
research practices. The declarative and procedural knowledge of a checklist allows
users to derive value from (and, in some cases, produce) methodological literature
reviews.
Two distinct and critical gaps or issues provide impetus for our article. First, while
the endeavors of the named scholars are undoubtedly valuable contributions, they
often encourage other scholars to explain the methodology of their review studies in
a non-parsimonious way (1st issue). This can become problematic if this information
distracts and deprives scholars from providing richer review findings, particularly in
instances in which publication outlets impose a strict page and/or word limit. More
often than not, the early parts (i.e., stages/phases, such as needs, aims, and scope) of
these procedures or protocols are explained in the introduction, but they tend to be
reiterated in the methodology section due to the prescription of these procedures or
protocols. Other parts of these procedures or protocols could also be reported more
parsimoniously, for example, by filtering out documents, given that scientific data-
bases (such as Scopus or Web of Science) have since been upgraded to allow scholars
to select and implement filtering criteria when conducting a search (i.e., criterion-by-
criterion filtering may no longer be necessary). More often than not, the procedures
or protocols of review studies can be signposted (e.g., bracket labeling) and disclosed
in a sharp and succinct manner while maintaining transparency and replicability.
Other guides have been written to introduce review nomenclatures (i.e., names/
naming) and their equivalent philosophical underpinnings. Palmatier et al. (2018)
introduced three clearly but broadly defined nomenclatures of literature reviews as
independent studies: domain-based reviews, theory-based reviews, and method-
based reviews. However, such review nomenclatures can be confusing due to their
overlapping similarities (2nd issue). For example, Lim et al. (2022a) highlighted their
observation that the review nomenclatures associated with domain-based reviews
could also be used for theory-based and method-based reviews.
The two aforementioned issues – i.e., the lack of a parsimonious understand-
ing and the reporting of the review methodology, and the confusion emerging from
review nomenclatures – are inarguably the unintended outcomes of diving into an
advanced (i.e., higher level) understanding of literature review procedures, protocols,
and nomenclatures from a philosophical perspective (i.e., underpinnings) without a
foundational (i.e., basic level) understanding of the fundamental (i.e., core) elements
of literature reviews from a pragmatic perspective. Our article aims to shed light on
these issues and hopes to provide clarity for future scholarly endeavors.
Having a foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent stud-
ies is (i) necessary when addressing the aforementioned issues; (ii) important in
reconciling and scaffolding our understanding, and (iii) relevant and timely due to
the proliferation of literature reviews as independent studies. To contribute a solu-
tion toward addressing this gap, we aim to demystify review articles as independent
studies from a pragmatic standpoint (i.e., practicality). To do so, we deliberately (i)
move away from review procedures, protocols, and nomenclatures, and (ii) invest our
attention in developing a parsimonious, scaffolded understanding of the fundamental

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2581

elements (i.e., types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contributions) of review

articles as independent studies.
Three contributions distinguish our article. It is worth noting that pragmatic guides
(i.e., foundational knowledge), such as the present one, are not at odds with extant
philosophical guides (i.e., advanced knowledge), but rather they complement them.
Having a foundational knowledge of the fundamental elements of literature reviews
as independent studies is valuable, as it can help scholars to (i) gain a good grasp
of the fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies (1st con-
tribution), and (ii) mindfully adopt or adapt existing review procedures, protocols,
and nomenclatures to better suit the circumstances of their reviews (e.g., choosing
and developing a well-defined review nomenclature, and choosing and reporting on
review considerations and steps more parsimoniously) (2nd contribution). Therefore,
this pragmatic guide serves as (iii) a foundational article (i.e., preparatory under-
standing) for literature reviews as independent studies (3rd contribution). Follow-
ing this, extant guides using a philosophical approach (i.e., advanced understanding)
could be relied upon to make informed review decisions (e.g., adoption, adaptation)
in response to the conventions of extant review procedures, protocols, and nomen-
clatures (Fig. 2).

2 Fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent

studies

A foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent studies can be

acquired through the appreciation of five fundamental elements – i.e., types, focuses,
considerations, methods, and contributions – which are illustrated in Fig. 3 and sum-
marized in the following sections.

2.1 Types

There are two types of literature reviews as independent studies: systematic literature
reviews (SLRs) and non-systematic literature reviews (non-SLRs). It is important to
recognize that SLRs and non-SLRs are not review nomenclatures (i.e., names/nam-
ing) but rather review types (i.e., classifications).
In particular, SLRs are reviews carried out in a systematic way using an adopted
or adapted procedure or protocol to guide data curation and analysis, thus enabling
transparent disclosure and replicability (Lim et al. 2022a; Kraus et al. 2020). There-
fore, any review nomenclature guided by a systematic methodology is essentially an
SLR. The origin of this type of literature review can be traced back to the evidence-
based medicine movement in the early 1990s, with the objective being to overcome
the issue of inconclusive findings in studies for medical treatments (Boell and Cecez-
Kecmanovic 2015).
In contrast, non-SLRs are reviews conducted without any systematic procedure or
protocol; instead, they weave together relevant literature based on the critical evalu-
ations and (subjective) choices of the author(s) through a process of discovery and
critique (e.g., pointing out contradictions and questioning assertions or beliefs); they

13
2582 S. Kraus et al.

Fig. 2 Foundational and advanced understanding of literature reviews as independent studies

are shaped by the exposure, expertise, and experience (i.e., the “3Es” in judgement
calls) of the author(s). Therefore, non-SLRs are essentially critical reviews of the
literature (Lim and Weissmann 2021).

2.2 Focuses

Unlike Palmatier et al. (2018) who considered domain-based reviews, theory-based

reviews, and method-based reviews as review nomenclatures, we consider domain,
theory, and method as three substantive focuses that can take center stage in literature
reviews as independent studies. This is in line with our attempt to move away from
review nomenclatures when providing a foundational understanding of literature
reviews as independent studies.
A review that is domain-focused can examine: (i) a concept (e.g., customer engage-
ment; Lim et al. 2022b; digital transformation; Kraus et al. 2021; home sharing; Lim

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2583

Fig. 3 Fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies

et al. 2021; sharing economy; Lim 2020), (ii) a context (e.g., India; Mukherjee et al.
2022a), (iii) a discipline (e.g., entrepreneurship; Ferreira et al. 2015; international
business; Ghauri et al. 2021), (iv) a field (e.g., family business; Lahiri et al. 2020;
Rovelli et al. 2021; female entrepreneurship; Ojong et al. 2021), or (v) an outlet
(e.g., Journal of Business Research; Donthu et al. 2020; Management International
Review; Mukherjee et al. 2021; Review of Managerial Science; Mas-Tur et al. 2020),
which typically offer broad, overarching insights.
Domain-focused hybrids, such as the between-domain hybrid (e.g., concept-dis-
cipline hybrid, such as digital transformation in business and management; Kraus et
al. 2022; religion in business and entrepreneurship; Kumar et al. 2022a; personality
traits in entrepreneurship; Salmony and Kanbach 2022; and policy implications in
HR and OB research; Aguinis et al., 2022) and the within-domain hybrid (e.g., the
concept-concept hybrid, such as customer engagement and social media; Lim and
Rasul 2022; and global business and organizational excellence; Lim 2022; and the
discipline-discipline hybrid, such as neuromarketing; Lim 2018) are also common as
they can provide finer-grained insights.
A review that is theory-focused can explore a standalone theory (e.g., theory of
planned behavior; Duan and Jiang 2008), as well as a theory in conjunction with a
domain, such as the concept-theory hybrid (e.g., behavioral control and theory of
planned behavior; Lim and Weissmann 2021) and the theory-discipline hybrid (e.g.,
theory of planned behavior in hospitality, leisure, and tourism; Ulker-Demirel and
Ciftci 2020), or a theory in conjunction with a method (e.g., theory of planned behav-
ior and structural equation modeling).
A review that is method-focused can investigate a standalone method (e.g., struc-
tural equation modeling; Deng et al. 2018) or a method in conjunction with a domain,

13
2584 S. Kraus et al.

such as the method-discipline hybrid (e.g., fsQCA in business and management;

Kumar et al. 2022b).

2.3 Planning the review, critical considerations, and data collection

The considerations required for literature reviews as independent studies depend on

their type: SLRs or non-SLRs.
For non-SLRs, scholars often rely on the 3Es (i.e., exposure, expertise, and expe-
rience) to provide a critical review of the literature. Scholars who embark on non-
SLRs should be well versed with the literature they are dealing with. They should
know the state of the literature (e.g., debatable, underexplored, and well-established
knowledge areas) and how it needs to be deciphered (e.g., tenets and issues) and
approached (e.g., reconciliation proposals and new pathways) to advance theory and
practice. In this regard, non-SLRs follow a deductive reasoning approach, whereby
scholars initially develop a set of coverage areas for reviewing a domain, theory, or
method and subsequently draw on relevant literature to shed light and support schol-
arly contentions in each area.
For SLRs, scholars often rely on a set of criteria to provide a well-scoped (i.e.,
breadth and depth), structured (i.e., organized aspects), integrated (i.e., synthesized
evidence) and interpreted/narrated (i.e., describing what has happened, how and why)
systematic review of the literature.2 In this regard, SLRs follow an inductive reason-
ing approach, whereby a set of criteria is established and implemented to develop
a corpus of scholarly documents that scholars can review. They can then deliver a
state-of-the-art overview, as well as a future agenda for a domain, theory, or method.
Such criteria are often listed in philosophical guides on SLR procedures (e.g., Kraus
et al. 2020; Snyder 2019) and protocols (e.g., PRISMA), and they may be adopted/
adapted with justifications3. Based on their commonalities they can be summarized
as follows:

● Search database (e.g., “Scopus” and/or “Web of Science”) can be defined based
on justified evidence (e.g., by the two being the largest scientific databases of
scholarly articles that can provide on-demand bibliographic data or records;
Pranckutė 2021). To avoid biased outcomes due to the scope covered by the
selected database, researchers could utilize two or more different databases
(Dabić et al. 2021).

2
Scoping reviews, structured reviews, integrative reviews, and interpretive/narrative reviews are com-
monly found in review nomenclature. However, the philosophy of these review nomenclatures essentially
reflects what constitutes a good SLR. That is to say, a good SLR should be well scoped, structured, inte-
grated, and interpreted/narrated. This observation reaffirms our position and the value of moving away
from review nomenclatures to gain a foundational understanding of literature reviews as independent
studies.
3
Given that many of these considerations can be implemented simultaneously in contemporary versions
of scientific databases, scholars may choose to consolidate them into a single (or a few) step(s), where
appropriate, so that they can be reported more parsimoniously. For a parsimonious but transparent and
replicable exemplar, see Lim (2022).

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2585

● Search keywords may be developed by reading scholarly documents and subse-

quently brainstorming with experts. The expanding number of databases, jour-
nals, periodicals, automated approaches, and semi-automated procedures that use
text mining and machine learning can offer researchers the ability to source new,
relevant research and forecast the citations of influential studies. This enables
them to determine further relevant articles.
● Boolean operators (e.g., AND, OR) should be strategically used in developing
the string ofsearch keywords (e.g., “engagement” AND “customer” OR “con-
sumer” OR “business”). Furthermore, the correct and precise application of quo-
tation marks is important but is very frequently sidestepped, resulting in incorrect
selection processes and differentiated results.
● Search period (e.g., between a specified period [e.g., 2000 to 2020] or up to the
latest full year at the time or writing [e.g., up to 2021]) can be defined based
on the justified scope of study (e.g., contemporary evolution versus historical
trajectory).
● Search field (e.g., “article title, abstract, keywords”) can be defined based on jus-
tified assumptions (e.g., it is assumed that the focus of relevant documents will be
mentioned in the article title, abstract, and/or keywords).
● Subject area (e.g., “business, management, and accounting”) can be defined
based on justified principles (e.g., the focus of the review is on the marketing
discipline, which is located under the “business, management, and accounting”
subject area in Scopus).
● Publication stage (e.g., “final”) can be defined based on justified grounds (e.g.,
enabling greater accuracy in replication).
● Document type (e.g., “article” and/or “review”), which reflects the type of scien-
tific/practical contributions (e.g., empirical, synthesis, thought), can be defined
based on justified rationales (e.g., articles selected because they are peer-
reviewed; editorials not selected because they are not peer-reviewed).
● Source type (e.g., “journal”) can be defined based on justified reasons (e.g., jour-
nals selected because they publish finalized work; conference proceedings not
selected because they are work in progress, and in business/management, they are
usually not being considered as full-fledged “publications”).
● Language (e.g., “English”) can be determined based on justified limitations
(e.g., nowadays, there are not many reasons to use another language besides the
academic lingua franca English). Different spellings should also be considered,
as the literature may contain both American and British spelling variants (e.g.,
organization and organisation). Truncation and wildcards in searches are recom-
mended to capture both sets of spellings. It is important to note that each database
varies in its symbology.
● Quality filtering (e.g., “A*” and “A” or “4*”, “4”, and “3”) can be defined based
on justified motivations (e.g., the goal is to unpack the most originally and rigor-
ously produced knowledge, which is the hallmark of premier journals, such as
those ranked “A*” and “A” by the Australian Business Deans Council [ABDC]
Journal Quality List [JQL] and rated “4*”, “4”, and “3” by the Chartered Associa-
tion of Business Schools [CABS] Academic Journal Guide [AJG]).

13
2586 S. Kraus et al.

● Document relevance (i.e., within the focus of the review) can be defined based on
justified judgement (e.g., for a review focusing on customer engagement, articles
that mention customer engagement as a passing remark without actually investi-
gating it would be excluded).
● Others: Screening process should be accomplished by beginning with the deduc-
tion of duplicate results from other databases, tracked using abstract screening to
exclude unfitting studies, and ending with the full-text screening of the remaining
documents.
● Others: Exclusion-inclusion criteria interpretation of the abstracts/articles is
obligatory when deciding whether or not the articles dealt with the matter. This
step could involve removing a huge percentage of initially recognized articles.
● Others: Codebook building pertains to the development of a codebook of the
main descriptors within a specific field. An inductive approach can be followed
and, in this case, descriptors are not established beforehand. Instead, they are
established through the analysis of the articles’ content. This procedure is made
up of several stages: (i) the extraction of important content from titles, abstracts,
and keywords; (ii) the classification of this content to form a reduced list of the
core descriptors; and (iii) revising the codebook in iterations and combining simi-
lar categories, thus developing a short list of descriptors (López-Duarte et al.
2016, p. 512; Dabić et al. 2015; Vlacic et al. 2021).

2.4 Methods

Various methods are used to analyze the pertinent literature. Often, scholars choose a
method for corpus analysis before corpus curation. Knowing the analytical technique
beforehand is useful, as it allows researchers to acquire and prepare the right data in
the right format. This typically occurs when scholars have decided upon and justified
pursuing a specific review nomenclature upfront (e.g., bibliometric reviews) based
on the problem at hand (e.g., broad domain [outlet] with a large corpus [thousands
of articles], such as a premier journal that has been publishing for decades) (Donthu
et al. 2021). However, this may not be applicable in instances where (i) scholars do
not curate a corpus of articles (non-SLRs), and (ii) scholars only know the size of the
corpus of articles once that corpus is curated (SLRs). Therefore, scholars may wish
to decide on a method of analyzing the literature depending on (i) whether they rely
on a corpus of articles (i.e., yes or no), and (ii) the size of the corpus of articles that
they rely on to review the literature (i.e., n = 0 to ∞).
When analytical techniques (e.g., bibliometric analysis, critical analysis, meta-
analysis) are decoupled from review nomenclatures (e.g., bibliometric reviews,
critical reviews, meta-analytical reviews), we uncover a toolbox of the following
methods for use when analyzing the literature:

● Bibliometric analysis measures the literature and processes data by using algo-
rithm, arithmetic, and statistics to analyze, explore, organize, and investigate
large amounts of data. This enables scholars to identify and recognize poten-
tial “hidden patterns” that could help them during the literature review process.

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2587

Bibliometrics allows scholars to objectively analyze a large corpus of articles

(e.g., high hundreds or more) using quantitative techniques (Donthu et al. 2021).
There are two overarching categories for bibliometric analysis: performance
analysis and science mapping. Performance analysis enables scholars to assess
the productivity (publication) and impact (citation) of the literature relating to
a domain, method, or theory using various quantitative metrics (e.g., average
citations per publication or year, h-index, g-index, i-index). Science mapping
grants scholars the ability to map the literature in that domain, method, or theory
based on bibliographic data (e.g., bibliographic coupling generates thematic clus-
ters based on similarities in shared bibliographic data [e.g., references] among
citing articles; co-citation analysis generates thematic clusters based on com-
monly cited articles; co-occurrence analysis generates thematic clusters based on
bibliographic data [e.g., keywords] that commonly appear together; PageRank
analysis generates thematic clusters based on articles that are commonly cited
in highly cited articles; and topic modeling generates thematic clusters based on
the natural language processing of bibliographic data [e.g., article title, abstract,
and keywords]).4 Given the advancement in algorithms and technology, reviews
using bibliometric analysis are considered to be smart (Kraus et al. 2021) and
technologically-empowered (Kumar et al. 2022b) SLRs, in which a review has
harnessed the benefits of (i) the machine learning of the bibliographic data of
scholarly research from technologically-empowered scientific databases, and (ii)
big data analytics involving various science mapping techniques (Kumar et al.
2022c).
● Content analysis allows scholars to analyze a small to medium corpus of articles
(i.e., tens to low hundreds) using quantitative and qualitative techniques. From
a quantitative perspective, scholars can objectively carry out a content analysis
by quantifying a specific unit of analysis. A useful method of doing so involves
adopting, adapting, or developing an organizing framework. For example, Lim et
al. (2021) employed an organizing (ADO-TCM) framework to quantify content
in academic literature based on: (i) the categories of knowledge; (ii) the relation-
ships between antecedents, decisions, and outcomes; and (iii) the theories, con-
texts, and methods used to develop the understanding for (i) and (ii). The rapid
evolution of software for content analysis allows scholars to carry out complex
elaborations on the corpus of analyzed articles, so much so that the most recent
software enables the semi-automatic development of an organizing framework
(Ammirato et al. 2022). From a qualitative perspective, scholars can conduct a
content analysis or, more specifically, a thematic analysis, by subjectively orga-
nizing the content into themes. For example, Creevey et al. (2022) reviewed the
literature on social media and luxury, providing insights on five core themes (i.e.,
luxury brand strategy, luxury brand social media communications, luxury con-
sumer attitudes and perceptions, engagement, and the influence of social media

4
Where keywords are present (e.g., author keywords or keywords derived from machine learning [e.g.,
natural language processing]), it is assumed that each keyword represents a specific meaning (e.g., topic
[concept, context], method), and that a collection of keywords grouped under the same cluster represents
a specific theme.

13
2588 S. Kraus et al.

on brand performance-related outcomes) generated through a content (thematic)

analysis. Systematic approaches for inductive concept development through qual-
itative research are similarly applied in literature reviews in an attempt to reduce
the subjectivity of derived themes. Following the principles of the approach by
Gioia et al. (2012), Korherr and Kanbach (2021) develop a taxonomy of human-
related capabilities in big data analytics. Building on a sample of 75 studies for the
literature review, 33 first-order concepts are identified. These are categorized into
15 second-order themes and are finally merged into five aggregate dimensions.
Using the same procedure, Leemann and Kanbach (2022) identify 240 idiosyn-
cratic dynamic capabilities in a sample of 34 studies for their literature review.
They then categorize these into 19 dynamic sub-capabilities. The advancement
of technology also makes it possible to conduct content analysis using computer
assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDA) software (e.g., ATLAS.ti, Nvivo,
Quirkos) (Lim et al. 2022a).
● Critical analysis allows scholars to subjectively use their 3Es (i.e., exposure,
expertise, and experience) to provide a critical evaluation of academic literature.
This analysis is typically used in non-SLRs, and can be deployed in tandem with
other analyses, such as bibliometric analysis and content analysis in SLRs, which
are used to discuss consensual, contradictory, and underexplored areas of the lit-
erature. For SLRs, scholars are encouraged to engage in critical evaluations of the
literature so that they can truly contribute to advancing theory and practice (Baker
et al. 2022; Lim et al. 2022a; Mukherjee et al. 2022b).
● Meta-analysis allows scholars to objectively establish a quantitative estimate of
commonly studied relationships in the literature (Grewal et al. 2018). This analy-
sis is typically employed in SLRs intending to reconcile a myriad of relationships
(Lim et al. 2022a). The relationships established are often made up of conflicting
evidence (e.g., a positive or significant effect in one study, but a negative or non-
significant effect in another study). However, through meta-analysis, scholars are
able to identify potential factors (e.g., contexts or sociodemographic information)
that may have led to the conflict.
● Others: Multiple correspondence analysis helps to map the field, assessing the
associations between qualitative content within a matrix of variables and cases.
Homogeneity Analysis by Means of Alternating Least Squares (HOMALS) is also
considered useful in allowing researchers to map out the intellectual structure
of a variety of research fields (Gonzalez-Loureiro et al. 2015; Gonzalez-Lou-
riero 2021; Obradović et al. 2021). HOMALS can be performed in R or used
along with a matrix through SPSS software. In summary, the overall objective of
this analysis is to discover a low dimensional representation of the original high
dimensional space (i.e., the matrix of descriptors and articles). To measure the
goodness of fit, a loss function is used. This function is used minimally, and the
HOMALS algorithm is applied to the least squares loss functions in SPSS. This
analysis provides a proximity map, in which articles and descriptors are shown in
low-dimensional spaces (typically on two axes). Keywords are paired and each
couple that appears together in a large number of articles is shown to be closer on
the map and vice-versa.

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2589

When conducting a literature review, software solutions allow researchers to cover

a broad range of variables, from built-in functions of statistical software packages
to software orientated towards meta-analyses, and from commercial to open-source
solutions. Personal preference plays a huge role, but the decision as to which soft-
ware will be the most useful is entirely dependent on how complex the methods and
the dataset are. Of all the commercial software providers, we have found the built-in
functions of (i) R and VOSviewer most useful in performing bibliometric analysis
(Aria and Cuccurullo 2017; R Core Team 2021; Van Eck and Waltman 2014) and
(ii) Stata most useful in performing meta-analytical tasks.
Many different analytical tools have been used. These include simple document
counting, citation analysis, word frequency analysis, cluster analysis, co-word analy-
sis, and cooperation analysis (Daim et al. 2006). Software has also been produced for
bibliometric analysis, such as the Thomson Data Analyzer (TDA), which Thomson
Reuters created, and CiteSpace developed by Chen (2013). VOSviewer helps us to
construct and visualize bibliometric networks, which can include articles, journals,
authors, countries, and institutions, among others (Van Eck and Waltman 2014).
These can be organized based on citations, co-citations, bibliographic coupling, or
co-authorship relations. In addition, VOSviewer provides text mining functions,
which can be used to facilitate a better understanding of co-occurrence networks with
regards to the key terms taken from a body of scientific literature (Donthu et al. 2021;
Wong 2018). Other frequently used tools include for bibliometric analysis include
Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny in R, CitNetExplorer, and Gephi, among others.

2.5 Contributions

Well-conducted literature reviews may make multiple contributions to the literature

as standalone, independent studies.
Generally, there are three primary contributions of literature reviews as indepen-
dent studies: (i) to provide an overview of current knowledge in the domain, method, or
theory, (ii) to provide an evaluation of knowledge progression in the domain, method,
or theory, including the establishment of key knowledge, conflicting or inconclusive
findings, and emerging and underexplored areas, and (iii) to provide a proposal for
potential pathways for advancing knowledge in the domain, method, or theory (Lim
et al. 2022a, p. 487). Developing theory through literature reviews can take many
forms, including organizing and categorizing the literature, problematizing the litera-
ture, identifying and exposing contradictions, developing analogies and metaphors,
and setting out new narratives and conceptualizations (Breslin and Gatrell 2020).
Taken collectively, these contributions offer crystalized, evidence-based insights that
both ‘mine’ and ‘prospect’ the literature, highlighting extant gaps and how they can
be resolved (e.g., flags paradoxes or theoretical tensions, explaining why something
has not been done, what the challenges are, and how these challenges can be over-
come). These contributions can be derived through successful bibliometric analysis,
content analysis, critical analysis, and meta-analysis.
Additionally, the deployment of specific methods can bring in further added value.
For example, a performance analysis in a bibliometric analysis can contribute to:
(i) objectively assessing and reporting research productivity and impact; (ii) ascer-

13
2590 S. Kraus et al.

taining reach for coverage claims; (iii) identifying social dominance and hidden
biases; (iv) detecting anomalies; and (v) evaluating (equitable) relative performance;
whereas science mapping in bibliometric analysis can contribute to: (i) objectively
discovering thematic clusters of knowledge; (ii) clarifying nomological networks;
(iii) mapping social patterns; (iv) tracking evolutionary nuances; and (v) recognizing
knowledge gaps (Mukherjee et al. 2022b, p. 105).

3 Conclusion

Independent literature reviews will continue to be written as a result of their necessity,

importance, relevance, and urgency when it comes to advancing knowledge (Lim et
al. 2022a; Mukherjee et al. 2022b), and this can be seen in the increasing number
of reviews being published over the last several years. Literature reviews advance
academic discussion. Journal publications on various topics and subject areas are
becoming more frequent sites for publication. This trend will only heighten the need
for literature reviews. This article offers directions and control points that address the
needs of three different stakeholder groups: producers (i.e., potential authors), evalu-
ators (i.e., journal editors and reviewers), and users (i.e., new researchers looking
to learn more about a particular methodological issue, and those teaching the next
generation of scholars). Future producers will derive value from this article’s teach-
ings on the different fundamental elements and methodological nuances of literature
reviews. Procedural knowledge (i.e., using control points to assist in decision-making
during the manuscript preparation phase) will also be of use. Evaluators will be able
to make use of the procedural and declarative knowledge evident in control points as
well. As previously outlined, the need to cultivate novelty within research on busi-
ness and management practices is vital. Scholars must also be supported to choose
not only safe mining approaches; they should also be encouraged to attempt more
challenging and risky ventures. It is important to note that abstracts often seem to
offer a lot of potential, stating that authors intend to make large conceptual contribu-
tions, broadening the horizons of the field.
Our article offers important insights also for practitioners. Noteworthily, our
framework can support corporate managers in decomposing and better understanding
literature reviews as ad-hoc and independent studies about specific topics that matter
for their organization. For instance, practitioners can understand more easily what are
the emerging trends within their domain of interest and make corporate decisions in
line with such trends.
This article arises from an intentional decoupling from philosophy, in favor of
adopting a more pragmatic approach. This approach can assist us in clarifying the
fundamental elements of literature reviews as independent studies. Five fundamental
elements must be considered: types, focuses, considerations, methods, and contri-
butions. These elements offer a useful frame for scholars starting to work on a lit-
erature review. Overview articles (guides) such as ours are thus invaluable, as they
equip scholars with a solid foundational understanding of the integral elements of a
literature review. Scholars can then put these teachings into practice, armed with a

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2591

better understanding of the philosophy that underpins the procedures, protocols, and
nomenclatures of literature reviews as independent studies.

Funding Open access funding provided by Libera Università di Bolzano within the CRUI-CARE
Agreement.

Data availability Our manuscript has no associate data.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use
is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Aguinis H, Jensen SH, Kraus S (2022) Policy implications of organizational behavior and human resource
management research. Acad Manage Perspect 36(3):1–22
Ammirato S, Felicetti AM, Rogano D, Linzalone R, Corvello V (2022) Digitalising the systematic litera-
ture review process: The My SLR platform. Knowl Manage Res Pract. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/
14778238.2022.2041375
Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J
Informetrics 11(4):959–975
Baker WE, Mukherjee D, Perin MG (2022) Learning orientation and competitive advantage: A critical
synthesis and future directions. J Bus Res 144:863–873
Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. J Inform Technol
30:161–173
Borrego M, Foster MJ, Froyd JE (2014) Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other
developing interdisciplinary fields. J Eng Educ 103(1):45–76
Breslin D, Gatrell C (2020) Theorizing through literature reviews: The miner-prospector continuum. Orga-
nizational Res Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943288 (in press)
Cajal B, Jiménez R, Gervilla E, Montaño JJ (2020) Doing a systematic review in health sciences. Clínica
y Salud 31(2):77–83
Chen C (2013) Mapping scientific frontiers: The quest for knowledge visualization. Springer Science &
Business Media
Creevey D, Coughlan J, O’Connor C (2022) Social media and luxury: A systematic literature review. Int
J Manage Reviews 24(1):99–129
Dabić M, González-Loureiro M, Harvey M (2015) Evolving research on expatriates: what is ‘known’after
four decades (1970–2012). Int J Hum Resource Manage 26(3):316–337
Dabić M, Vlačić B, Kiessling T, Caputo A, Pellegrini M(2021) Serial entrepreneurs: A review of literature
and guidance for future research.Journal of Small Business Management,1–36
Daim TU, Rueda G, Martin H, Gerdsri P (2006) Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics
and patent analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73(8):981–1012
Deng L, Yang M, Marcoulides KM (2018) Structural equation modeling with many variables: A system-
atic review of issues and developments. Front Psychol 9:580
Donthu N, Kumar S, Pattnaik D (2020) Forty-five years of Journal of Business Research: A bibliometric
analysis. J Bus Res 109:1–14
Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM (2021) How to conduct a bibliometric analysis:
An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 133:285–296
Duan W, Jiang G (2008) A review of the theory of planned behavior. Adv Psychol Sci 16(2):315–320

13
2592 S. Kraus et al.

Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain
management. J Supply Chain Manage 53(4):67–85
Fan D, Breslin D, Callahan JL, Szatt-White M (2022) Advancing literature review methodology through
rigour, generativity, scope and transparency. Int J Manage Reviews 24(2):171–180
Ferreira MP, Reis NR, Miranda R (2015) Thirty years of entrepreneurship research published in top jour-
nals: Analysis of citations, co-citations and themes. J Global Entrepreneurship Res 5(1):1–22
Ghauri P, Strange R, Cooke FL (2021) Research on international business: The new realities. Int Bus Rev
30(2):101794
Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the
gioia methodology. Organizational Res Methods 16(1):15–31
Gonzalez-Loureiro M, Dabić M, Kiessling T (2015) Supply chain management as the key to a firm’s strat-
egy in the global marketplace: Trends and research agenda. Int J Phys Distribution Logistics Manage
45(1/2):159–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0124
Grewal D, Puccinelli N, Monroe KB (2018) Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. J Acad
Mark Sci 46(1):9–30
Hansen C, Steinmetz H, Block J(2021) How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide.
Management Review Quarterly,1–19
Korherr P, Kanbach DK (2021) Human-related capabilities in big data analytics: A taxonomy of human
factors with impact on firm performance. RMS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00506-4 (in
press)
Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S (2020) The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepre-
neurship research. Int Entrepreneurship Manage J 16(3):1023–1042
Kraus S, Durst S, Ferreira J, Veiga P, Kailer N, Weinmann A (2022) Digital transformation in business and
management research: An overview of the current status quo. Int J Inf Manag 63:102466
Kraus S, Jones P, Kailer N, Weinmann A, Chaparro-Banegas N, Roig-Tierno N (2021) Digital transforma-
tion: An overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open 11(3):1–15
Kraus S, Mahto RV, Walsh ST (2021) The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepre-
neurship research. J Small Bus Manage. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955128 (in press)
Kumar S, Sahoo S, Lim WM, Dana LP (2022a) Religion as a social shaping force in entrepreneurship and
business: Insights from a technology-empowered systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc
Chang 175:121393
Kumar S, Sahoo S, Lim WM, Kraus S, Bamel U (2022b) Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis
(fsQCA) in business and management research: A contemporary overview. Technol Forecast Soc
Chang 178:121599
Kumar S, Sharma D, Rao S, Lim WM, Mangla SK (2022c) Past, present, and future of sustainable finance:
Insights from big data analytics through machine learning of scholarly research. Ann Oper Res.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04410-8 (in press)
Laher S, Hassem T (2020) Doing systematic reviews in psychology. South Afr J Psychol 50(4):450–468
Leemann N, Kanbach DK (2022) Toward a taxonomy of dynamic capabilities – a systematic literature
review. Manage Res Rev 45(4):486–501
Lahiri S, Mukherjee D, Peng MW (2020) Behind the internationalization of family SMEs: A strategy
tripod synthesis. Glob Strategy J 10(4):813–838
Lim WM (2018) Demystifying neuromarketing. J Bus Res 91:205–220
Lim WM (2020) The sharing economy: A marketing perspective. Australasian Mark J 28(3):4–13
Lim WM (2022) Ushering a new era of Global Business and Organizational Excellence: Taking a leaf out
of recent trends in the new normal. Global Bus Organizational Excellence 41(5):5–13
Lim WM, Rasul T (2022) Customer engagement and social media: Revisiting the past to inform the future.
J Bus Res 148:325–342
Lim WM, Weissmann MA (2021) Toward a theory of behavioral control. J Strategic Mark. https://doi.org
/10.1080/0965254X.2021.1890190 (in press)
Lim WM, Kumar S, Ali F (2022a) Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and
‘how to contribute’. Serv Ind J 42(7–8):481–513
Lim WM, Rasul T, Kumar S, Ala M (2022b) Past, present, and future of customer engagement. J Bus Res
140:439–458
Lim WM, Yap SF, Makkar M (2021) Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: What do
we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? J Bus Res 122:534–566

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2593

López-Duarte C, González-Loureiro M, Vidal-Suárez MM, González-Díaz B (2016) International strate-

gic alliances and national culture: Mapping the field and developing a research agenda. J World Bus
51(4):511–524
Mas-Tur A, Kraus S, Brandtner M, Ewert R, Kürsten W (2020) Advances in management research: A
bibliometric overview of the Review of Managerial Science. RMS 14(5):933–958
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA (2015) Pre-
ferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 state-
ment. Syst Reviews 4(1):1–9
Mukherjee D, Kumar S, Donthu N, Pandey N (2021) Research published in Management International
Review from 2006 to 2020: A bibliometric analysis and future directions. Manage Int Rev 61:599–642
Mukherjee D, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Goyal K (2022a) Mapping five decades of international busi-
ness and management research on India: A bibliometric analysis and future directions. J Bus Res
145:864–891
Mukherjee D, Lim WM, Kumar S, Donthu N (2022b) Guidelines for advancing theory and practice
through bibliometric research. J Bus Res 148:101–115
Obradović T, Vlačić B, Dabić M (2021) Open innovation in the manufacturing industry: A review and
research agenda. Technovation 102:102221
Ojong N, Simba A, Dana LP (2021) Female entrepreneurship in Africa: A review, trends, and future
research directions. J Bus Res 132:233–248
Palmatier RW, Houston MB, Hulland J (2018) Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. J Acad
Mark Sci 46(1):1–5
Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manage Stud
57(2):351–376
Pranckutė R (2021) Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s
academic world. Publications 9(1):12
R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ Accessed 20th July 2022
Rovelli P, Ferasso M, De Massis A, Kraus S(2021) Thirty years of research in family business journals:
Status quo and future directions.Journal of Family Business Strategy,100422
Salmony FU, Kanbach DK (2022) Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: a systematic
literature review. RMS 16:713–749
Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res
104:333–339
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed man-
agement knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222
Ulker-Demirel E, Ciftci G (2020) A systematic literature review of the theory of planned behavior in tour-
ism, leisure and hospitality management research. J Hospitality Tourism Manage 43:209–219
Van Eck NJ, Waltma L (2014) CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation
networks. J Informetrics 8(4):802–823
Vlačić B, Corbo L, Silva e, Dabić M (2021) The evolving role of artificial intelligence in marketing: A
review and research agenda. J Bus Res 128:187–203
Wong D (2018) VOSviewer. Tech Serv Q 35(2):219–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1425
352

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Authors and Affiliations

Sascha Kraus1,2 · Matthias Breier3 · Weng Marc Lim4,8,22 · Marina Dabić5,6 ·

Satish Kumar7,8 · Dominik Kanbach9,10 · Debmalya Mukherjee11 ·
Vincenzo Corvello12 · Juan Piñeiro-Chousa13 · Eric Liguori14 ·
Daniel Palacios-Marqués15 · Francesco Schiavone16,17 · Alberto Ferraris18,21 ·
Cristina Fernandes19,20 · João J. Ferreira19

13
2594 S. Kraus et al.

Sascha Kraus
sascha.kraus@zfke.de
Matthias Breier
matthias.breier@gmx.at
Weng Marc Lim
lim@wengmarc.com
Marina Dabić
mdabic@net.efzg.hr
Satish Kumar
skumar.dms@mnit.ac.in
Dominik Kanbach
D.Kanbach@hhl.de
Debmalya Mukherjee
dmukher@uakron.edu
Vincenzo Corvello
vincenzo.corvello@unime.it
Juan Piñeiro-Chousa
j.pineiro@usc.es
Eric Liguori
liguori@rowan.edu
Daniel Palacios-Marqués
dapamar@doe.upv.es
Francesco Schiavone
francesco.schiavone@uniparthenope.it
Alberto Ferraris
alberto.ferraris@unito.it
Cristina Fernandes
cristina.isabel.fernandes@ubi.pt
João J. Ferreira
jjmf@ubi.pt

1
Faculty of Economics & Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy
2
Department of Business Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South
Africa
3
School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
4
Sunway University Business School, Sunway University, Sunway City, Malaysia
5
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
6
School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
7
Department of Management Studies, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur,
Jaipur, India
8
Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology, Kuching,
Malaysia
9
Chair of Strategic Management and Digital Entrepreneurship, HHL Leipzig Graduate
School of Management, Leipzig, Germany
10
School of Business, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, India

13
Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic… 2595

11
College of Business, The University of Akron, Akron, USA
12
Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
13
Department of Finance, Santiago de Compostela University, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
14
Rowan University, Rohrer College of Business, Glassboro, NJ, USA
15
School of Engineering Design, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
16
Department of Management and Quantitative Studies, Parthenope University, Naples, Italy
17
Paris School of Business, Paris, France
18
Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
19
Department of Management and Economics & NECE Research Unit in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
20
Centre for Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK
21
Laboratory for International and Regional Economics, Graduate School of Economics and
Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia
22
School of Business, Law and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn, Australia

13